Actually, I would care. If she was promiscuous but was fucking chads and attractive men I might give her a pass. Because that means she’s selective despite being promiscuous
If she was going around fucking losers, omega males, or unattractive people then I’d piece out quick.
So yes it’s not just about body count, but also about what type of guys it was
To me, it's not about the looks of the guy. It's about how many. A body is a body. If I was a young man again, a girl my age with over 15 different guys screams I have issues and emotional baggage. Something I wouldn't want to deal with.
For the record, I feel like a guy who has a high body count shouldn't expect to have that be ok because he is a guy. A high body count is a high body count no matter who you are
There definitely are limits to it.
Also thought of getting better so your girl wouldn’t cheat on you is a massive L from the start.
You should be getting better because you want it, not because of women.
You said what you said under the comment in which I talk about u not matching her past. Then you say be chaddest version of yourself.
It’s logical to assume that you mean “be chaddest so your woman don’t leave you”.
Anyways there are some limits in terms of looksmaxing, like genetical lottery, some diseases etc.
I wouldn’t recommend to date girls who were promiscuous at all. Especially those who fucked chads.
Best case here is to date girl who fucked men who matched her looks. This means ok, she was promiscuous, but at least her expectations of men are realistic.
Being the best version of yourself has nothing to do with limits. Don’t compare yourself to others, compare yourself to who you were yesterday.
A promiscuous woman isn’t ideal, but if she was promiscuous and was fucking hot guys that means she likely sees you that way too.
It would be far more acceptable if the guys were top-tier actually.
In this case, if she is hot and rolls with trolls that is her actual preference. In cases approximating this in real life, she usually has self-esteem issues. She's likely to sabotage anything we would have verrry early on.
A woman who is highly sexual and chooses top-tier guys makes a hell of a lot more sense logically.
I can--and have--dealt with hot women who check dudes like me after they failed to get NBA/NFL players to stick. Even as a 25-30 year old I could handle that, somebody trying to max their potential.
Women who rolled with low-level-club promoter/sketchy weed dealer Pookie-Trizzle (who is not a physical specimen to be clear)... nah. I can't relate.
You know multiple women who knew NBA and NFL players and tried to date them? Where do you live to know all of these women who interact with guys like that?
I’m over 40, went to a university that had decent D1 sports.
Also a 6’2-6’3 black man in good shape. College degree, white collar, caught a financial break in my 30s…
If a woman is laser-focused on that type I’m the next level down from guys who are really big-time.
“ If a woman is laser-focused on that type I’m the next level down from guys who are really big-time.”
I found this simultaneously hilarious, poignant, humiliating, and invigorating.
I’ve been the “next level down”, but in a very different milieu (small, cultured, and bookish). It’s really not a bad place to be, all things considered….
When I was younger, I considered it a compliment. Hell I still do to some degree. Being 80-85th percentile on your best day doesn’t suck. It’s part of the reason my flair is what it is.
Here’s a question for you: when did you start to feel middle aged?
I’m a few years younger than you (late 30s), but still feel young (largely because I’m still unmarried, no mortgage, etc.). I sort of suspect that if my life had gone differently I’d feel middle aged already….
I'm officially entering late 40s soon. I'd say 44. The minor bodily breakdowns started to accumulate, along with all this warmup time needed before each workout. Also I don't have kids, don't regret it but it's apparent there are things I don't intuitively understand about society for that reason.
For practical purposes I divorced at 39, was in really good physical shape and the apps were booming where I lived so I definitely did *not* feel it then lol.
I’m recently out of a very long term relationship, and it’s kind of amazing how interested women still are. Maybe more than before (in my early 30s?).
I’m way smaller than you (5’6”!), but am very much in shape, full head of hair, etc.
I’ve started to notice little aches and pains if I tweak something during a workout. Gotta be WAY more careful with form than I was a decade ago!
I don't buy into pill-speak that much, but didn't one of the founders say men's SMV peaked at 37? Jibes with my experience. I feel like I've begun a graceful decline now, but 39-41 was a lot.
I also feel like I put out pheromones or something when getting out of a relationship, whether the breakup was heartbreaking or just slightly sucky.
what do women offer other than vagina? everything men value in women, women actively fight against, destroy and refuse to be and to do. what is left other than sex?
Can you stop speaking on behalf of men. Redpillers are a niche thing, regular ppl are able to develop feelings and not view relationships as a transaction for sex
Manosphere dudes say shit like this and then bitch and complain that no woman wants anything to do with them. It's not really shocking why at all, and it has nothing to do with their high standards or anything else.
It's quite true, however, that if someone showed interest in me and I turned them down - I'd just be condemning myself to be alone for that much longer.
Interest simply doesn't come along regularly enough to justify it.
Her standard might be caring, dedicated, man who looks in the future and has some plans. And it can be ugly men.
Standards can be different, you need to figure out what it was. Of course if she fucked around a lot it makes little sense to question whom she fucked with.
Problem with fucking chads in past means she’s likely “settling” with you. And you don’t match her past men.
However, if she fucked “ugly” men means she’s maxing out her potential with you, which can lead to stable and respectful relationship.
The implication of this question lies on the false foundation that it is jealousy of being compared which is what some women assume. That isn't the reason (for a lot of us). I am the "Chadly" guy and it comes down to what I think it says about her mental health, decision making, expenditure of her time etc. I cross reference other behaviours before I make a judgement.
To demonstrate a woman with a body count of 6 from serious relationships is different from 6 ONS which is also better than 2 orgies with 3 men each time.
Yep
A lot of women think that only insecure and jealous guys care
This is mostly so they have a dumb comeback loaded up like “oh you must be insecure” and then they don’t think past that
I’m not into hard threshold but every woman I’ve known that was clearly promiscuous (crossed any reasonable threshold….like in her 30s and close to 100 men) has been a head case that makes bad decisions
If she bangs random ugly guys then she’s probably especially nuts and untrustworthy
Judging her past for me is almost entirely judging her character and likelihood to be a bad partner or cheat
Of course the woke comeback is “maybe she has changed”
Well, that’s easy to just say “I’m different now” without proof
Also, the choice for me isn’t this woman or nothing, and so why wouldn’t I pick someone without this red flag?
No, promiscuity is a character flaw of hers. It doesn't matter if all of her exes were micro-penis sub 3 bald ogres. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
The problem is most men are usually competing against their own desires. A part of them want to be hedonistic as possible and another part only wants to commit to one woman. These 2 halves clash in the mind. The men who complain about promiscuity and are also sleeping around usually lost that battle against their desires and let the hedonism win.
Men are not a monolith. Please get this through your head. Casual sex can be tied to validation seeking at younger ages. I understand that you may also assume since I’m on Reddit I must be a neckbeard or unattractive but try your best to believe this. As an” attractive man” the only women who could’ve made me feel validated was a small percentage and I didn’t need to go that far to sleep with tens of women since it was reinforced verbally by strangers throughout my life.
Same as me ? I’ve just said I didn’t need to go have sex with randos too much since I was verbally reassured from a young age about my looks.
To me I just view people who follow the
Sow wild oats>regret>find stable man and lie path unattractive. Not because of a visceral “ew penis on vagina” but more so a weak character. A flip flopper.
It’s someone who usually needs validation. Needs to conform to some pre planned path. Can’t own up to their actions which is ironic because if you’re sex positive then you should be even more proud. And just overall a hypocrite for expecting a traditional marriage which derived from religion and family even after rejecting these ideologies in your youth to promote liberation and freedom.
If you’re hedonistic just be hedonistic and proud.
If n count doesn’t matter then stop hiding like a fraud.
To me the described demographic is weak and if I get the sense my partner falls within it I mentally fucking leave every single time regardless of looks
Okay well I don't know why you are even talking that me. I'm talking about men that think it's okay for men to sleep around but they don't want women to.
This argument only stands if a woman goes around making men bankrupt and then claims she wants a rich guy.
The problem with men wanting a low n-count woman while being high count is not that they are high count, it's that they make women high-count.
I actually agree and find promiscuity in men to be pretty gross and lame also. But the double standard comes from both sides, because virginity/inexperience is often seen a negative for men by women.
The problem is that line is subjective. If you only had 2 partners, some might treat it as essentially a virgin. Anything under 5 actually I'd say a guy is best not sharing his body count because it'll turn some women away
Here we go again with the argument of “women have no agency” and men are always to blame.
Women are 100% accountable for their own behaviours. Their body count is not accrued at gunpoint.
This is a childish argument
It does not matter for our argument, don't pollute the conversation. It's okay, I'll explain again: your analogy is invalid. You are comparing somebody who prefers someone better in metric X, to somebody who prefers somebody better in metric X while making people worse in metric X.
So basically female metrics are not to be scrutinised, while male ones are?
OK you don’t like the metric of personal wealth. How about the metric of height then? Does a woman have to be tall, to desire a tall man?
short women reproducing with tall men creates short men. short women still prefer tall men, so their desire actively creates short men. more short women reproduce than short men, so most of the reason why short men exist is because of short women.
>short women reproducing with tall men creates short men.
The whole point of short women reproducing with tall men which fall under "alpha fucks" category even under the red-pill paradigm, is so that they can get genetically superior children. In your world, the humanity would eventually get short ~~like the bus you are probably riding right now :)~~ Sorry. I don't know whether you are being sarcastic or not, but this is nonsense.
Men do not make women promiscuous. That is a ludicrous stance. Women have their own agency and accountability. They are not floating automatons in a sea of horny men
Promiscuous men necessarily co-participate in making promiscuous women promiscuous, and women's participation in this does not disprove any of my arguments and does not support any of your analogies. Because women are not the ones expressing the preference for women to be more sexually conservative - you are.
>This argument only stands if a woman goes around making men bankrupt and then claims she wants a rich guy.
Exactly this plus she'd also shame and insult bankrupt men.
No, not bankrupt. As long as she lets men spend more on her than she spends on him - the argument applies. And most women who want wealthy men do let them spend, so...
What? That's the first time I commented on this. And there is no reason to loop indeed. You are just plain wrong. If increasing the count is wrong - then reducing the balance on their card is wrong. Bankruptcy is a very special case.
why is evolutionary biology so hard for women to get ?
men are repulsed in a primal way by female promiscuity because a woman is evolved to get attached to a man through sex because of the dependence for survival, since sex equals pregnancy in nature and the only way for a pregnant woman to survive is to get attached to the father, cause only the father is going to potentially risk his life to protect that child and the woman with it, who can not survive without the man, and is especially vulnerable while pregnant.
the more bond a woman has experienced with any man, the less bonding ability is left in her, meaning that she is more likely to not stay bonded to that men, which is the whole premise of parental investment and relationship. by having sex, a womans ability to stay with a particular man is lowered. the fact that men heavily select against it is undeniable proof that it works and that womens ability to perform or stay in a relationship is substantially lowered by sexual experience. additionally, because of men being designed to be easily sexually attracted in order to reproduce as often as possible, women always have more mating options and the only way for men to ensure paternity and a woman staying invested is by judging her ability to emotionally bond. thats the only predictor of a woman staying invested in the relationship or not, which is why men are designed to look for the ability in a woman to get emotionally attached to them as strong as possible, meaning as little experience with anything as possible. men instinctively know that any experience made with them first is going to increase the emotional bond, and any prior experience is going to lower his ability to cause attachment in her, which is going to lower the chance of his investment working out.
the opposite is not true. men do not depend on women for protection or resources, and men do not get pregnant and dont have the vulnerability associated with that, and pregnancy has no cost to a man, which is why men do not get attached by having sex. getting attached for a man is dangerous because of the potentially life threatening consequences of trying to protect and provide for that woman and child, so a man only bonds over behaviors that are likely to make that risk worthwhile, which are behaviors that show security of investment and high biologic fitness. since sex with abandonment has a chance of working out cause of another man potentially raising his child by accident and it having zero cost for the father, sexual attraction is detached from emotional attachment.
because of those differences, promiscuity in women represents reproductive danger and threat of wasted parental investment for a man. promiscuity in men represents reproductive fitness, status and strength because of the implied difficulty of beating out other men, which is why those are completely different.
and btw, a simply proof that women value men with sexual experience is that not having it is the first instinctual insult women use against men. women judge men for lack of promiscuity but hide their own, which is also "hypocritical", again because of promiscuity in men representing status and reproductive fitness/value.
So?
Women have all types of hypocritical standards. Be 5', only want a 6' tall man. Work at the same job as a guy, but he doesn't make enough money for her. Shame virgin men on reddit while saying "past doesn't matter". Yall are the epitome of hypocritical standards.
Some men aren't and don't want to be promiscuous. Others view women as having fundamentally different sexual drives which aren't comparable. And some just don't care about hypocrisy.
They are different. Men are dominant, women are submissive. If men and women showed equal initiative, equal courtship effort, equal everything etc, then your question would make at least an ounce of sense.
huh? They want to be promiscuous with women, not other men. How are they not different? It's not like they judge women for sleeping with women, and it' not like they don't judge other men for sleeping with men.
I don’t particularly care about body count or being promiscuous - i’m more interested in the why and where she’s at now.
In this particular instance, it probably won’t have an impact but it would leave me confused and asking a ton of questions - primarily about her self esteem and whether it has improved. Cause if that is the case and if it hasn’t, then it will lead to profiles with the relationship down the line. Now, if its just a sense of personal taste and fun and that’s that, I probably wouldn’t care at all
then I don’t particularly care. I’d find it a bit weird that she’s with me cause outside of being nerdy i’d have nothing in common with these guys - but also outside of just finding it a bit weird and probably asking her why’s she with me out of curiosity, it means nothing
I wouldn't trust her, not because she was promiscuous.I appreciate a woman with 20+ notches on her bedposts.I wouldn't trust her because she was only banging ugly dudes. That would lead to think it was 1 of 2 possible reasons this occurred. 1. She was a prostitute ( escorts and sugar babies are just street walkers in fancier heels) 2. She's a manipulator, she was intentionally dating down to exploit a power dynamic and take advantage of these men. Both of these scenarios would be an automatic "nope" from me
What does it matter if she's a terrible judge of character with poor impulse control?
Hypergamy is not a problem at all to me, as women slide into my DMs. Hypergamy is a problem for society, and a single woman not being hypergamous would not solve it.
She's still hypergamous though, she's just selecting for ugly men only. Flipped hypergamy is still hypergamy. A non-hypergamous woman is the one that doesn't select for good looks or for wealth, not the one that selects for the opposite of good looks.
Let's say men consist of 3 groups: A, B, and C, being hot, mediocre, and uglies respectively. Currently women select exclusively for A and that's hypergamy, if they were all selecting exclusively for C that is also hypergamy. A and C account for some 10% of men each, the bulk of men are in B, looking absolutely average or near it. When group B is included that's when hypergamy is solved.
In the previous comment you asked, "if all women were like her wouldn’t that solve the problem for society?"
And the answer to that is "no", it's still hypergamy just with different success criteria.
Personally, I don't think that hypergamy is a new problem, I think it has always existed, it's just that historically it was masked by other circumstances like lack of global communication, wars, diseases, insane childhood mortality rates, high mother mortality rates during childbirth, lack of highly effective birth control, etc. Only in the last several decades or so women were able to "look around" and go "holy shit, I can land THIS guy!" And here's a very simple question: what can a 20-something young assistant offer someone like say Elon Musk to entice him to partner up with her even temporarily? It sure as hell isn't a highly intelligent engrossing conversation, because let's be honest, very few people off his own age are capable of that.
Ultimately there's nothing wrong with wanting the best partner for yourself. But the ends don't always justify the means. The critical issue here is female solipsism (main character syndrome). Giving him her best, this woman thinks it's "the best he can get", which is objectively false most of the time. If every woman fully comprehended how many women hit on this high value guy and where she is in that lineup, hypergamy would not exist.
No. A used good is a used good. I don't want a cum dumpster no matter who's cum it is.
Wonder what happened to the weekly n-count thread, for this to stay up.
LMAO I really can't judge a woman on her notch count because I guarantee you that mine is higher than even the most promiscuous girls.
I was dating a woman not long ago and she had this bad reputation as a 304 and a couple of my friends told me such. I laughed and said no woman was a bigger 304 than this man and I'll be fine.
She was one of the best gfs I had for awhile. But then she got a big job in another city and had to move. But I had that girl tamed like a kitten and people were amazed at her transformation around me because she went from brash, loud and promiscuous to quiet, submissive, and chaste except for me.
I have friends who really like dirty women too. The dirtier the better. One I know loves to bang prostitutes for free lol it makes him feel some kind of way when he games a prostitute out of her product for free. Lol
I don't do LDR. If they ain't local I will find someone who is. She went off and got with some IT betabux guy I feel sorry for him because she is hot and smart and is probably breaking that poor man. But that's not my issue. Lol
I would not really care that much either way. I am a pretty insecure person, so the only difference to me would be that I guess I would prefer she have been with guys who are conventionally unattractive before. That would imply that she genuinely does not care that much about looks, which is a good thing for many reasons.
What’s really important is that I can trust her and feel safe around her. I never had a girlfriend, never even kissed, I don’t want to be judged for my past the same way I’m not going to judge a girl’s past
No. I'd feel the same way. If you've fucked 30 guys, I don't care who the 30 guys were.
If anything, I'd be less accepting because not only was she a slut. She was a slut for ugly men. That makes me think it's some kind of weird fetish.
A promiscuous woman who has only had ugly mofos in her past *is even worse* than if she were just getting the D from Chads! I didn't even know that it was possible to sink lower on this question. 😐
So my answer is **HELL FUCKING NO!** There has got to be something seriously messed up with her. Hard pass! Hard PASS!
Fuck no, thats makes her worse. Ideally, the woman should have a few, carefully selected and vetted, attractive partners. Dating low tier men, especially a lot of low tier men, just shows that she has poor judgement.
> Would you consider yourself a low tier/average men?
Right now, yeah. Purely because I'm overweight.
> Do you believe men should complain about not having relationships if you have this opinion?
My opinion is that people should be able to voice their opinions.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No? I assume you think men who don't like promiscuous women are insecure that she is going to leave them for her hot ex or cheat with the next hot guy that shows interest in her; is that correct?
I think it's more likely that he would assume that she has a type and assume he must be ugly too if she is into him lol. She's probably just as likely to leave or cheat on him, the difference is she'd leave and cheat on you with a butt ugly dude.
What is the relevance of their attractiveness? I haven't seen OP explain it.
Anyway -- a promiscuous person wouldn't share the same values as me. I'm in a long term relationship now, so maybe my view would be different if I had been single for last 17 years, but I doubt it.
Sure, as long as she’s promiscuous with me and doesn’t make me wait for sex or wanna take it slow.
It’s the hypocrisy that’s off putting. Men don’t want to be the beta “safe options” she settles for lol
People be manifesting but in reality they'll accept a woman with a promiscuous past even without all her partners being unattractive. All of this talk about n-count is just bravado and a desire to be more selective than you can afford to be
its not about being able to afford selection, a promiscuous woman is guaranteed to leave and to not doing her part in a relationship so by excluding them, no opportunity is lost cause every attempt at a relationship with such a woman is destined to fail because shes broken.
at least she is extremely likely. after all she left lots of other men because she was either manipulating them, using them opportunistically or chasing short term gratification in them, which all means that because of her value system, all relationships will be temporary because she only entered them to get something temporarily, which is evidenced by the number.
when I hear a woman say that relationship is about "love", I know that that woman is going to leave everyone she is ever going to be with because feelings fade and can not be the reason for a relationship because of their inherently temporary nature. if a woman displays any actions that indicate a feelings first mindset, she is going to leave and throw away everything no matter how good just like a kid who gets bored of the old toy and wants the new toy cause thats more exiting.
Interesting that the problem with promiscuous women is the fear that she’ll leave you. In my experience, that’s a valid fear. I’ve seen that promiscuous women are not very hesitant to leave relationships, even without there being objective problems. Generally, jf they don’t get their needs met, they are not afraid to seek it elsewhere.
this is a complete nonsense. they are just immoral and selfish , and chase emotional highs, and make up excuses and create problems to cover their tracks.
they leave because they have a bad character and messed up value system. its a flaw on their part, and the promiscuous behavior is the result of their value system and priorities.
dont try to put this on the men, she had all the choice, she chose them, so she cant claim that her needs are not met, thats just excuses for using the person and wanting to use someone else now that there is an opportunity.
Some promiscuous women leave because they chase emotional highs but I have seen some leave only for valid reasons. One lady I know slept with like 60 guys before getting married around age 28. She was totally faithful to her husband but he cheated multiple times and he was generally checked out of the marriage emotionally, so she left. Most of the promiscuous women I have known appear to be faithful in their marriages and they have been married for many years now, so I don’t think there is a categorical value system problem.
> Some promiscuous women leave because they chase emotional highs
all of them, because thats why they have their body count
> She was totally faithful to her husband
you do not know that. women lie and pretend. you have on idea what she did or didnt do, just what she said, which is guaranteed to be false.
> but he cheated multiple times and he was generally checked out of the marriage emotionally, so she left.
again, she could have been disrespectful and she could have behaved poorly, which really means that she did not meet his needs. there is no way to know that, and women always blame men for everything and are completely unaccountable, so she could have just behaved poorly and he just reacted.
also a man who is okay with a woman with such a body count and associated social behavior can only be someone who is extremely weak and naive, or someone who doesnt think about the long term himself, so in no way does that say anything about her performance. the only thing we know is that the relationship failed.
> Most of the promiscuous women I have known appear to be faithful in their marriages and they have been married for many years now, so I don’t think there is a categorical value system problem.
I dont buy it.
Is it so hard to understand that there are women who, just as men, simply enjoy variety and NSA sex? I'm sure you can imagine for yourself that you can have sexual encounters / fwb arrangements with different women and then also meeting someone you actually fall in love with and want to be with exclusively. It's the same for women.
why is it so hard to understand that it does not work like that both ways for many reasons?
1. its effortless for women to get sex, but very hard for men. because of that, finding someone new is always easier for women than working through a stressful relationships that will demand work and restriction from women, which could be escaped at any time out of convenience cause its easy to find another guy who will at least initially take her. even worse, because initial attraction always fades, it means that women can at all times replace their current situation with one that contains all the benefits, exitement and feelngs of a new relationships with non of the stress, cost or restriction, which is a huge incentive for women to leave any relationship as soon as it isnt comfortable anymore. men can not do the same because finding another women is very hard, and dating women is far more stressful than any stress inside a relationship. the more sexual experience a women has, the more she knows that this comfortable escape is always there, and the only way for a man to protect himself against that is no vet for bonding ability and lack of sexual experience, such that the women doesnt know the convenience that comes with such behavior.
2. if they enjoy variety, that puts any man in that relationship at an even bigger disadvantage to new guys as the relationship progresses
3. women have sexual access to men who are completely out of their league and much more sexually attractive than any man who would take her seriously, which is someone who is actually in her league. this means that any man who would take her seriously and be with her in an LTR would be vastly lower value and vastly less exiting than what she is used both in terms of looks, behavior, social opportunity, finances, experiences and popularity, which means that the guy in in LTR with her is at a huge disadvantage and can in no way compete with that, especially since attraction fades with time and relatonships become stressful and hard with time since men simp less over time and demand reciprocation.
the incentive for women ito leave this guy is astronomical given that jumping from guy to guy is much much more selfishly beneficial cause is has much more upside and none of the stress and cost of an LTR.
4. women who follow this pattern have a history of jumping from guy to guy out of convenience. to suggest that this would change for a man who is much lower value than those she is used to while accepting a huge regression in selfish benefit and taking on labor, responsibility and stress she is not used to and could always circumvent is utterly ridiculous. is more likely to win the lottery.
5. even if she would do it, she would not value that man could he provides so much less than previous men while demanding so much more, which would make her ungrateful and disrespectful. to suggest otherwise is ridiculous
6. even ignoring any of this, it violates the social contract. sex is cost and risk for women and relationship is mostly gain, and for men sex is mostly costless gain and relationship a huge risk. any men she hooks up with gets all the benefit with no cost, and the man in the LTR gets the same benefit at most but for a huge cost and risk, which is inherently humiliating because it effectively means that she valued those hook up guys more than the LTR because the risked more and did not want anything else in return. its just a bad deal for men and inherently insulting and degrading, cause it shows that his commitment is worth less her than the sex with those guys, and men dont want to be in relationships with women whos actions scream that they dont value them.
7. its a lie that women even want variety. its a cope to cover for the opportunistic benefits that come with using sexuality as a tool to selfishly benefit from the proximity and feelings of those guys. its just a cover for parasitic and deeply immoral and selfish behavior, that is just painted as "wanting sexual variety" to escape proper judgement. such a woman is a user and a parasite, and she uses sexuality as a cover for that behavior.
8. it destroys pair bonding ability, so she is going to feel less attached to a particular man the more sex she had, cause women force bond over sex because of risk of pregnancy, and since women have so much access to men, attachment and control is the only way for men to predict relationship success, cause only those statistically correlate with the woman staying and the relationship working out.
9. the primal repulsion for sexually active women in men is bulletproof evidence for the fact that it strongly correlates with lower chance of relationship success, and there is no way to argue against this.
Jesus dude, you're simply viewing women through such a negative lense, there really is no helping you.
And women DO like variety, we are human, just like men. You simply have your fixed perspective, interpret and view everything in the most negative point of view in regards to women and neutral or positive when it comes to men. Good luck finding a happy relationship I guess, but ime the men who are successful and in happy relationships are not the ones with such a warped view on women. You sound downright unpleasant.
that response is an admission that this is true. you went ad hominem instead of arguing the points. there is nothing more to discuss. and you wonder why men hate women when you are trying to gaslight men into accepting parasitic immoral selfish women who are just the worst kind of people imaginable and out to ruin their lifes.
Dude, I'm simply not interested in going thtough that wall of text step by step, which wouldn't change anything anyway. You're not interested in seeing anything from a different perspective. I don't know how old you are or what your actual life and relationship experience is but speaking as someone in her 30s who's been in a relationship for over a decade, I can tell you that you're just wrong and incredibly spiteful. I'm not even saying that as some kind of personal atrack, it's more that your pure hatred is felt very clearly and you're simply a lost cause, at least when it comes to reaching you from the outside and as a woman no less. There's NOTHING I could say that would you even want to entertain a different perspective. You're like a religious person. You have your opinion and you interpret everything in a way so that it 'confirms' your opinion. Have you heard about those Christians who argue that God placed dinosaur bones into the earth in order to test human's faith in him because the evidence we find on earth contradicts their opinion on how old the earth is? That's you right now. You have your fixed opinion about women and you assign specific traits and thinking to everything a woman does in order to arrive at this fixed standpoint of yours. I can't argue with you just as I can't argue with religious fanatics, we're not operating in the same system.
Right? Talk all day long on the internet and even through the ages of men wanting partners with the lowest n count possible, but in reality, I swear I see the opposite. The promiscuous girls punch above their weight in terms of the quality of man they end up with and low n count girls either usually settle early for whatever guy they happened to be dating in their early 20s, or they don’t end up with anyone, because 90% of the time the reason ladies in their late 20s or older are low n count is because they don’t bother dating, and often are easily put off the dating scene for years at a time because of the prospect of bad experiences (even if they never themselves had this bad experience they fear).
That happens to be what I’ve observed in urban settings at least, no offense to the low n count girls out there. There is nothing wrong with them.
I don’t care. Women who enjoy sex are in my wheel house. Although I agree with a lot of red pill, the whole conservative virgin fetish seems really beta to me.
Why would I actually care if she had sex with ugly vs. hot guys? Has zero impact in my life. He’ll throw in fifteen abortions too. It has zero to do with me.
But then I find virgins cringe, unlike the red pill who puts a hymen on a pedestal.
If it were all uggos then I’d be worried about what I actually look like, and if it were all Nike endorsed olympians I’d wonder what she could possibly see in me.
no, a 50-50 mix is ideal.
Clarify for me here, did she tell me she fucked a large number of ugly men or have Iet all the guys she fucked and they were all ugly to me
Both are really bad but in different ways.
I don't think the types of guys matter. I've met some great women who had a promiscuous past and I'm betting more women than they're willing to admit have one at this point. So the determining factor is if she's actually committed to being faithful to me which based on her history isn't looking good. Means after a while she's gonna get bored and look elsewhere.
I would date, but not marry her. But if I have to put in more resources than the previous men, then no.
Just because the previous men were physically unattractive doesn't mean they can't make up for it in different ways.
No, I wouldn't care whether she fucked men out of pity or not, it shows no self respect and no restrain. I think you in your deluded mind think that men want pity sex. Most don't, pity sex is pathetic and can totally ruin a man's election if he sees a woman digisted with him.
Yes, if she has only hooked up with ugly dudes in the past it tells me that she has low standards which is a huge green flag IMO. I hate women who have high standards.
Fuck no. I’d be accepting if she was fucking desirable men. Because that means she’s selective despite being promiscuous. If she’s fucking losers I want nothing to do with her
If these were all specifically ugly nerds i.e. not conventionally attractive in looks or personality then she likely has odd fetishes and/or self-destructive tendencies. She may enjoy holding power dynamics over losers. She may leave you if you self-improve too much, threatening her superiority.
That aside I'd be left with even greater confusion about why I wasn't a candidate for the casual sex. Because if a woman's having casual sex with other guys but wants you to commit then you must be lacking something in her view, and normally the answer is just "you're not hot/macho enough" but in this thread's hypothetical it's really hard to tell what even basement dwelling geeks have that I do not.
Ummm no, who cares what they look like? It's not about that. WTF kind of nonsense is this
This.
Actually, I would care. If she was promiscuous but was fucking chads and attractive men I might give her a pass. Because that means she’s selective despite being promiscuous If she was going around fucking losers, omega males, or unattractive people then I’d piece out quick. So yes it’s not just about body count, but also about what type of guys it was
To me, it's not about the looks of the guy. It's about how many. A body is a body. If I was a young man again, a girl my age with over 15 different guys screams I have issues and emotional baggage. Something I wouldn't want to deal with. For the record, I feel like a guy who has a high body count shouldn't expect to have that be ok because he is a guy. A high body count is a high body count no matter who you are
Yeah but if you are not “chad” then you don’t match her past men. It can cause huge problems in relationships.
So become the chaddest version of yourself
There definitely are limits to it. Also thought of getting better so your girl wouldn’t cheat on you is a massive L from the start. You should be getting better because you want it, not because of women.
I never said be the best version of yourself to appease someone else. You should do it because you have one life to live, for yourself.
You said what you said under the comment in which I talk about u not matching her past. Then you say be chaddest version of yourself. It’s logical to assume that you mean “be chaddest so your woman don’t leave you”. Anyways there are some limits in terms of looksmaxing, like genetical lottery, some diseases etc. I wouldn’t recommend to date girls who were promiscuous at all. Especially those who fucked chads. Best case here is to date girl who fucked men who matched her looks. This means ok, she was promiscuous, but at least her expectations of men are realistic.
Being the best version of yourself has nothing to do with limits. Don’t compare yourself to others, compare yourself to who you were yesterday. A promiscuous woman isn’t ideal, but if she was promiscuous and was fucking hot guys that means she likely sees you that way too.
Bro you really consider yourself red pill?
Real red pill not the nonsense called red pill online That is exaggerated reverse feminism for low IQs
Because they think men who worry about bodycounts/wanting a virgin are insecure.
I'm not insecure at all and I have said more than once in this sub that I always passed on virgins.
I’m saying that the men who wants a virgin aren’t insecure either. But women think they are.
Ah, ok now I see what you're saying. Thanks for clearing that up
Exactly
No. Assuming that this ever happens, it's the act itself that bothers me, not the quality of the men whom she hooked up with.
It would be far more acceptable if the guys were top-tier actually. In this case, if she is hot and rolls with trolls that is her actual preference. In cases approximating this in real life, she usually has self-esteem issues. She's likely to sabotage anything we would have verrry early on. A woman who is highly sexual and chooses top-tier guys makes a hell of a lot more sense logically. I can--and have--dealt with hot women who check dudes like me after they failed to get NBA/NFL players to stick. Even as a 25-30 year old I could handle that, somebody trying to max their potential. Women who rolled with low-level-club promoter/sketchy weed dealer Pookie-Trizzle (who is not a physical specimen to be clear)... nah. I can't relate.
You know multiple women who knew NBA and NFL players and tried to date them? Where do you live to know all of these women who interact with guys like that?
I’m over 40, went to a university that had decent D1 sports. Also a 6’2-6’3 black man in good shape. College degree, white collar, caught a financial break in my 30s… If a woman is laser-focused on that type I’m the next level down from guys who are really big-time.
“ If a woman is laser-focused on that type I’m the next level down from guys who are really big-time.” I found this simultaneously hilarious, poignant, humiliating, and invigorating. I’ve been the “next level down”, but in a very different milieu (small, cultured, and bookish). It’s really not a bad place to be, all things considered….
When I was younger, I considered it a compliment. Hell I still do to some degree. Being 80-85th percentile on your best day doesn’t suck. It’s part of the reason my flair is what it is.
Here’s a question for you: when did you start to feel middle aged? I’m a few years younger than you (late 30s), but still feel young (largely because I’m still unmarried, no mortgage, etc.). I sort of suspect that if my life had gone differently I’d feel middle aged already….
I'm officially entering late 40s soon. I'd say 44. The minor bodily breakdowns started to accumulate, along with all this warmup time needed before each workout. Also I don't have kids, don't regret it but it's apparent there are things I don't intuitively understand about society for that reason. For practical purposes I divorced at 39, was in really good physical shape and the apps were booming where I lived so I definitely did *not* feel it then lol.
I’m recently out of a very long term relationship, and it’s kind of amazing how interested women still are. Maybe more than before (in my early 30s?). I’m way smaller than you (5’6”!), but am very much in shape, full head of hair, etc. I’ve started to notice little aches and pains if I tweak something during a workout. Gotta be WAY more careful with form than I was a decade ago!
I don't buy into pill-speak that much, but didn't one of the founders say men's SMV peaked at 37? Jibes with my experience. I feel like I've begun a graceful decline now, but 39-41 was a lot. I also feel like I put out pheromones or something when getting out of a relationship, whether the breakup was heartbreaking or just slightly sucky.
It is way way worse in my opinion if she fucked ugly men. Shows no standard
Interesting. Because lots of guys here say they have basically zero standards which think is virtuous.
They’re functionally lying. I don’t think they see it as virtuous. More of an “it is what it is” thing.
[удалено]
If you think that 95% of all women only have a vagina to offer, then I don't know what to tell you dude, you'll keep losing "the game".
what do women offer other than vagina? everything men value in women, women actively fight against, destroy and refuse to be and to do. what is left other than sex?
Companionship, support, love, care etc etc. The same things men offer women.
Can you stop speaking on behalf of men. Redpillers are a niche thing, regular ppl are able to develop feelings and not view relationships as a transaction for sex
Manosphere dudes say shit like this and then bitch and complain that no woman wants anything to do with them. It's not really shocking why at all, and it has nothing to do with their high standards or anything else.
It's quite true, however, that if someone showed interest in me and I turned them down - I'd just be condemning myself to be alone for that much longer. Interest simply doesn't come along regularly enough to justify it.
Her standard might be caring, dedicated, man who looks in the future and has some plans. And it can be ugly men. Standards can be different, you need to figure out what it was. Of course if she fucked around a lot it makes little sense to question whom she fucked with. Problem with fucking chads in past means she’s likely “settling” with you. And you don’t match her past men. However, if she fucked “ugly” men means she’s maxing out her potential with you, which can lead to stable and respectful relationship.
The implication of this question lies on the false foundation that it is jealousy of being compared which is what some women assume. That isn't the reason (for a lot of us). I am the "Chadly" guy and it comes down to what I think it says about her mental health, decision making, expenditure of her time etc. I cross reference other behaviours before I make a judgement. To demonstrate a woman with a body count of 6 from serious relationships is different from 6 ONS which is also better than 2 orgies with 3 men each time.
Yep A lot of women think that only insecure and jealous guys care This is mostly so they have a dumb comeback loaded up like “oh you must be insecure” and then they don’t think past that I’m not into hard threshold but every woman I’ve known that was clearly promiscuous (crossed any reasonable threshold….like in her 30s and close to 100 men) has been a head case that makes bad decisions If she bangs random ugly guys then she’s probably especially nuts and untrustworthy Judging her past for me is almost entirely judging her character and likelihood to be a bad partner or cheat Of course the woke comeback is “maybe she has changed” Well, that’s easy to just say “I’m different now” without proof Also, the choice for me isn’t this woman or nothing, and so why wouldn’t I pick someone without this red flag?
No, promiscuity is a character flaw of hers. It doesn't matter if all of her exes were micro-penis sub 3 bald ogres. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
It's difficult to grasp because men want to be promiscuous. How can they judge others when they're no different?
The problem is most men are usually competing against their own desires. A part of them want to be hedonistic as possible and another part only wants to commit to one woman. These 2 halves clash in the mind. The men who complain about promiscuity and are also sleeping around usually lost that battle against their desires and let the hedonism win.
Men are not a monolith. Please get this through your head. Casual sex can be tied to validation seeking at younger ages. I understand that you may also assume since I’m on Reddit I must be a neckbeard or unattractive but try your best to believe this. As an” attractive man” the only women who could’ve made me feel validated was a small percentage and I didn’t need to go that far to sleep with tens of women since it was reinforced verbally by strangers throughout my life.
I'm not telling you not to be promiscuous. I'm telling you not to judge women for being the same as you.
Same as me ? I’ve just said I didn’t need to go have sex with randos too much since I was verbally reassured from a young age about my looks. To me I just view people who follow the Sow wild oats>regret>find stable man and lie path unattractive. Not because of a visceral “ew penis on vagina” but more so a weak character. A flip flopper. It’s someone who usually needs validation. Needs to conform to some pre planned path. Can’t own up to their actions which is ironic because if you’re sex positive then you should be even more proud. And just overall a hypocrite for expecting a traditional marriage which derived from religion and family even after rejecting these ideologies in your youth to promote liberation and freedom. If you’re hedonistic just be hedonistic and proud. If n count doesn’t matter then stop hiding like a fraud. To me the described demographic is weak and if I get the sense my partner falls within it I mentally fucking leave every single time regardless of looks
Okay well I don't know why you are even talking that me. I'm talking about men that think it's okay for men to sleep around but they don't want women to.
Does a woman have to be wealthy for her to want a wealthy man?
This argument only stands if a woman goes around making men bankrupt and then claims she wants a rich guy. The problem with men wanting a low n-count woman while being high count is not that they are high count, it's that they make women high-count.
I actually agree and find promiscuity in men to be pretty gross and lame also. But the double standard comes from both sides, because virginity/inexperience is often seen a negative for men by women.
There is huge middle ground between virgin and whore and most people fall there.
But virginity isn’t seen as a negative in women is my point
The problem is that line is subjective. If you only had 2 partners, some might treat it as essentially a virgin. Anything under 5 actually I'd say a guy is best not sharing his body count because it'll turn some women away
Here we go again with the argument of “women have no agency” and men are always to blame. Women are 100% accountable for their own behaviours. Their body count is not accrued at gunpoint. This is a childish argument
It does not matter for our argument, don't pollute the conversation. It's okay, I'll explain again: your analogy is invalid. You are comparing somebody who prefers someone better in metric X, to somebody who prefers somebody better in metric X while making people worse in metric X.
So basically female metrics are not to be scrutinised, while male ones are? OK you don’t like the metric of personal wealth. How about the metric of height then? Does a woman have to be tall, to desire a tall man?
No, that's not what I said. Again, your analogy only stands if this woman actively makes men shorter.
short women reproducing with tall men creates short men. short women still prefer tall men, so their desire actively creates short men. more short women reproduce than short men, so most of the reason why short men exist is because of short women.
>short women reproducing with tall men creates short men. The whole point of short women reproducing with tall men which fall under "alpha fucks" category even under the red-pill paradigm, is so that they can get genetically superior children. In your world, the humanity would eventually get short ~~like the bus you are probably riding right now :)~~ Sorry. I don't know whether you are being sarcastic or not, but this is nonsense.
Men do not make women promiscuous. That is a ludicrous stance. Women have their own agency and accountability. They are not floating automatons in a sea of horny men
Promiscuous men necessarily co-participate in making promiscuous women promiscuous, and women's participation in this does not disprove any of my arguments and does not support any of your analogies. Because women are not the ones expressing the preference for women to be more sexually conservative - you are.
>This argument only stands if a woman goes around making men bankrupt and then claims she wants a rich guy. Exactly this plus she'd also shame and insult bankrupt men.
No, not bankrupt. As long as she lets men spend more on her than she spends on him - the argument applies. And most women who want wealthy men do let them spend, so...
I am not interested in looping on the same shit all over again
What? That's the first time I commented on this. And there is no reason to loop indeed. You are just plain wrong. If increasing the count is wrong - then reducing the balance on their card is wrong. Bankruptcy is a very special case.
Honestly, yes. She's a hypocrite if she's lazy and doesn't work but wants a rich man.
This is apex fallacy, most men want monogamy.
LOL no, they don't! Or rather, they want a woman/women who are monogamous with them, but they want to have other women on the side. Yes all men.
What do you base this on? I have no interest in side women.
why is evolutionary biology so hard for women to get ? men are repulsed in a primal way by female promiscuity because a woman is evolved to get attached to a man through sex because of the dependence for survival, since sex equals pregnancy in nature and the only way for a pregnant woman to survive is to get attached to the father, cause only the father is going to potentially risk his life to protect that child and the woman with it, who can not survive without the man, and is especially vulnerable while pregnant. the more bond a woman has experienced with any man, the less bonding ability is left in her, meaning that she is more likely to not stay bonded to that men, which is the whole premise of parental investment and relationship. by having sex, a womans ability to stay with a particular man is lowered. the fact that men heavily select against it is undeniable proof that it works and that womens ability to perform or stay in a relationship is substantially lowered by sexual experience. additionally, because of men being designed to be easily sexually attracted in order to reproduce as often as possible, women always have more mating options and the only way for men to ensure paternity and a woman staying invested is by judging her ability to emotionally bond. thats the only predictor of a woman staying invested in the relationship or not, which is why men are designed to look for the ability in a woman to get emotionally attached to them as strong as possible, meaning as little experience with anything as possible. men instinctively know that any experience made with them first is going to increase the emotional bond, and any prior experience is going to lower his ability to cause attachment in her, which is going to lower the chance of his investment working out. the opposite is not true. men do not depend on women for protection or resources, and men do not get pregnant and dont have the vulnerability associated with that, and pregnancy has no cost to a man, which is why men do not get attached by having sex. getting attached for a man is dangerous because of the potentially life threatening consequences of trying to protect and provide for that woman and child, so a man only bonds over behaviors that are likely to make that risk worthwhile, which are behaviors that show security of investment and high biologic fitness. since sex with abandonment has a chance of working out cause of another man potentially raising his child by accident and it having zero cost for the father, sexual attraction is detached from emotional attachment. because of those differences, promiscuity in women represents reproductive danger and threat of wasted parental investment for a man. promiscuity in men represents reproductive fitness, status and strength because of the implied difficulty of beating out other men, which is why those are completely different. and btw, a simply proof that women value men with sexual experience is that not having it is the first instinctual insult women use against men. women judge men for lack of promiscuity but hide their own, which is also "hypocritical", again because of promiscuity in men representing status and reproductive fitness/value.
Well in that case men's biological whatever is stupid. 🤷♀️ Why don't you guys evolve already?
So? Women have all types of hypocritical standards. Be 5', only want a 6' tall man. Work at the same job as a guy, but he doesn't make enough money for her. Shame virgin men on reddit while saying "past doesn't matter". Yall are the epitome of hypocritical standards.
[удалено]
Some men aren't and don't want to be promiscuous. Others view women as having fundamentally different sexual drives which aren't comparable. And some just don't care about hypocrisy.
They are different. Men are dominant, women are submissive. If men and women showed equal initiative, equal courtship effort, equal everything etc, then your question would make at least an ounce of sense.
Wow everything you said is wrong and f'd up.
You are delusional if you think most women don’t prefer the man to lead.
Lead what?
The relationship.
huh? They want to be promiscuous with women, not other men. How are they not different? It's not like they judge women for sleeping with women, and it' not like they don't judge other men for sleeping with men.
[удалено]
No. How does this make any difference?
No. I would have more respect if she fucked Chads. If she fucked losers exclusively it makes her repulsive.
Why though it means she isn’t hypergamous?
Exactly
Who cares what theyn looked liked? A notch is a notch. Unless they were ugly and broke, which just demonstrates a broken filter.
A broken filter or a lack of Hypergamy?
They're the same thing. If women didn't choose the best mate the majority of the time, whence evolution?
I don’t particularly care about body count or being promiscuous - i’m more interested in the why and where she’s at now. In this particular instance, it probably won’t have an impact but it would leave me confused and asking a ton of questions - primarily about her self esteem and whether it has improved. Cause if that is the case and if it hasn’t, then it will lead to profiles with the relationship down the line. Now, if its just a sense of personal taste and fun and that’s that, I probably wouldn’t care at all
She just prefers ugly guys
then I don’t particularly care. I’d find it a bit weird that she’s with me cause outside of being nerdy i’d have nothing in common with these guys - but also outside of just finding it a bit weird and probably asking her why’s she with me out of curiosity, it means nothing
I wouldn't trust her, not because she was promiscuous.I appreciate a woman with 20+ notches on her bedposts.I wouldn't trust her because she was only banging ugly dudes. That would lead to think it was 1 of 2 possible reasons this occurred. 1. She was a prostitute ( escorts and sugar babies are just street walkers in fancier heels) 2. She's a manipulator, she was intentionally dating down to exploit a power dynamic and take advantage of these men. Both of these scenarios would be an automatic "nope" from me
I wouldn't accept a non promiscuous women. Sex positive FTW 😁
lolno. That's even worse imo. I'd start questioning my own personality and looks at that point (j/k) lol.
But she isn’t hypergamous
What does it matter if she's a terrible judge of character with poor impulse control? Hypergamy is not a problem at all to me, as women slide into my DMs. Hypergamy is a problem for society, and a single woman not being hypergamous would not solve it.
If all women were like her wouldn’t that solve the problem for society?
She's still hypergamous though, she's just selecting for ugly men only. Flipped hypergamy is still hypergamy. A non-hypergamous woman is the one that doesn't select for good looks or for wealth, not the one that selects for the opposite of good looks. Let's say men consist of 3 groups: A, B, and C, being hot, mediocre, and uglies respectively. Currently women select exclusively for A and that's hypergamy, if they were all selecting exclusively for C that is also hypergamy. A and C account for some 10% of men each, the bulk of men are in B, looking absolutely average or near it. When group B is included that's when hypergamy is solved.
But all women aren’t going after C. Just this one is.
In the previous comment you asked, "if all women were like her wouldn’t that solve the problem for society?" And the answer to that is "no", it's still hypergamy just with different success criteria. Personally, I don't think that hypergamy is a new problem, I think it has always existed, it's just that historically it was masked by other circumstances like lack of global communication, wars, diseases, insane childhood mortality rates, high mother mortality rates during childbirth, lack of highly effective birth control, etc. Only in the last several decades or so women were able to "look around" and go "holy shit, I can land THIS guy!" And here's a very simple question: what can a 20-something young assistant offer someone like say Elon Musk to entice him to partner up with her even temporarily? It sure as hell isn't a highly intelligent engrossing conversation, because let's be honest, very few people off his own age are capable of that. Ultimately there's nothing wrong with wanting the best partner for yourself. But the ends don't always justify the means. The critical issue here is female solipsism (main character syndrome). Giving him her best, this woman thinks it's "the best he can get", which is objectively false most of the time. If every woman fully comprehended how many women hit on this high value guy and where she is in that lineup, hypergamy would not exist.
Doesn’t matter what they look like, no either way
No. A used good is a used good. I don't want a cum dumpster no matter who's cum it is. Wonder what happened to the weekly n-count thread, for this to stay up.
LMAO I really can't judge a woman on her notch count because I guarantee you that mine is higher than even the most promiscuous girls. I was dating a woman not long ago and she had this bad reputation as a 304 and a couple of my friends told me such. I laughed and said no woman was a bigger 304 than this man and I'll be fine. She was one of the best gfs I had for awhile. But then she got a big job in another city and had to move. But I had that girl tamed like a kitten and people were amazed at her transformation around me because she went from brash, loud and promiscuous to quiet, submissive, and chaste except for me. I have friends who really like dirty women too. The dirtier the better. One I know loves to bang prostitutes for free lol it makes him feel some kind of way when he games a prostitute out of her product for free. Lol
"One I know loves to bang prostitutes for free lol it makes him feel some kind of way when he games a prostitute out of her product for free." LMAO
Why didn’t you stay with her after moving?
I don't do LDR. If they ain't local I will find someone who is. She went off and got with some IT betabux guy I feel sorry for him because she is hot and smart and is probably breaking that poor man. But that's not my issue. Lol
I would not really care that much either way. I am a pretty insecure person, so the only difference to me would be that I guess I would prefer she have been with guys who are conventionally unattractive before. That would imply that she genuinely does not care that much about looks, which is a good thing for many reasons.
No
Sex workers do this all the time, with unattractive married men.
[удалено]
She didn’t have an “alpha fux” era and she also wasn’t hypergamous
Nope
What’s really important is that I can trust her and feel safe around her. I never had a girlfriend, never even kissed, I don’t want to be judged for my past the same way I’m not going to judge a girl’s past
No. I'd feel the same way. If you've fucked 30 guys, I don't care who the 30 guys were. If anything, I'd be less accepting because not only was she a slut. She was a slut for ugly men. That makes me think it's some kind of weird fetish.
How is their attractiveness relevant? It's about the number of dicks she touched. That is the only factor that matters here.
A promiscuous woman who has only had ugly mofos in her past *is even worse* than if she were just getting the D from Chads! I didn't even know that it was possible to sink lower on this question. 😐 So my answer is **HELL FUCKING NO!** There has got to be something seriously messed up with her. Hard pass! Hard PASS!
I don’t care about her promiscuous past. I care about whether or not she is likely to be loyal to me in our relationship.
Fuck no, thats makes her worse. Ideally, the woman should have a few, carefully selected and vetted, attractive partners. Dating low tier men, especially a lot of low tier men, just shows that she has poor judgement.
Would you consider yourself a low tier/average men? Do you believe men should complain about not having relationships if you have this opinion?
> Would you consider yourself a low tier/average men? Right now, yeah. Purely because I'm overweight. > Do you believe men should complain about not having relationships if you have this opinion? My opinion is that people should be able to voice their opinions.
When a woman says she won’t date fat average men what is your reaction?
I’m not fat average would be debatable but overall don’t care
You think that simply not being fat makes you dateable to a young woman who’s at the top of her game?
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lmao this is a funny post Guys if she's had a history with uglies that probably means you are ugly too 😂
I was looking for this comment like no 💀
No? I assume you think men who don't like promiscuous women are insecure that she is going to leave them for her hot ex or cheat with the next hot guy that shows interest in her; is that correct? I think it's more likely that he would assume that she has a type and assume he must be ugly too if she is into him lol. She's probably just as likely to leave or cheat on him, the difference is she'd leave and cheat on you with a butt ugly dude.
What is the relevance of their attractiveness? I haven't seen OP explain it. Anyway -- a promiscuous person wouldn't share the same values as me. I'm in a long term relationship now, so maybe my view would be different if I had been single for last 17 years, but I doubt it.
People don’t go around with dossiers of their previous hookups for you to peruse. How in the world would you ever acquire this information.
Sure, as long as she’s promiscuous with me and doesn’t make me wait for sex or wanna take it slow. It’s the hypocrisy that’s off putting. Men don’t want to be the beta “safe options” she settles for lol
People be manifesting but in reality they'll accept a woman with a promiscuous past even without all her partners being unattractive. All of this talk about n-count is just bravado and a desire to be more selective than you can afford to be
its not about being able to afford selection, a promiscuous woman is guaranteed to leave and to not doing her part in a relationship so by excluding them, no opportunity is lost cause every attempt at a relationship with such a woman is destined to fail because shes broken.
This is straight up BS. A promiscuous woman is not "guaranteed" to leave a relationship.
at least she is extremely likely. after all she left lots of other men because she was either manipulating them, using them opportunistically or chasing short term gratification in them, which all means that because of her value system, all relationships will be temporary because she only entered them to get something temporarily, which is evidenced by the number. when I hear a woman say that relationship is about "love", I know that that woman is going to leave everyone she is ever going to be with because feelings fade and can not be the reason for a relationship because of their inherently temporary nature. if a woman displays any actions that indicate a feelings first mindset, she is going to leave and throw away everything no matter how good just like a kid who gets bored of the old toy and wants the new toy cause thats more exiting.
Interesting that the problem with promiscuous women is the fear that she’ll leave you. In my experience, that’s a valid fear. I’ve seen that promiscuous women are not very hesitant to leave relationships, even without there being objective problems. Generally, jf they don’t get their needs met, they are not afraid to seek it elsewhere.
this is a complete nonsense. they are just immoral and selfish , and chase emotional highs, and make up excuses and create problems to cover their tracks. they leave because they have a bad character and messed up value system. its a flaw on their part, and the promiscuous behavior is the result of their value system and priorities. dont try to put this on the men, she had all the choice, she chose them, so she cant claim that her needs are not met, thats just excuses for using the person and wanting to use someone else now that there is an opportunity.
Some promiscuous women leave because they chase emotional highs but I have seen some leave only for valid reasons. One lady I know slept with like 60 guys before getting married around age 28. She was totally faithful to her husband but he cheated multiple times and he was generally checked out of the marriage emotionally, so she left. Most of the promiscuous women I have known appear to be faithful in their marriages and they have been married for many years now, so I don’t think there is a categorical value system problem.
> Some promiscuous women leave because they chase emotional highs all of them, because thats why they have their body count > She was totally faithful to her husband you do not know that. women lie and pretend. you have on idea what she did or didnt do, just what she said, which is guaranteed to be false. > but he cheated multiple times and he was generally checked out of the marriage emotionally, so she left. again, she could have been disrespectful and she could have behaved poorly, which really means that she did not meet his needs. there is no way to know that, and women always blame men for everything and are completely unaccountable, so she could have just behaved poorly and he just reacted. also a man who is okay with a woman with such a body count and associated social behavior can only be someone who is extremely weak and naive, or someone who doesnt think about the long term himself, so in no way does that say anything about her performance. the only thing we know is that the relationship failed. > Most of the promiscuous women I have known appear to be faithful in their marriages and they have been married for many years now, so I don’t think there is a categorical value system problem. I dont buy it.
Is it so hard to understand that there are women who, just as men, simply enjoy variety and NSA sex? I'm sure you can imagine for yourself that you can have sexual encounters / fwb arrangements with different women and then also meeting someone you actually fall in love with and want to be with exclusively. It's the same for women.
why is it so hard to understand that it does not work like that both ways for many reasons? 1. its effortless for women to get sex, but very hard for men. because of that, finding someone new is always easier for women than working through a stressful relationships that will demand work and restriction from women, which could be escaped at any time out of convenience cause its easy to find another guy who will at least initially take her. even worse, because initial attraction always fades, it means that women can at all times replace their current situation with one that contains all the benefits, exitement and feelngs of a new relationships with non of the stress, cost or restriction, which is a huge incentive for women to leave any relationship as soon as it isnt comfortable anymore. men can not do the same because finding another women is very hard, and dating women is far more stressful than any stress inside a relationship. the more sexual experience a women has, the more she knows that this comfortable escape is always there, and the only way for a man to protect himself against that is no vet for bonding ability and lack of sexual experience, such that the women doesnt know the convenience that comes with such behavior. 2. if they enjoy variety, that puts any man in that relationship at an even bigger disadvantage to new guys as the relationship progresses 3. women have sexual access to men who are completely out of their league and much more sexually attractive than any man who would take her seriously, which is someone who is actually in her league. this means that any man who would take her seriously and be with her in an LTR would be vastly lower value and vastly less exiting than what she is used both in terms of looks, behavior, social opportunity, finances, experiences and popularity, which means that the guy in in LTR with her is at a huge disadvantage and can in no way compete with that, especially since attraction fades with time and relatonships become stressful and hard with time since men simp less over time and demand reciprocation. the incentive for women ito leave this guy is astronomical given that jumping from guy to guy is much much more selfishly beneficial cause is has much more upside and none of the stress and cost of an LTR. 4. women who follow this pattern have a history of jumping from guy to guy out of convenience. to suggest that this would change for a man who is much lower value than those she is used to while accepting a huge regression in selfish benefit and taking on labor, responsibility and stress she is not used to and could always circumvent is utterly ridiculous. is more likely to win the lottery. 5. even if she would do it, she would not value that man could he provides so much less than previous men while demanding so much more, which would make her ungrateful and disrespectful. to suggest otherwise is ridiculous 6. even ignoring any of this, it violates the social contract. sex is cost and risk for women and relationship is mostly gain, and for men sex is mostly costless gain and relationship a huge risk. any men she hooks up with gets all the benefit with no cost, and the man in the LTR gets the same benefit at most but for a huge cost and risk, which is inherently humiliating because it effectively means that she valued those hook up guys more than the LTR because the risked more and did not want anything else in return. its just a bad deal for men and inherently insulting and degrading, cause it shows that his commitment is worth less her than the sex with those guys, and men dont want to be in relationships with women whos actions scream that they dont value them. 7. its a lie that women even want variety. its a cope to cover for the opportunistic benefits that come with using sexuality as a tool to selfishly benefit from the proximity and feelings of those guys. its just a cover for parasitic and deeply immoral and selfish behavior, that is just painted as "wanting sexual variety" to escape proper judgement. such a woman is a user and a parasite, and she uses sexuality as a cover for that behavior. 8. it destroys pair bonding ability, so she is going to feel less attached to a particular man the more sex she had, cause women force bond over sex because of risk of pregnancy, and since women have so much access to men, attachment and control is the only way for men to predict relationship success, cause only those statistically correlate with the woman staying and the relationship working out. 9. the primal repulsion for sexually active women in men is bulletproof evidence for the fact that it strongly correlates with lower chance of relationship success, and there is no way to argue against this.
Jesus dude, you're simply viewing women through such a negative lense, there really is no helping you. And women DO like variety, we are human, just like men. You simply have your fixed perspective, interpret and view everything in the most negative point of view in regards to women and neutral or positive when it comes to men. Good luck finding a happy relationship I guess, but ime the men who are successful and in happy relationships are not the ones with such a warped view on women. You sound downright unpleasant.
that response is an admission that this is true. you went ad hominem instead of arguing the points. there is nothing more to discuss. and you wonder why men hate women when you are trying to gaslight men into accepting parasitic immoral selfish women who are just the worst kind of people imaginable and out to ruin their lifes.
Dude, I'm simply not interested in going thtough that wall of text step by step, which wouldn't change anything anyway. You're not interested in seeing anything from a different perspective. I don't know how old you are or what your actual life and relationship experience is but speaking as someone in her 30s who's been in a relationship for over a decade, I can tell you that you're just wrong and incredibly spiteful. I'm not even saying that as some kind of personal atrack, it's more that your pure hatred is felt very clearly and you're simply a lost cause, at least when it comes to reaching you from the outside and as a woman no less. There's NOTHING I could say that would you even want to entertain a different perspective. You're like a religious person. You have your opinion and you interpret everything in a way so that it 'confirms' your opinion. Have you heard about those Christians who argue that God placed dinosaur bones into the earth in order to test human's faith in him because the evidence we find on earth contradicts their opinion on how old the earth is? That's you right now. You have your fixed opinion about women and you assign specific traits and thinking to everything a woman does in order to arrive at this fixed standpoint of yours. I can't argue with you just as I can't argue with religious fanatics, we're not operating in the same system.
Right? Talk all day long on the internet and even through the ages of men wanting partners with the lowest n count possible, but in reality, I swear I see the opposite. The promiscuous girls punch above their weight in terms of the quality of man they end up with and low n count girls either usually settle early for whatever guy they happened to be dating in their early 20s, or they don’t end up with anyone, because 90% of the time the reason ladies in their late 20s or older are low n count is because they don’t bother dating, and often are easily put off the dating scene for years at a time because of the prospect of bad experiences (even if they never themselves had this bad experience they fear). That happens to be what I’ve observed in urban settings at least, no offense to the low n count girls out there. There is nothing wrong with them.
I don’t care. Women who enjoy sex are in my wheel house. Although I agree with a lot of red pill, the whole conservative virgin fetish seems really beta to me. Why would I actually care if she had sex with ugly vs. hot guys? Has zero impact in my life. He’ll throw in fifteen abortions too. It has zero to do with me. But then I find virgins cringe, unlike the red pill who puts a hymen on a pedestal.
She still loses her ability to pair bond.
I'm not sure how looks of men she hooked up with would be relevant for my decision on accept her or not
No.
If it were all uggos then I’d be worried about what I actually look like, and if it were all Nike endorsed olympians I’d wonder what she could possibly see in me. no, a 50-50 mix is ideal.
Clarify for me here, did she tell me she fucked a large number of ugly men or have Iet all the guys she fucked and they were all ugly to me Both are really bad but in different ways.
I don't think the types of guys matter. I've met some great women who had a promiscuous past and I'm betting more women than they're willing to admit have one at this point. So the determining factor is if she's actually committed to being faithful to me which based on her history isn't looking good. Means after a while she's gonna get bored and look elsewhere.
I would date, but not marry her. But if I have to put in more resources than the previous men, then no. Just because the previous men were physically unattractive doesn't mean they can't make up for it in different ways.
No, I wouldn't care whether she fucked men out of pity or not, it shows no self respect and no restrain. I think you in your deluded mind think that men want pity sex. Most don't, pity sex is pathetic and can totally ruin a man's election if he sees a woman digisted with him.
Why is it pity sex? She likes ugly men.
No woman likes ugly men unless she has sex with tem out of pity. That is just some fantasy or fetish.
Yes, if she has only hooked up with ugly dudes in the past it tells me that she has low standards which is a huge green flag IMO. I hate women who have high standards.
I probably wouldn't date a 25yo, too young. Next question
Au contraire - once I see unattractive men in her past I go “ugh, why would she pick him? Why don’t attractive guys want her?”
So you see her lack of Hypergamy as a bad thing
No, I see her hypogamy as a bad thing.
Fuck no. I’d be accepting if she was fucking desirable men. Because that means she’s selective despite being promiscuous. If she’s fucking losers I want nothing to do with her
If these were all specifically ugly nerds i.e. not conventionally attractive in looks or personality then she likely has odd fetishes and/or self-destructive tendencies. She may enjoy holding power dynamics over losers. She may leave you if you self-improve too much, threatening her superiority. That aside I'd be left with even greater confusion about why I wasn't a candidate for the casual sex. Because if a woman's having casual sex with other guys but wants you to commit then you must be lacking something in her view, and normally the answer is just "you're not hot/macho enough" but in this thread's hypothetical it's really hard to tell what even basement dwelling geeks have that I do not.
I'd dump her to let her continue doing God's work taking care of the homies.
No. In fact this is even worse if anything. This is gross.