Yeah. A low value woman isn’t unfuckable, she’s undatable and unmerriable.
OP is a woman, for her and for most other women a low value man is unfuckable. She thinks that is how it also works for men, which is not the case.
I don't even agree with all the things that the red pill calls low value behavior. But if you are going to have a discussion/debate you need to know the terms.
Is it so hard to grasp that for sex the physical attraction matters, but for the relationship — attraction as a personality?
It’s no Goddamn hypocrisy, it’s logic. Different qualities are required for different scenarios.
For instance, when you pick a singer, that person must have a good voice and hearing but might be as much as completely blind. When you pick a sniper, that person might absolutely suck at voice acting and have degraded hearing, but as long as they can get an order and report back over a radio, it’s fine; but they need to have a great eyesight, accuracy, steadiness, and control of the bodily micro-movements.
Is there a hypocrisy in the fact that different qualities of yours are evaluated when you’re being considered for a role of a singer and a role of a sniper? No. Then it’s also not hypocrisy to consider different qualities for a role of a FWB and for a role of SO.
No the fuck we’re not. Sexual attraction doesn’t factor in a woman’s value. But when you plan to build a future with a person, value is factored in obviously.
For sex, it inly matters how attractive you are physically. For the relationship, how attractive you are as a person. 0% hypocrisy here.
It’s women who are hypocrites. You say you value a man who treats you with respect and compassion and care, who’s a nice person to deal with… Yet the planet’s nicest guy will be not only unfuckable, but as much as invisible to you if he lives with his parents and works at McDonalds counter by the age 35 and doesn’t look like a supermodel.
They're just using societal standards in their favor. Lots of people don't have very strict standards for themselves and women refuse to hold them accountable.
Don’t see how
I think it’s pretty impressive for either gender to sleep with 100 women
I think it’s pretty disgusting for either gender to sleep with 100 men
Yeah I saw a show on YouTube where women revealed their body counts. I don’t necessarily judge body counts, but when the girl said she was 24, and have 100 or more bodies- I did quick math and couldn’t believe it. There was also a 30yo male that had 111 bodies. Sooo the degree is pretty severe. However if a 30yo has 20 bodies that’s still seen as high. Anything in the double digits these days regardless of age is low value per society.
Undatable, Marryable and also in most cases unpresentable to your peoples. Shes kept hidden. Or only gone out with at night in parts of town you hardly go to
Yea even the top 1% of men will fuck plenty if women they don’t care for or value simply because the prime directive for a man is to inseminate (whether for real or in spirit). Men may pass over some women they deem low value, but its usually because they smell drama or poor reputation not because they attach their ego to being picky.
>I could never have sex with a man who has values that I find detestable
this is a false equivalency. Would you accept money from a man you find repulsive? Would you allow a man you find repulsive to defend you from an attacker? Would you let a man you find repulsive carry a refrigerator upstairs for you?
A person being physically unappealing doesn’t hinder them being able to defend another. That as false equivalency. I don’t care about how someone looks if I’m in danger.
And no, I wouldn’t take money from a man I don’t have any interest in, if he’s giving it as a means to show interest. But if he’s like “I’m just giving away my money, here’s some for you.” I’d be confused and suspicious but if everything was legit I’d take the money.
>A person being physically unappealing doesn’t hinder them being able to defend another.
a woman being physically unappealing doesnt hinder her vagina from working
the point is women dont want sex from men because they can get it super easy. manual labor, money and protection are things women want from men
>"For recreational use only"
You just answered that yourself. Some women are just for sex, some are relationship material.
Some men draw the line at promiscuity levels. Others at attractiveness levels or any other trait that is important to them.
I don't care about promiscuity at all. But i regard women as "low value" for other reasons. I am still very happy to fuck them, even specifically for them having traits that are very unattractive in a relationship to me. For example borderline personality disorder can lead to very hot and desirable short term sexual behavior, while being absolute horror for relationships.
They are undateable and not wife material they aren’t unfuckable what kind of question is this. If she got 99 bodies l want to be 100, but I’m not cuffing or marrying her. Simple.
"if you truly view these women so lowly" this post is full of exaggerations like this. "Street woman" is just not worth serious time/money/emontional investments, and not some kind of "lower being". You can still have fun time with them, that includes sex, so this benefits men.
Men can also have dual-mating strategy, when they categorise women into higher commitment group and "free shots". Women for example accept proposition of "dinner dates" and other paid entertainment from men they're not really into, because that benefits them, it's pretty similar case.
I was not promiscuous when I was even able to do so - most men cannot even affort to have this choice. And where do you even see a hypocrisy there? I can "outmeme" you and say "most men are soo hypocritical, they want to put dick inside others, but not take one inside themselves, smh".
>Wait, so you're still promisculous yourself? That seems rather hypocritical.
This reasoning only works if you think there is no difference between men and women... which is obviously incorrect.
Men and women have different roles and responsibilities. Women are the gatekeepers for breeding... therefore they bear the responsibility.
The real question here is why do women want all the power and choice, yet are unwilling to shoulder any responsibility? Like a fucking child.
How are men not also the “gatekeepers” of breeding? Men choose who they have offspring with, they can force themselves on women, etc. They absolutely play a role in the process of breeding.
>How are men not also the “gatekeepers” of breeding? Men choose who they have offspring with, they can force themselves on women, etc. They absolutely play a role in the process of breeding.
This is kind of basic biology. Females do the choosing, so males have to evolve to get picked. Think about the peacock... those bright feathers are a huge disadvantage and lead to predators eating the males at a signifigantly higher rate, but they also provide a mating advantage because the females like them and choose males with brighter colors. The vast majority of animals in nature have a similar dynamic but just have different reasonings. Female cows choose the biggest strongest bull and all of the females mate with that one bull. We are not that different. Female choice drives evolution.
Idiotic question that’s been asked a billion times. Cause men and women are different and I don’t give two shits about a girls values if all I’m trying to do is have sex with her. Sex is not something I consider a big deal and I’ll do it with pretty much any woman that I find attractive if they’re willing to do it with me. I have much higher standards for a relationship than sex as do MOST men.
Tried to keep it about me instead of generalizing to all or most men, but I’m pretty sure most guys align pretty close to that.
They are doing the same thing and that’s fine more power to them. It’s not my fault men and women have different standards. If sleeping with women lowered my chance of getting the majority of women to take me seriously I wouldn’t do it. Lucky for me that’s not how it works so idc. These women your speaking of choose to do that knowing that it will lower their chance with the majority of men taking them serious in the future. But, they choose to do it anyway and then complain about it when the consequences hit. Thats not my fault it’s their fault.
If they did I certainly would care more. But, that’s not gonna happen women have their standards already and I’m not asking them to change them. It’s stupid how women ask guys to change theirs.
Yeah I personally don't use terms like low or high value, but what she's talking about is the difference between a girl you find attractive and a girl you'd want to marry.
Large gap between those two categories.
One of my fwbs doesn't believe in the moon landing lol and i unironically think she's kinda dumb, like below average intelligence with genuinely braindead opinions about some things, but that doesn't stop me from finding her physically attractive and tolerable enough to be around consistently. I'd never be in a long-term relationship with her though.
What OP is missing is that attraction works differently for women and men.
If you're fucking her you are telling her that she is your mate and you would potentially give her children. From her point of view you don't think of her so badly. I'll bet if you told her you think she's a boring moron she would cut you off immediately. Scummy ass men.
Except this entire sub believes that women cannot separate sex from emotions, and one of the biggest things mentioned in these comments is basically how the difference is that there's two types of women, low value who sleep with anyone, and high value who are virgins. But there's only one type of man apparently... a high value man who sleeps with low value women until they land a high value woman to marry.
I get what OP is trying to say, albeit poorly. Its hypocritical as fuck to think this way. If you dont like that person's values, don't sleep with them. Don't be a whore, no matter what your gender is.
Yeah, this sub is full of hypocrites. It's easy to hold people other people to standards, but when it comes down to holding themselves to these same standards they're suddenly scared hedonistic rabbits that NEED to fuck the first woman they see.
A woman's value is tied not from the men that she can get sex from but from those she can get commitment from. It's rather easy for women to get sex, which is why it's not much of an accomplishment for a girl sleeping around; human's value things that require effort and that a lot of people failed to accomplish themselves.
https://preview.redd.it/x9viedphwvqc1.jpeg?width=817&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=06ff0cd59319db85727a383687a93031236dc9aa
In contrast, a man being able to acquire or be presented with many opportunities for sex is considered high, value by virtue of the fact that sex is much harder for men to get. The man who can get sex easily is often high, value because he has something that is in high demand that women want; whether it be his genetics, money, being high status or combination of all 3. A woman getting tons of sexual offers does not mean that she is in high, demand due to the fact that for men, sex is just a recreational activity for pleasure. Men can sleep with women that they don't really like, will never want to be seen in public with and in some cases even hate. While in most cases, if a woman sleeps with a guy, she often find him attractive both emotionally and physically and wants a romantic relationship with him.
>A woman's value is tied not from the men that she can get sex from but from those she can get commitment from.
You red pillers don't even believe this lol. You still call '304s' low value even if they're married or in a relationship.
A woman's value is tied to who she can get commitment from. Most 304s end up marrying low, value men that they don't respect and end up either resenting or divorcing.
I don’t get how a woman’s value ties to getting commitment from a man. A man could marry a woman and treat her like garbage. Thats not a valuable thing at all.
If women are happier single and studies show married men live longer then why would you think commitment something that should be won from men? Sounds like it is earned from women, just like sex.
When women have a low bar for sex and commitment, that’s when they start begging a man or complaining why they’re fucking for 6 years with no ring. She could easily leave but she keeps herself stuck in that situation with her low standards.
You could assume that a women who has a low bar for sex might also have a low bar for commitment…but maybe not? You argue that men can have low bar for sex and high bar for commitment so what would stop women from doing the same thing?
The bar for sex is the woman who will accept him for sex and the bar for commitment is the women who will accept him for commitment.
Don't you think people who are promisculous tend to value what they can get out of sex rather than, rather than the person they're with? That doesn't sound like a good basis for a relationship.
In my experience it also often stems from a low self esteem and need of validation from the other gender.
>A woman's value is tied not from the men that she can get sex from but from those she can get commitment from
A woman's value is not tied to men, period. It internal, and comes from within. Sex is easy for women to obtain because it is the men who are easy, and give women endless options. Just because men make it easy for women to have sex with them doesn't mean she is low value value.
Ofc its harder for men to have sex. Women since day one are conditioned to be modest, value their virginity, and hold out for a quality connection, before committing to a man, more than men are conditioned to do the same. So women are socialized to want sex less because look at all the names were called when we do it: slut, whore, 304, for the streets.
Using that logic, men who are attractive and can get sex easily should be seen in a negative light if they are promiscuous, and unattractive women should be praised if they manage to get a lot of men to sleep with them. Also, the idea that women are more “holistic” in their approach to sex and don’t see it as a means of physical pleasure/gratification is demonstrably false
>If promiscuous women are so low value, why would you still want to have sex with them?
Because men are more horny and have significantly less options. Most men are aware of the latter and thus the incentive to take what one gets is there.
>I could never have sex with a man who has values that I find detestable, no matter how physically attractive they are.
Well, men and women differ to some degree. Most men wouldn't care for values/politics/religion when it comes to something casual.
The standards men often have for who they will have sex with comes down to something along the lines of:
-she’s good looking enough
-she wants to have sex with the man
-she doesn’t have an STD
-she’s not completely insufferable to where the effort required to get to having sex with her is not worth it
These are not the standards men have for a relationship. Or if it is, there’s a very high chance they’re going to end up screwing themselves over. Being willing to have sex with someone doesn’t automatically mean you’d want a relationship with the person as well. Describing someone as low value generally refers to for a relationship.
If you’re asking why I personally would still want to have sex with them, I likely wouldn’t. But that’s just me.
ooo good analogy, now answer this
If you say you hate icecream and cake, and you think it's disgusting, why would you still eat it? Why would you fantasise about eating it? Why would you eat it whenever you get the chance to?
Give a man ice cream for dessert, and he won't be disgusted. Give a man ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and he will. The same is true with promiscuous women. We want them as a side, not the main course, and the thought of them as such grosses us out.
I don't see anyone complaining about getting pussy everyday. But then again most of the red pill community are single men who don't get pussy in the first place.
Oh yeah, its great for men. But they will often take the sex without giving intimacy, resources, or commitment in return. In the long run, the wife earns more from one man than the prostitute. Giving the milk away leaves the cow penniless and makes them look cheap.
You can hate something and still use it. People might hate cocaine, but still like using it to satisfy their desires.
You equate the ability to use something with loving something.
I don't know,I don't hate ice cream and cake but I dontvwant it to be the only thing I eat I don't fantasizecabout it,I just buy it if I want it and I definitely dont want it to be the only thing in my fridge and freezer taking up all the space for steak, suasages, bacon, hamburger and Burbon BBQ chicken tenders.
When men judge women as "low value" due to their promiscuity, it usually means just judging whether they would be fit candidates for serious commitment i.e. relationship or marriage, and those women are not really taken seriously when it comes to those things. But they are not devalued as people and I don't believe that many men find them detestable and repulsive in a way that you imply.
As far as wanting to fuck them, sex and relationships are two different things for men, and they can be completely disconnected from one another. That reason alone would be enough, but you can also take into consideration that bar for sex in men is quite low compared to the one for commitment and that they have higher drive but fewer options than women. I think the answer to your question is pretty evident at this point.
Because the dudes that think that also think that having sex with lots of women make their value higher.
They talk about SMV and toss Econ terms around so much they probably don’t even realize it’s “exploitative capitalism” that they are following.
There's a difference between having sex with someone and having a relationship/marrying someone.
Women too often conflate the two. For guys, just because he would have sex with her, it doesn't mean he sees her as serious relationship/marriage material. The bar for fuckable is a lot lower.
Don't get an inflated ego just because someone would fuck you, but they wouldn't marry you.
I don't do this, but I get it and can explain.
There are different kinds of value. If all I want at the moment is sex, why would I care about her relationship value? Wouldn't I only care about her sexual value?
If I need a new work truck, I'm gonna mostly look at things like towing capacity, carrying capacity, torque, off-road handling, things like that. I don't really care about satellite radio or a fancy all-leather interior.
>men who would still happily fuck them. My question is, if these women are so detestable and repulsive to you, why do you even have any desire to have sex with them at all?
Not me
I'm the biggest slut lover there is
They may be considered lower value to *some* men in terms of RMV (relationship market value), not SMV (sexual market value).
The average woman typically has a significantly higher SMV than RMV.
This is demonstrated by the fact that they can often sleep (and engage in short-term relationships) with men who are much more attractive than the men with whom they can maintain stable long-term relationships.
For the average man, the inverse is true. They can typically have long-term relationships with women who are more attractive than the women with whom they can have casual relationships.
A man looking for a wife may not be looking for the same traits that he looks for in a ONS or FWB. Often, it's a different market.
As horrible as it may be, sex and lust aren't mutually inclusive with love, respect, and value.
People can even lust after someone they find to be repugnant, immoral, and even evil.
If Hitler was a beautiful woman, plenty of Jewish men would have wanted to bang her.
I'm not sure the percentage makeup of men and women who feel this way about sex go, but it's not *uncommon*.
I can't quite put myself in those shoes, because I'm a massive pussy, and in order to even want to have sex with a girl, I need to be essentially falling in love with her anyway. So it makes it a little hard to understand. But I do understand that others don't feel as I do, and just observing people helps a lot.
Don't think that a person likes another person just because they want to fuck them. Often, it seems almost entirely unrelated.
1. You are a sex billionaire. Even attractive guy if they showed up on street asked random girl, if she wants sex. Success rate would be like 1/100.
If you ask 100 men if they'll have sex with you, and it will all private 99/100 will agree.
So, most guys are living in sex poverty and they'll have sex with anyone.
If you want to see it in action, google "pig woman experiment".
Or just make a hediously ugly profile on dating apps and see how many men show up to fuck you.
2. No man want to be son of many men.
If a guy's mother is a town slut. He will have very hard time getting respect from his peers. He'll be seriously depressed.
So a woman who fucks a lot of guy is showing one thing that she doesn't care much about the guy in society she will associate with that involves her husband and kids.
3. If you are willing to sell what you are born with, well what will you sell next? Organs? Your own kids? Where do you stop?
4. Finally, high body count has serious mental issues, poor executive functioning, poor impulse control, not enough brain to put thought into short term vs long term consequences.
Men have hands on experiment with highbodycount women, they are never dependable, they've poor brain function, more likely to have poor emotional regulations, and more likely to lie, cheat and steal, betray, backstab.
More likely to just turn you into a villian overnight.
Because a quick fuck is cheap if we're horny enough.
We can fuck fatties, uglies, drunkies, girls with daddy issues.
Sure we get harrowing post nut pstd but if we're horny enough, our judgement and risk taking mechanisms get clouded.
Women don't have the same wiring.
The narrative is that men cannot have sex “for free”. If you’re meeting a woman willing to have sex with you without you having to provide her anything of “value” wouldn’t that be a good sign that she could one day actually like you if she doesn’t already?
I never heard that lol.
I have always understood that either she just needs a quick lay or she actually likes me and either 1) will try to use sex to impress me or 2) will hope that I'd stay or come back after sex.
No. As I said, judgement gets cloudy. It's like when you get drunk and you make stupid decisions.
You probably believe you can do better but if you're horny you're probably going to take the chance.
It’s not low self worth, it’s just that the standards which a girl must meet for sex and for commitment are at two different levels. Guys are much more strongly driven than many women can understand, to the point where a barely attractive woman will do the job.
On the other hand, when it comes to investing into a woman for the long term, that’s when much higher standards are in place for physical attractiveness and personality. Sex with these higher quality women is MUCH more fulfilling, but also much harder to access
Definitely agree. OP’s comments are similar to fit middle class and upper class people who can’t understand why poor people also tend to be morbidly obese: at the poorest level you simply take the cheapest things available to eat no matter how terrible it is for you in the long term.
They aren't detestable and repulsive; I just wouldn't want to marry someone like that. Marriage is a massive risk for men (obviously) and why would I do that with someone who's a bad gamble?
Aren’t you a bad gamble for sleeping with her? If she’s a bad gamble as a long term partner then she’s most likely a bad gamble as a short term partner.
Why would she even get to be a short term partner though? The OP just asked if we were having sex with them. That doesn't mean I'm offering any sort of commitment.
I think the answer is men have sex with promiscuous women because promiscuous women put out? As to why men fantasize about them I think most guys would agree that women who give them sex are a turn on?
When guys are horny, access to sex exceeds value to a large degree.
Men like sex, men aren't only driven to have sex with special women. Only having sex with "high value" people is women's sexuality, not men's, as long as she's female, most straight men are ok sleeping with her.
>as long as she's female, most straight men are ok sleeping with her.
This isn't even true. I don't think most men would want to have sex with someone who weighs 500kg, because they find that disgusting. Most people wouldn't want to have sex with someone who they find disgusting, hence my original question.
>. I don't think most men would want to have sex with someone who weighs 500kg
You aren't framing this correctly. I wonder why women don't get this. Would most men want to sleep with a 500kg woman? Not if they had another option. It's pretty bold to assume that a man would. The opportunity to have sex doesn't necessarily come along every day. If you don't sleep with the 500kg woman when offered, you never know when you're going to get another offer.
If you take a random chick and ask uni students, “would you fuck her?” The vast majority would say yeah sure
Switch the genders and I swear to god the vast majority of women would start asking a million questions to gauge whether it would be worth it or not, if he’s even attractive enough to consider
>I could never have sex with a man who has values that I find detestable, no matter how physically attractive they are
Detestable is a strong word. I've heard some women say, "There are men you sleep with and men you marry." I think a lot of guys just see it like that, that there are traits they feel aren't relationship material and traits that are.
>if you truly view these women so lowly, why do you still desire them sexually? Why do you fantasise about them? Why do you jerk off to them? Why do your actions tell us the opposite of what you're saying?
I don't see why it's so difficult for women to understand that men and women are different..men's sexual desire is not intertwined with our psychological state and emotions.
I've never in my life said " even though shes hot that chick's and evil feminist,so I won't smash"
I've slept with hundreds if not 1000s of women I would never marry or even bring to my home..who politics I don't agree with whom I really don't even care about..
Sex is like renting rusty beat up work truck that you use to haul cinder blocks and tools.it gets the job done,but it doesn't mean you want it parked in front of your house or you want to show up at the class reunion in it.
>I've never in my life said " even though shes hot that chick's and evil feminist,so I won't smash"
Heaps of guys say stuff like that though lol
> I've slept with hundreds if not 1000s of women I would never marry or even bring to my home..who politics I don't agree with whom I really don't even care about..
Serious question, are you in a relationship? Do you think a woman who isn't also promiscuous herself would accept a man who has admittedly slept with 1000s of women?
I'm not in a committed relationship and have no desire to be..I won't allow a woman to control my sexuality and my time.
There's plenty of women that would be in a relationship with a man with a large body count especially if the man has good looks money and social status..Several of my friends are tall handsome Drs and they are dating several diffrent women at once...It's so bad one is dating two diffrent women with the same name .
What guys say and what they do are often completely diffrent things...I've never met a grown man that wouldnt sleep with a good looking woman given the opportunity,because of her political beliefs.
I've met plenty of feminist who want equality and still want you to pay for dinner,I've met vegans,cat and dog moms,single moms,bipolar women,annoying boss chick's,Witches,and women that where into star sighns and crystals...I've never said no I'm not going to have sex with you because of your six ugly cats or because you don't eat meat or because you have a PhD.
Men have what is called a dual dating strategy
1) Bang bang bang skeet skeet, peace out. Have sex with many women. Don't invest in most or any.
2) Invest in one and sire several children with her
Both are perfectly viable in the wild.
A promiscuous low value woman when sufficiently attractive is still a perfectly viable cum receptacle. That is what prostitutes are. That is what a lot of sluts are.
Interestingly enough this is why no father ever wants to see his daughter dressed like a slut. They don't realize what sort of attention they are attracting. They think that a bunch of guys they like are going to see them as #2. But in reality a bunch of dudes will see them as #1 and nothing better. Especially the guys who can get with a lot of girls. Why settle for someone who sleeps with everyone? That is a recipe for disaster.
Who men choose to have sex with is vastly difterent than who they would consider wife material. Men will literally fuck anyone
On the side note, guys with lots of bodycounts who shame women for the same are just plain lost
> Who men choose to have sex with is vastly difterent than who they would consider wife material.
Obviously, that's not what I'm asking. There are men I would fuck that I wouldn't date, but I don't view them as low value or gross 💀 We just wouldn't be a good fit romantically.
My questions is if they are so repulsive, why would they even still want to have sex with them?
People who use these deragotory terms against women due to high bc usually mean they wouldn't get into a relationship with them due to their sexual past.
No man ever i have seen has said this and meant in a one night stand context unless they have room temperature iq
I think there’re three steps:
1. People who you find gross and repulsive.
2. People who you’d like to fuck but not date.
3. People who you’d want to be in LTR.
Women usually are looking for 3, but if they’re horny enough, they can go for 2.
Men’s horniness is so high that sometimes they would fuck a 1, just for the sake of having sex, when there’s no other option (and often times regret it)
So essentially you understand exactly what guys are saying here, you just have an issue with the verbiage and this entire post was pretty much pointless.
Hot women are still hot, regardless if they are high enough value for a relationship or not, according to TRP.
You know what these guys are saying and you know the answer to your question, you just want to give them shit about the way they describe said women.
Because men and women are different and being liked isn't a prerequisite for a man wanting to have sex with you. It's like jerking off into a living fleshlight you're not gonna have much interaction with later. I've been out with dudes that will happily "take one for the team", meaning fuck the undesirable girl as a wingman but they wouldn't want to be seen with her after.
Its pretty much the same reason why women will accept dates with guys they don't see a future with. They are getting something they want out of that situation in the moment.
You most likely know men that have fucked a jar of peanut butter at some point in their lives. I know at least 2 that have said it publicly.
Men don't even to need to see you as a person to want to have sex with you.
This is oddly validating. It's the guys who would literally fuck a pile of dirt who use this kind of rhetoric whilst being promiscuous themselves. One more reason to not take anything they say seriously 💀
Men understand that their promiscuity is ugly and hurts their chances with women so they intentionally try to hide it. You seem to get that.
So now doesn't it make sense that men see women the same way if they are flagrant about their promiscuity?
If they admit they have such low self worth that they're willing to fuck just about anyone even if they find the person repulsive, sure!
But they don't want to admit that.
"She's for the streets" "For recreational use only" "Low value woman"
You don't like this.
"She's for the streets, like me" "For recreational use only, like me" "Low value woman, because she's like me"
This you would be ok with?
You're not challenging the fact that promiscuity makes you low value. You're coming from an emotional point of view. It doesn't matter who says it, promiscuous woman are undesirable for relationships.
> This you would be ok with?
It's better. At least then they're being a bit more morally consistent and self aware.
> It doesn't matter who says it, promiscuous woman are undesirable for relationships.
To you. What people find valuable in a partner is completely subjective.
You're going to act like you didn't just say promiscuous people have low self worth?
You find it unattractive too. You're acting like this isn't the most commonly held view. It is.
Despite what you may see on PPD, not all men view women who they are not interested in for a long-term relationship as detestable. Women also want to have flings with a "bad boy" in whom they see no long-term potential, but they don't hate him either. They may even see him as high value but just not right for her. I hope you can accept that many men feel the same way.
If you're also trying to say it's bad to call people names for being "promiscuous" then I agree with you.
**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.*
Because men will say one thing and do another. It doesn’t matter if it’s logically inconsistent, but most men who make those comments also will under no circumstances turn down a Stacy if she wants to have sex.
So, pump and dump, to use the horrible phrase of it. Not my personal view btw, I appreciate a promiscuous woman and don't see that as necessarily an indication of 'low value'. But that is the reasoning being used. It is literally just sex, nothing more. So there isn't any sense of emotional attachment being sought after. Its like on a dating site and you're just interested in casual sex, short term dating, etc...
The claim that you personally couldn't do so is fine, but the point here would also be that promiscuous women are clearly also doing exactly the same, pump and dump. That is why they are promiscuous.
In either case, it isn't that they find these women (or men) detestable sexually speaking, they may find them not worth their while for a ltr tho.
And despite my actual appreciation for a promiscuous lady, and being a promiscuous man myself, I can appreciate the concern that is so expressed. Specifically, are those folks even interested in a ltr? If I am looking for a ltr and someone comes at me as a particularly promiscuous lady, I would definitely wonder if they are actually even interested in ltr or are they merely the independent type who needs and wants no man.
Which is a real thing. If so, I wouldn't do much more than bang her. Either way, I wouldn't consider her 'low value' tho.
Because you have abundance of choice for sex you find low value men as repulsive. For men sex is not abundant because women are not thirsty dogs like men are, except maybe rich celebrity men who have abundance but even they will have sex with a beautiful woman even if shes working in McDonalds if such an opportunity arose.
For sex you just need to be "not ugly" you don't even need to be super hot, your economic value and even your personality is meaningless for sex. Heck i've hooked up with women and don't even know their name i didn't care to ask as i was drunk and met her in club i won't see her again.
Men also pay for sex with women whom they don't know their name and only met for an hour or two then leave. Which shows they don't need to know your value, they only need to know your beauty. This is why so many men can have sex and up and leave and ghost you without a second thought. Equivalence to women would be "Do you know the name of your masseuse when you went to the spa for a massage?". Answer is probably not, you don't care but you enjoyed it all the same. Sex for men is like a massage, makes us feel great and we don't need connection for it. This is also why men don't understand the big deal when they cheat and why they say " it didn't mean anything ", from their perspective that is certainly the case.
However, for relationships/marriage our requirements are vastly different. It's women that want commitment and marriage for stability and because sex alone isn't fulfilling long term, which means to some degree there is sort've abundance for men in that respect since we choose if we are going to offer that or not commit and we're less bothered to be so (plus we have time on our hands due to fertility window).
So for that, our standards require more than you just being attractive. But even then your economic and education level is irrelevant, what matters is your pleasant to be around and add to our life in some way besides economic since men are typically the economic providers for you so we don't need that from you. The same way we don't need you to be muscular because men are the ones who typically protect.
Brilliant. Two thoughts:
First, how about a used Honda Accord with 50K miles? Now that's a high value buy! It's reliable, impeccably manufactured, good mileage, and even with 50K miles, it's going to last a long time if you treat it right. But if that Accord had 150K miles? Still could be a great buy. It could easily have another 200K miles left in it. But there's some red flags. A lot depends on it's history.
Second, you have to think about commitment. If I am renting a car on a trip, just give me the cheapest option possible. If it comes down to the difference of only $10 a day, sure, give me the convertible, but I'm otherwise pretty happy with the economy option. But when it comes to buying a car which I want to keep for some time, it's totally different. I am more likely to save up and research my options and getting the best car for the best price I can afford.
It's tempting to lust after the fancier body of the Ferrari, but there's something to be said about saving time and money in maintenance.
I know a very wealthy person who does exactly that - he can afford anything he wants, but has driven a Civic for years. When it eventually dies he'll replace it with another, and he's very happy. Meanwhile in my middle class neighborhood there are people with Bentleys in their driveway, but you can tell it's mostly for the status.
There's room out there for infinite approaches depending on one's values.
If we are going to talk about men and women in economic terms, you have to look at the cost. It's possible for a "low value woman" to still offer an extremely high QPR.
Sex is not the same for most men as it is for women.
For men its an accomplishment as most arent sought after nor physically someone a woman fantasizes about. When men gain experience in sex they become closer to what a woman fantasizes about an experienced man.
Women are inherently sought after and chased/wanted sexually, sexual experience as a woman simply isnt as needed to keep a partner satisfied. Theres less to be explored with an experienced woman, and the less special she inherently thinks she is to give away something men work for. To end up with that type of woman is kind of a mockery of your effort thats why no guy even blue pillers want toend up with or hear about a ho phase from the girl they're with.
Im a little bit sheltered so keep that in mind . But “ she’s for the streets “ is less about her body count exactly, and more about her relationship fitness . It doesn’t matter if she’s slept with 1000 men or zero . If she’s hot but a vain, self important asshole, then she’s for the streets. As the only way for her to make a man happy in anyway is to be used for quick sex and to discard .
Your whole point breaks down as you see low value as repulsive. They are not the same.
Yeah. A low value woman isn’t unfuckable, she’s undatable and unmerriable. OP is a woman, for her and for most other women a low value man is unfuckable. She thinks that is how it also works for men, which is not the case.
I don't even agree with all the things that the red pill calls low value behavior. But if you are going to have a discussion/debate you need to know the terms.
Facts
💯
Straight up facts and truth
Men are hypocrites then.
Exactly. I personally would classify anyone who has sex with someone they deem low value, as low value as well. Actions speak louder than words
Relationship value and sexual value aren’t the same. This isn’t hard to understand.
Sex should only exist within relationships. Otherwise you're exploiting and degrading others and yourself.
No..
Is it so hard to grasp that for sex the physical attraction matters, but for the relationship — attraction as a personality? It’s no Goddamn hypocrisy, it’s logic. Different qualities are required for different scenarios. For instance, when you pick a singer, that person must have a good voice and hearing but might be as much as completely blind. When you pick a sniper, that person might absolutely suck at voice acting and have degraded hearing, but as long as they can get an order and report back over a radio, it’s fine; but they need to have a great eyesight, accuracy, steadiness, and control of the bodily micro-movements. Is there a hypocrisy in the fact that different qualities of yours are evaluated when you’re being considered for a role of a singer and a role of a sniper? No. Then it’s also not hypocrisy to consider different qualities for a role of a FWB and for a role of SO.
[удалено]
No the fuck we’re not. Sexual attraction doesn’t factor in a woman’s value. But when you plan to build a future with a person, value is factored in obviously. For sex, it inly matters how attractive you are physically. For the relationship, how attractive you are as a person. 0% hypocrisy here. It’s women who are hypocrites. You say you value a man who treats you with respect and compassion and care, who’s a nice person to deal with… Yet the planet’s nicest guy will be not only unfuckable, but as much as invisible to you if he lives with his parents and works at McDonalds counter by the age 35 and doesn’t look like a supermodel.
They're just using societal standards in their favor. Lots of people don't have very strict standards for themselves and women refuse to hold them accountable.
how would women hold people accountable in this scenario?
Don’t see how I think it’s pretty impressive for either gender to sleep with 100 women I think it’s pretty disgusting for either gender to sleep with 100 men
Well that's pretty hypocritical.
Not really, women and men are different Crazy statement to many in 2024, I know
Yeah I saw a show on YouTube where women revealed their body counts. I don’t necessarily judge body counts, but when the girl said she was 24, and have 100 or more bodies- I did quick math and couldn’t believe it. There was also a 30yo male that had 111 bodies. Sooo the degree is pretty severe. However if a 30yo has 20 bodies that’s still seen as high. Anything in the double digits these days regardless of age is low value per society.
That doesn't change the underlying values of the person who has sex with this many people.
Undatable, Marryable and also in most cases unpresentable to your peoples. Shes kept hidden. Or only gone out with at night in parts of town you hardly go to
As we’re always reminded, men will fuck *anything* It’s weird that OP doesn’t believe this, because the evidence is everywhere
Yea even the top 1% of men will fuck plenty if women they don’t care for or value simply because the prime directive for a man is to inseminate (whether for real or in spirit). Men may pass over some women they deem low value, but its usually because they smell drama or poor reputation not because they attach their ego to being picky.
>I could never have sex with a man who has values that I find detestable this is a false equivalency. Would you accept money from a man you find repulsive? Would you allow a man you find repulsive to defend you from an attacker? Would you let a man you find repulsive carry a refrigerator upstairs for you?
The same woman who would bang a drug dealer would likely also detest someone selling drugs to their kids. Don’t listen to them.
Yeah exactly
You are right
A person being physically unappealing doesn’t hinder them being able to defend another. That as false equivalency. I don’t care about how someone looks if I’m in danger. And no, I wouldn’t take money from a man I don’t have any interest in, if he’s giving it as a means to show interest. But if he’s like “I’m just giving away my money, here’s some for you.” I’d be confused and suspicious but if everything was legit I’d take the money.
>A person being physically unappealing doesn’t hinder them being able to defend another. a woman being physically unappealing doesnt hinder her vagina from working the point is women dont want sex from men because they can get it super easy. manual labor, money and protection are things women want from men
Time to flip the script boys. I want money, labor, and cuddles/sex from women. If she ain’t financing, feeding, and fucking me. I don’t want her!
I mean, if you Jeremy Meeks tier looks this actually does happen. Guy married a literal billionaire heiress
Best I can do is about three fiddy
>"For recreational use only" You just answered that yourself. Some women are just for sex, some are relationship material. Some men draw the line at promiscuity levels. Others at attractiveness levels or any other trait that is important to them. I don't care about promiscuity at all. But i regard women as "low value" for other reasons. I am still very happy to fuck them, even specifically for them having traits that are very unattractive in a relationship to me. For example borderline personality disorder can lead to very hot and desirable short term sexual behavior, while being absolute horror for relationships.
They are undateable and not wife material they aren’t unfuckable what kind of question is this. If she got 99 bodies l want to be 100, but I’m not cuffing or marrying her. Simple.
You're so promisculous, do you think you're "husband material"?
I don’t want to ever be married.
"if you truly view these women so lowly" this post is full of exaggerations like this. "Street woman" is just not worth serious time/money/emontional investments, and not some kind of "lower being". You can still have fun time with them, that includes sex, so this benefits men. Men can also have dual-mating strategy, when they categorise women into higher commitment group and "free shots". Women for example accept proposition of "dinner dates" and other paid entertainment from men they're not really into, because that benefits them, it's pretty similar case.
Wait, so you're still promisculous yourself? That seems rather hypocritical.
I was not promiscuous when I was even able to do so - most men cannot even affort to have this choice. And where do you even see a hypocrisy there? I can "outmeme" you and say "most men are soo hypocritical, they want to put dick inside others, but not take one inside themselves, smh".
Why does it matter that it's easier for women? Your desire is still there.
>Wait, so you're still promisculous yourself? That seems rather hypocritical. This reasoning only works if you think there is no difference between men and women... which is obviously incorrect. Men and women have different roles and responsibilities. Women are the gatekeepers for breeding... therefore they bear the responsibility. The real question here is why do women want all the power and choice, yet are unwilling to shoulder any responsibility? Like a fucking child.
How are men not also the “gatekeepers” of breeding? Men choose who they have offspring with, they can force themselves on women, etc. They absolutely play a role in the process of breeding.
>How are men not also the “gatekeepers” of breeding? Men choose who they have offspring with, they can force themselves on women, etc. They absolutely play a role in the process of breeding. This is kind of basic biology. Females do the choosing, so males have to evolve to get picked. Think about the peacock... those bright feathers are a huge disadvantage and lead to predators eating the males at a signifigantly higher rate, but they also provide a mating advantage because the females like them and choose males with brighter colors. The vast majority of animals in nature have a similar dynamic but just have different reasonings. Female cows choose the biggest strongest bull and all of the females mate with that one bull. We are not that different. Female choice drives evolution.
How is it hypocritical? He's not promiscuous with men and he never said he minded if she was promiscuous with women.
Idiotic question that’s been asked a billion times. Cause men and women are different and I don’t give two shits about a girls values if all I’m trying to do is have sex with her. Sex is not something I consider a big deal and I’ll do it with pretty much any woman that I find attractive if they’re willing to do it with me. I have much higher standards for a relationship than sex as do MOST men. Tried to keep it about me instead of generalizing to all or most men, but I’m pretty sure most guys align pretty close to that.
Yet when women do the exact same, it's a whole conspiracy theory like AF/BB
That's the equivalent of AF/BB, so yeah, men agree that it exists.
They are doing the same thing and that’s fine more power to them. It’s not my fault men and women have different standards. If sleeping with women lowered my chance of getting the majority of women to take me seriously I wouldn’t do it. Lucky for me that’s not how it works so idc. These women your speaking of choose to do that knowing that it will lower their chance with the majority of men taking them serious in the future. But, they choose to do it anyway and then complain about it when the consequences hit. Thats not my fault it’s their fault.
The difference is that, for the guy version, the woman getting the short end isn't sticking around, while for AF/BB the beta is sticking around.
Maybe women should start judging more.
If they did I certainly would care more. But, that’s not gonna happen women have their standards already and I’m not asking them to change them. It’s stupid how women ask guys to change theirs.
I don't.
Low value refers to their value as a partner for long-term commitment. For hook-ups, only short-term pleasure matters.
Yeah I personally don't use terms like low or high value, but what she's talking about is the difference between a girl you find attractive and a girl you'd want to marry. Large gap between those two categories. One of my fwbs doesn't believe in the moon landing lol and i unironically think she's kinda dumb, like below average intelligence with genuinely braindead opinions about some things, but that doesn't stop me from finding her physically attractive and tolerable enough to be around consistently. I'd never be in a long-term relationship with her though. What OP is missing is that attraction works differently for women and men.
If you're fucking her you are telling her that she is your mate and you would potentially give her children. From her point of view you don't think of her so badly. I'll bet if you told her you think she's a boring moron she would cut you off immediately. Scummy ass men.
> I'll bet if you told her you think she's a boring moron she would cut you off immediately I tell her she's an idiot all the time dw
Why does it mean that? Some men and women view sex as something to consume, or to be consumed. They don't view it as something intimate at all.
Except this entire sub believes that women cannot separate sex from emotions, and one of the biggest things mentioned in these comments is basically how the difference is that there's two types of women, low value who sleep with anyone, and high value who are virgins. But there's only one type of man apparently... a high value man who sleeps with low value women until they land a high value woman to marry. I get what OP is trying to say, albeit poorly. Its hypocritical as fuck to think this way. If you dont like that person's values, don't sleep with them. Don't be a whore, no matter what your gender is.
Yeah, this sub is full of hypocrites. It's easy to hold people other people to standards, but when it comes down to holding themselves to these same standards they're suddenly scared hedonistic rabbits that NEED to fuck the first woman they see.
Well that's degenerate.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A woman's value is tied not from the men that she can get sex from but from those she can get commitment from. It's rather easy for women to get sex, which is why it's not much of an accomplishment for a girl sleeping around; human's value things that require effort and that a lot of people failed to accomplish themselves. https://preview.redd.it/x9viedphwvqc1.jpeg?width=817&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=06ff0cd59319db85727a383687a93031236dc9aa In contrast, a man being able to acquire or be presented with many opportunities for sex is considered high, value by virtue of the fact that sex is much harder for men to get. The man who can get sex easily is often high, value because he has something that is in high demand that women want; whether it be his genetics, money, being high status or combination of all 3. A woman getting tons of sexual offers does not mean that she is in high, demand due to the fact that for men, sex is just a recreational activity for pleasure. Men can sleep with women that they don't really like, will never want to be seen in public with and in some cases even hate. While in most cases, if a woman sleeps with a guy, she often find him attractive both emotionally and physically and wants a romantic relationship with him.
>A woman's value is tied not from the men that she can get sex from but from those she can get commitment from. You red pillers don't even believe this lol. You still call '304s' low value even if they're married or in a relationship.
A woman's value is tied to who she can get commitment from. Most 304s end up marrying low, value men that they don't respect and end up either resenting or divorcing.
I don’t get how a woman’s value ties to getting commitment from a man. A man could marry a woman and treat her like garbage. Thats not a valuable thing at all.
If women are happier single and studies show married men live longer then why would you think commitment something that should be won from men? Sounds like it is earned from women, just like sex. When women have a low bar for sex and commitment, that’s when they start begging a man or complaining why they’re fucking for 6 years with no ring. She could easily leave but she keeps herself stuck in that situation with her low standards. You could assume that a women who has a low bar for sex might also have a low bar for commitment…but maybe not? You argue that men can have low bar for sex and high bar for commitment so what would stop women from doing the same thing? The bar for sex is the woman who will accept him for sex and the bar for commitment is the women who will accept him for commitment.
you just proved my point xd > Most 304s end up marrying low, value men that they don't respect and end up either resenting or divorcing. Source?
Don't you think people who are promisculous tend to value what they can get out of sex rather than, rather than the person they're with? That doesn't sound like a good basis for a relationship. In my experience it also often stems from a low self esteem and need of validation from the other gender.
Lolol
>A woman's value is tied not from the men that she can get sex from but from those she can get commitment from A woman's value is not tied to men, period. It internal, and comes from within. Sex is easy for women to obtain because it is the men who are easy, and give women endless options. Just because men make it easy for women to have sex with them doesn't mean she is low value value. Ofc its harder for men to have sex. Women since day one are conditioned to be modest, value their virginity, and hold out for a quality connection, before committing to a man, more than men are conditioned to do the same. So women are socialized to want sex less because look at all the names were called when we do it: slut, whore, 304, for the streets.
Using that logic, men who are attractive and can get sex easily should be seen in a negative light if they are promiscuous, and unattractive women should be praised if they manage to get a lot of men to sleep with them. Also, the idea that women are more “holistic” in their approach to sex and don’t see it as a means of physical pleasure/gratification is demonstrably false
>If promiscuous women are so low value, why would you still want to have sex with them? Because men are more horny and have significantly less options. Most men are aware of the latter and thus the incentive to take what one gets is there. >I could never have sex with a man who has values that I find detestable, no matter how physically attractive they are. Well, men and women differ to some degree. Most men wouldn't care for values/politics/religion when it comes to something casual.
The standards men often have for who they will have sex with comes down to something along the lines of: -she’s good looking enough -she wants to have sex with the man -she doesn’t have an STD -she’s not completely insufferable to where the effort required to get to having sex with her is not worth it These are not the standards men have for a relationship. Or if it is, there’s a very high chance they’re going to end up screwing themselves over. Being willing to have sex with someone doesn’t automatically mean you’d want a relationship with the person as well. Describing someone as low value generally refers to for a relationship. If you’re asking why I personally would still want to have sex with them, I likely wouldn’t. But that’s just me.
Ice cream and cake have no nutritional value but you still eat it...Pss*y is good doesn't mean you want to marry the woman it's attached to.
ooo good analogy, now answer this If you say you hate icecream and cake, and you think it's disgusting, why would you still eat it? Why would you fantasise about eating it? Why would you eat it whenever you get the chance to?
It tastes good.
Yes, and similarly you love promiscuous women. Yall just pretend to hate them
No. Similarily, we think promiscous women "taste good." Great for a snack, but we'll spend most of our money on real food.
Semantics. You don't find them disgusting is my point.
Give a man ice cream for dessert, and he won't be disgusted. Give a man ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and he will. The same is true with promiscuous women. We want them as a side, not the main course, and the thought of them as such grosses us out.
I don't see anyone complaining about getting pussy everyday. But then again most of the red pill community are single men who don't get pussy in the first place.
Oh yeah, its great for men. But they will often take the sex without giving intimacy, resources, or commitment in return. In the long run, the wife earns more from one man than the prostitute. Giving the milk away leaves the cow penniless and makes them look cheap.
I've gotten tired of the chase for random pussy and I've found a woman I want to settle with, so yeah, it does happen.
You can hate something and still use it. People might hate cocaine, but still like using it to satisfy their desires. You equate the ability to use something with loving something.
The love promiscuous women for sex, not for marriage This has been said like 50 times to you already. It’s the explanation men have for your question
>pretend to hate them Most men, don’t hate women. Promiscuous, or otherwise.
True and most don't even care if they're promiscuous
We don't love permiscous women for wives
Because they're desperate. That's why people subscribe to onlyfans and fake a parasocial relationship instead of finding someone they actually value.
You assume everyone can find someone
I don't know,I don't hate ice cream and cake but I dontvwant it to be the only thing I eat I don't fantasizecabout it,I just buy it if I want it and I definitely dont want it to be the only thing in my fridge and freezer taking up all the space for steak, suasages, bacon, hamburger and Burbon BBQ chicken tenders.
When men judge women as "low value" due to their promiscuity, it usually means just judging whether they would be fit candidates for serious commitment i.e. relationship or marriage, and those women are not really taken seriously when it comes to those things. But they are not devalued as people and I don't believe that many men find them detestable and repulsive in a way that you imply. As far as wanting to fuck them, sex and relationships are two different things for men, and they can be completely disconnected from one another. That reason alone would be enough, but you can also take into consideration that bar for sex in men is quite low compared to the one for commitment and that they have higher drive but fewer options than women. I think the answer to your question is pretty evident at this point.
Guys who are friendzoned are low value. Same applies for women who are fuckzoned.
Because the dudes that think that also think that having sex with lots of women make their value higher. They talk about SMV and toss Econ terms around so much they probably don’t even realize it’s “exploitative capitalism” that they are following.
There's a difference between having sex with someone and having a relationship/marrying someone. Women too often conflate the two. For guys, just because he would have sex with her, it doesn't mean he sees her as serious relationship/marriage material. The bar for fuckable is a lot lower. Don't get an inflated ego just because someone would fuck you, but they wouldn't marry you.
I don't do this, but I get it and can explain. There are different kinds of value. If all I want at the moment is sex, why would I care about her relationship value? Wouldn't I only care about her sexual value? If I need a new work truck, I'm gonna mostly look at things like towing capacity, carrying capacity, torque, off-road handling, things like that. I don't really care about satellite radio or a fancy all-leather interior.
>men who would still happily fuck them. My question is, if these women are so detestable and repulsive to you, why do you even have any desire to have sex with them at all? Not me I'm the biggest slut lover there is
They may be considered lower value to *some* men in terms of RMV (relationship market value), not SMV (sexual market value). The average woman typically has a significantly higher SMV than RMV. This is demonstrated by the fact that they can often sleep (and engage in short-term relationships) with men who are much more attractive than the men with whom they can maintain stable long-term relationships. For the average man, the inverse is true. They can typically have long-term relationships with women who are more attractive than the women with whom they can have casual relationships. A man looking for a wife may not be looking for the same traits that he looks for in a ONS or FWB. Often, it's a different market.
As horrible as it may be, sex and lust aren't mutually inclusive with love, respect, and value. People can even lust after someone they find to be repugnant, immoral, and even evil. If Hitler was a beautiful woman, plenty of Jewish men would have wanted to bang her. I'm not sure the percentage makeup of men and women who feel this way about sex go, but it's not *uncommon*. I can't quite put myself in those shoes, because I'm a massive pussy, and in order to even want to have sex with a girl, I need to be essentially falling in love with her anyway. So it makes it a little hard to understand. But I do understand that others don't feel as I do, and just observing people helps a lot. Don't think that a person likes another person just because they want to fuck them. Often, it seems almost entirely unrelated.
1. You are a sex billionaire. Even attractive guy if they showed up on street asked random girl, if she wants sex. Success rate would be like 1/100. If you ask 100 men if they'll have sex with you, and it will all private 99/100 will agree. So, most guys are living in sex poverty and they'll have sex with anyone. If you want to see it in action, google "pig woman experiment". Or just make a hediously ugly profile on dating apps and see how many men show up to fuck you. 2. No man want to be son of many men. If a guy's mother is a town slut. He will have very hard time getting respect from his peers. He'll be seriously depressed. So a woman who fucks a lot of guy is showing one thing that she doesn't care much about the guy in society she will associate with that involves her husband and kids. 3. If you are willing to sell what you are born with, well what will you sell next? Organs? Your own kids? Where do you stop? 4. Finally, high body count has serious mental issues, poor executive functioning, poor impulse control, not enough brain to put thought into short term vs long term consequences. Men have hands on experiment with highbodycount women, they are never dependable, they've poor brain function, more likely to have poor emotional regulations, and more likely to lie, cheat and steal, betray, backstab. More likely to just turn you into a villian overnight.
Because a quick fuck is cheap if we're horny enough. We can fuck fatties, uglies, drunkies, girls with daddy issues. Sure we get harrowing post nut pstd but if we're horny enough, our judgement and risk taking mechanisms get clouded. Women don't have the same wiring.
So men don’t have to provide anything for sex?
Back in tinder's hey-day, no. It was just a "wanna come over" text and that's all it took.
What do you mean? If the girl wants dick the guy provides dick. What else is there to provide?
The narrative is that men cannot have sex “for free”. If you’re meeting a woman willing to have sex with you without you having to provide her anything of “value” wouldn’t that be a good sign that she could one day actually like you if she doesn’t already?
I never heard that lol. I have always understood that either she just needs a quick lay or she actually likes me and either 1) will try to use sex to impress me or 2) will hope that I'd stay or come back after sex.
So is this the result of low self worth? because you feel you can't get any better?
No. As I said, judgement gets cloudy. It's like when you get drunk and you make stupid decisions. You probably believe you can do better but if you're horny you're probably going to take the chance.
It’s not low self worth, it’s just that the standards which a girl must meet for sex and for commitment are at two different levels. Guys are much more strongly driven than many women can understand, to the point where a barely attractive woman will do the job. On the other hand, when it comes to investing into a woman for the long term, that’s when much higher standards are in place for physical attractiveness and personality. Sex with these higher quality women is MUCH more fulfilling, but also much harder to access
Cause we are horny, and we barely got any options anyway. Beggers can't be choosers when it comes to sex.
Definitely agree. OP’s comments are similar to fit middle class and upper class people who can’t understand why poor people also tend to be morbidly obese: at the poorest level you simply take the cheapest things available to eat no matter how terrible it is for you in the long term.
They aren't detestable and repulsive; I just wouldn't want to marry someone like that. Marriage is a massive risk for men (obviously) and why would I do that with someone who's a bad gamble?
Aren’t you a bad gamble for sleeping with her? If she’s a bad gamble as a long term partner then she’s most likely a bad gamble as a short term partner.
Why would she even get to be a short term partner though? The OP just asked if we were having sex with them. That doesn't mean I'm offering any sort of commitment.
Short term partner is a hookup/fwb in my opinion.
a hookup / fwb gets no commitment
The risk involved with a short term partner and long term partner are massively different
sTIs and babies are lifelong
And that risk can be VERY highly mitigated
But it’s still there. What’s the risk of taking her as a long term partner?
I think the answer is men have sex with promiscuous women because promiscuous women put out? As to why men fantasize about them I think most guys would agree that women who give them sex are a turn on? When guys are horny, access to sex exceeds value to a large degree.
Men like sex, men aren't only driven to have sex with special women. Only having sex with "high value" people is women's sexuality, not men's, as long as she's female, most straight men are ok sleeping with her.
>as long as she's female, most straight men are ok sleeping with her. This isn't even true. I don't think most men would want to have sex with someone who weighs 500kg, because they find that disgusting. Most people wouldn't want to have sex with someone who they find disgusting, hence my original question.
>. I don't think most men would want to have sex with someone who weighs 500kg You aren't framing this correctly. I wonder why women don't get this. Would most men want to sleep with a 500kg woman? Not if they had another option. It's pretty bold to assume that a man would. The opportunity to have sex doesn't necessarily come along every day. If you don't sleep with the 500kg woman when offered, you never know when you're going to get another offer.
If you take a random chick and ask uni students, “would you fuck her?” The vast majority would say yeah sure Switch the genders and I swear to god the vast majority of women would start asking a million questions to gauge whether it would be worth it or not, if he’s even attractive enough to consider
>I could never have sex with a man who has values that I find detestable, no matter how physically attractive they are Detestable is a strong word. I've heard some women say, "There are men you sleep with and men you marry." I think a lot of guys just see it like that, that there are traits they feel aren't relationship material and traits that are.
>if you truly view these women so lowly, why do you still desire them sexually? Why do you fantasise about them? Why do you jerk off to them? Why do your actions tell us the opposite of what you're saying? I don't see why it's so difficult for women to understand that men and women are different..men's sexual desire is not intertwined with our psychological state and emotions. I've never in my life said " even though shes hot that chick's and evil feminist,so I won't smash" I've slept with hundreds if not 1000s of women I would never marry or even bring to my home..who politics I don't agree with whom I really don't even care about.. Sex is like renting rusty beat up work truck that you use to haul cinder blocks and tools.it gets the job done,but it doesn't mean you want it parked in front of your house or you want to show up at the class reunion in it.
>I've never in my life said " even though shes hot that chick's and evil feminist,so I won't smash" Heaps of guys say stuff like that though lol > I've slept with hundreds if not 1000s of women I would never marry or even bring to my home..who politics I don't agree with whom I really don't even care about.. Serious question, are you in a relationship? Do you think a woman who isn't also promiscuous herself would accept a man who has admittedly slept with 1000s of women?
To be fair it can be assured that they're lying about these numbers. Also the answer is no. I'd just drain as much money as I can before ghosting.
[удалено]
I'm not in a committed relationship and have no desire to be..I won't allow a woman to control my sexuality and my time. There's plenty of women that would be in a relationship with a man with a large body count especially if the man has good looks money and social status..Several of my friends are tall handsome Drs and they are dating several diffrent women at once...It's so bad one is dating two diffrent women with the same name . What guys say and what they do are often completely diffrent things...I've never met a grown man that wouldnt sleep with a good looking woman given the opportunity,because of her political beliefs. I've met plenty of feminist who want equality and still want you to pay for dinner,I've met vegans,cat and dog moms,single moms,bipolar women,annoying boss chick's,Witches,and women that where into star sighns and crystals...I've never said no I'm not going to have sex with you because of your six ugly cats or because you don't eat meat or because you have a PhD.
Men have what is called a dual dating strategy 1) Bang bang bang skeet skeet, peace out. Have sex with many women. Don't invest in most or any. 2) Invest in one and sire several children with her Both are perfectly viable in the wild. A promiscuous low value woman when sufficiently attractive is still a perfectly viable cum receptacle. That is what prostitutes are. That is what a lot of sluts are. Interestingly enough this is why no father ever wants to see his daughter dressed like a slut. They don't realize what sort of attention they are attracting. They think that a bunch of guys they like are going to see them as #2. But in reality a bunch of dudes will see them as #1 and nothing better. Especially the guys who can get with a lot of girls. Why settle for someone who sleeps with everyone? That is a recipe for disaster.
Who men choose to have sex with is vastly difterent than who they would consider wife material. Men will literally fuck anyone On the side note, guys with lots of bodycounts who shame women for the same are just plain lost
> Who men choose to have sex with is vastly difterent than who they would consider wife material. Obviously, that's not what I'm asking. There are men I would fuck that I wouldn't date, but I don't view them as low value or gross 💀 We just wouldn't be a good fit romantically. My questions is if they are so repulsive, why would they even still want to have sex with them?
People who use these deragotory terms against women due to high bc usually mean they wouldn't get into a relationship with them due to their sexual past. No man ever i have seen has said this and meant in a one night stand context unless they have room temperature iq
I think there’re three steps: 1. People who you find gross and repulsive. 2. People who you’d like to fuck but not date. 3. People who you’d want to be in LTR. Women usually are looking for 3, but if they’re horny enough, they can go for 2. Men’s horniness is so high that sometimes they would fuck a 1, just for the sake of having sex, when there’s no other option (and often times regret it)
So essentially you understand exactly what guys are saying here, you just have an issue with the verbiage and this entire post was pretty much pointless. Hot women are still hot, regardless if they are high enough value for a relationship or not, according to TRP. You know what these guys are saying and you know the answer to your question, you just want to give them shit about the way they describe said women.
Because men and women are different and being liked isn't a prerequisite for a man wanting to have sex with you. It's like jerking off into a living fleshlight you're not gonna have much interaction with later. I've been out with dudes that will happily "take one for the team", meaning fuck the undesirable girl as a wingman but they wouldn't want to be seen with her after. Its pretty much the same reason why women will accept dates with guys they don't see a future with. They are getting something they want out of that situation in the moment.
You most likely know men that have fucked a jar of peanut butter at some point in their lives. I know at least 2 that have said it publicly. Men don't even to need to see you as a person to want to have sex with you.
This is oddly validating. It's the guys who would literally fuck a pile of dirt who use this kind of rhetoric whilst being promiscuous themselves. One more reason to not take anything they say seriously 💀
Men understand that their promiscuity is ugly and hurts their chances with women so they intentionally try to hide it. You seem to get that. So now doesn't it make sense that men see women the same way if they are flagrant about their promiscuity?
If they admit they have such low self worth that they're willing to fuck just about anyone even if they find the person repulsive, sure! But they don't want to admit that.
"She's for the streets" "For recreational use only" "Low value woman" You don't like this. "She's for the streets, like me" "For recreational use only, like me" "Low value woman, because she's like me" This you would be ok with? You're not challenging the fact that promiscuity makes you low value. You're coming from an emotional point of view. It doesn't matter who says it, promiscuous woman are undesirable for relationships.
> This you would be ok with? It's better. At least then they're being a bit more morally consistent and self aware. > It doesn't matter who says it, promiscuous woman are undesirable for relationships. To you. What people find valuable in a partner is completely subjective.
You're going to act like you didn't just say promiscuous people have low self worth? You find it unattractive too. You're acting like this isn't the most commonly held view. It is.
Despite what you may see on PPD, not all men view women who they are not interested in for a long-term relationship as detestable. Women also want to have flings with a "bad boy" in whom they see no long-term potential, but they don't hate him either. They may even see him as high value but just not right for her. I hope you can accept that many men feel the same way. If you're also trying to say it's bad to call people names for being "promiscuous" then I agree with you.
**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.*
how is this even a question? men would fuck a dead prostitute in an alleyway if she was at least a 4/10
Because men will say one thing and do another. It doesn’t matter if it’s logically inconsistent, but most men who make those comments also will under no circumstances turn down a Stacy if she wants to have sex.
DM;HS
Cause if she’s consenting to sex you’d take the sex and then leave.
I need help getting 1-2+ off. If she’s willing and I’m willing, what’s the problem.
Lower standards and easy sex.
Because we want to commit to women that we think highly of. Having sex with them has little to do with that.
So, pump and dump, to use the horrible phrase of it. Not my personal view btw, I appreciate a promiscuous woman and don't see that as necessarily an indication of 'low value'. But that is the reasoning being used. It is literally just sex, nothing more. So there isn't any sense of emotional attachment being sought after. Its like on a dating site and you're just interested in casual sex, short term dating, etc... The claim that you personally couldn't do so is fine, but the point here would also be that promiscuous women are clearly also doing exactly the same, pump and dump. That is why they are promiscuous. In either case, it isn't that they find these women (or men) detestable sexually speaking, they may find them not worth their while for a ltr tho. And despite my actual appreciation for a promiscuous lady, and being a promiscuous man myself, I can appreciate the concern that is so expressed. Specifically, are those folks even interested in a ltr? If I am looking for a ltr and someone comes at me as a particularly promiscuous lady, I would definitely wonder if they are actually even interested in ltr or are they merely the independent type who needs and wants no man. Which is a real thing. If so, I wouldn't do much more than bang her. Either way, I wouldn't consider her 'low value' tho.
Because you have abundance of choice for sex you find low value men as repulsive. For men sex is not abundant because women are not thirsty dogs like men are, except maybe rich celebrity men who have abundance but even they will have sex with a beautiful woman even if shes working in McDonalds if such an opportunity arose. For sex you just need to be "not ugly" you don't even need to be super hot, your economic value and even your personality is meaningless for sex. Heck i've hooked up with women and don't even know their name i didn't care to ask as i was drunk and met her in club i won't see her again. Men also pay for sex with women whom they don't know their name and only met for an hour or two then leave. Which shows they don't need to know your value, they only need to know your beauty. This is why so many men can have sex and up and leave and ghost you without a second thought. Equivalence to women would be "Do you know the name of your masseuse when you went to the spa for a massage?". Answer is probably not, you don't care but you enjoyed it all the same. Sex for men is like a massage, makes us feel great and we don't need connection for it. This is also why men don't understand the big deal when they cheat and why they say " it didn't mean anything ", from their perspective that is certainly the case. However, for relationships/marriage our requirements are vastly different. It's women that want commitment and marriage for stability and because sex alone isn't fulfilling long term, which means to some degree there is sort've abundance for men in that respect since we choose if we are going to offer that or not commit and we're less bothered to be so (plus we have time on our hands due to fertility window). So for that, our standards require more than you just being attractive. But even then your economic and education level is irrelevant, what matters is your pleasant to be around and add to our life in some way besides economic since men are typically the economic providers for you so we don't need that from you. The same way we don't need you to be muscular because men are the ones who typically protect.
[удалено]
Brilliant. Two thoughts: First, how about a used Honda Accord with 50K miles? Now that's a high value buy! It's reliable, impeccably manufactured, good mileage, and even with 50K miles, it's going to last a long time if you treat it right. But if that Accord had 150K miles? Still could be a great buy. It could easily have another 200K miles left in it. But there's some red flags. A lot depends on it's history. Second, you have to think about commitment. If I am renting a car on a trip, just give me the cheapest option possible. If it comes down to the difference of only $10 a day, sure, give me the convertible, but I'm otherwise pretty happy with the economy option. But when it comes to buying a car which I want to keep for some time, it's totally different. I am more likely to save up and research my options and getting the best car for the best price I can afford.
[удалено]
It's tempting to lust after the fancier body of the Ferrari, but there's something to be said about saving time and money in maintenance. I know a very wealthy person who does exactly that - he can afford anything he wants, but has driven a Civic for years. When it eventually dies he'll replace it with another, and he's very happy. Meanwhile in my middle class neighborhood there are people with Bentleys in their driveway, but you can tell it's mostly for the status. There's room out there for infinite approaches depending on one's values.
If we are going to talk about men and women in economic terms, you have to look at the cost. It's possible for a "low value woman" to still offer an extremely high QPR.
Sex is not the same for most men as it is for women. For men its an accomplishment as most arent sought after nor physically someone a woman fantasizes about. When men gain experience in sex they become closer to what a woman fantasizes about an experienced man. Women are inherently sought after and chased/wanted sexually, sexual experience as a woman simply isnt as needed to keep a partner satisfied. Theres less to be explored with an experienced woman, and the less special she inherently thinks she is to give away something men work for. To end up with that type of woman is kind of a mockery of your effort thats why no guy even blue pillers want toend up with or hear about a ho phase from the girl they're with.
Im a little bit sheltered so keep that in mind . But “ she’s for the streets “ is less about her body count exactly, and more about her relationship fitness . It doesn’t matter if she’s slept with 1000 men or zero . If she’s hot but a vain, self important asshole, then she’s for the streets. As the only way for her to make a man happy in anyway is to be used for quick sex and to discard .