It actually takes more effort for a woman NOT to be having constant sex. (reddit.com)

TheBluePill

57 ups - 17 downs = 40 votes

62 comments submitted at 02:03:09 on May 20, 2014 by wakka54

  • [-]
  • heliorecursion
  • 28 Points
  • 02:10:58, 20 May

By their own philosophy, isn't it the same for the top 20% of men? I mean, if you've got every woman in the world trying to have sex with them, surely it must be easy for them to get sex, perhaps even easier than some women. Do the same standards apply to them? Answer: no, because men, hypergamy, etc.

  • [-]
  • Hereletmegooglethat
  • -11 Points
  • 05:03:30, 20 May

What standards are you referencing when you say that? That women who have a lot of sex aren't good LTR material or that it's not as impressive if a guy in the top 20% gets a lot of women?

I can attempt to explain this if you want, also do you guys have a ban on sight rule for TRP posters? I wasn't sure how your mods acted and couldn't see it in the side bar, but whatever.

  • [-]
  • heliorecursion
  • 13 Points
  • 05:32:36, 20 May

To be specific, my comment is directed at the top comment in the linked thread. That said:

In TRP, one frequently sees it referenced that women seek the top 20% of men due to hypergamy. This being the case, it stands to reason that these men actually probably do not have to work to get sex, and, in fact, may get it easier than some women.

So, if having lots of sex is a negative for women because it takes more effort to reject dick and self-control and stuff is a good thing, then does the same thing apply to those top men? I.E. is it a negative if these top 20% of men have lots of sex because it takes more effort to reject the pussy?

  • [-]
  • Hereletmegooglethat
  • -11 Points
  • 05:53:18, 20 May

~~From my POV the reason the same standard isn't held is because they view the women who are able to get fucked by 10's aren't really worthy of a 10. They're just some girl the 10 guy doesn't have to put too much effort into fucking.~~

~~In the same view, a man in the top 20% is able to get a lot of pussy but it's justified because he is actually top tier and worth the amount of pussy that he's getting.~~

Reread what you said now I understand what point you're making. In regards to the amount of effort put in it's completely a double standard.

> is it a negative if these top 20% of men have lots of sex because it takes more effort to reject the pussy?

Simple answer is no. Mostly because the TRP ideas judge genders differently as they view them as two different things. It wouldn't be possible to explain it in an equal way, as simply put, it's not equal.

I'd try to go in depth for why, but I feel that'd just drag on my post instead of really giving information to your question.

  • [-]
  • heliorecursion
  • 10 Points
  • 06:14:32, 20 May

That's sort of my point, though. I was making fun of the top comment in the linked thread because his logic is inconsistent with the typical TRP attitude, as you yourself pointed out.

He makes a point about effort as though the standards are equitable (aka what's positive and attractive is based on effort, self-control, and such things) when they are not.

  • [-]
  • Hereletmegooglethat
  • -8 Points
  • 06:27:11, 20 May

Ah okay, I mean, I agree with him sort of. He just didn't give a good reason as to why it's different for men.

Thanks for clarifying though.

  • [-]
  • FeminaziJournalist
  • 6 Points
  • 06:48:49, 20 May

What about a woman who is a "9-10"? Wouldn't she be considered top-tier and worth all the dick she gets, and therefore should be treated like the top-tier man in regards to partner counts?

  • [-]
  • Hereletmegooglethat
  • -12 Points
  • 06:54:21, 20 May

Sure she should be seen as top-tier but I wouldn't get into a long term relationship with her. It's not like just because a woman fucks a lot of guys I won't talk to her, just the basis of if they're good quality for a LTR. Now that's not to say any guy wouldn't be fine with a short term thing.

  • [-]
  • FeminaziJournalist
  • 6 Points
  • 07:35:10, 20 May

But the problems that would lead you to not want to be in an LTR with a top-tier woman who had slept with a lot of people could be the same reasons a woman wouldn't want to be with a top-tier man who had slept with a lot of people? I am trying to figure out if you were saying there is an inherent difference purely because of gender or not.

  • [-]
  • Hereletmegooglethat
  • -16 Points
  • 07:40:29, 20 May

There's a difference because of gender.

The reasons for not wanting to be in a LTR with a woman who has fucked a lot of guys are based on what's expected throughout the relationship, so commitment, support, and the like and how having a higher number makes that less likely to achieved.

In TRP views, a man with a higher body count isn't seen as someone whose potential relationship integrity is weakened.

  • [-]
  • whydidthetilda
  • 11 Points
  • 09:53:33, 20 May

You could say exactly the same thing about men. So what makes it different for men and for women?

  • [-]
  • Bluefell
  • 10 Points
  • 13:02:13, 20 May

> There's a difference because of gender.

It's what we call double standards and sexism. It's why we think TRP is a fucking joke.

A man fucking hundreds of women is a 'high value man'. A woman doing the same is considered a slut.

We're living in 2014, why do you still think like that?

  • [-]
  • santago
  • 6 Points
  • 13:05:29, 20 May

The 'sources' TRP uses as proof that women with high partner counts are bad, the ones that show a higher divorce rate among promiscuous women, also find a higher divorce rate among promiscuous men (regardless of the wife's promiscuity). Why should a woman settle down with a man who has proven himself to be incapable of committing to a woman, and has spent a chunk of his life using women sexually? In addition to that I'd like to point out that you are 'gerbiling'. Here you have many women telling you that women actually evaluate promiscuous men the same way that men evaluate promiscuous women. You, as a man, say that isn't true, and use a community of all men as evidence. This is exactly the same 'hamstering' TRP talks about with communities of obese women telling each other that their weight doesn't matter for women and that they all deserve HB10 men. You aren't interested in the opposite gender's actual interest, you're only interested in circlejerking to how attractive and alpha you and your friends perceive yourselves to be. Reality doesn't matter, all that matters to you idiots is reaffirming your view that it's ok for you to sleep around and lower your value, but that you still deserve women with higher value than you. You're just jerking each other off, it doesn't matter that you have no evidence for this double standard not just existing to boost your ego, in a community full of equally idiotic self-centered men you can just say 'that's just how it is' and be done with it. That doesn't work with people outside your circlejerk, because it's terrible reasoning. Biggest community of hamsters I've ever encountered.

  • [-]
  • f06
  • 5 Points
  • 13:14:16, 20 May

What the hell are you talking about. Have you interacted with... ANYBODY... in your life? I've seen men cheat, I've seen women cheat, every situation is different. There's no such thing as any stupid grand theory of dating for every single relationship. The dynamic changes depending on the personality of the people in it.

  • [-]
  • Elretti
  • 3 Points
  • 15:11:20, 20 May

> The reasons for not wanting to be in a LTR with a woman who has fucked a lot of guys are based on what's expected throughout the relationship, so commitment, support, and the like and how having a higher number makes that less likely to achieved.

Actually, this is also the reason plenty of women won't date 'players' unless that woman also has a similar partner count. It has nothing to do with gender.

I know for a fact I wouldn't want someone who has had more than 10 partners; I don't give two shits whether he 'worked for it,' I still wouldn't consider him trustworthy for something long-term. I'm only one person but earlier you tried to cite yourself as evidence of your claim, so I don't see why I can't do the same.

Again, you're full of shit.

  • [-]
  • Elretti
  • 3 Points
  • 15:10:13, 20 May

> Sure she should be seen as top-tier but I wouldn't get into a long term relationship with her.

And plenty of women wouldn't go into a relationship with a 'top-tier' dude who had a ton of partners.

That's why the double standard makes no sense. Partner count does NOT make men more attractive to most women. Some, sure, but not all, just like how I'm sure some men like experienced women.

Most of the time people like others in spite of their partner count, not because of. This especially includes women who are looking for an LTR, considering you can apply the same logic TRP applies to promiscuous women (unfaithful, less likely to maintain something long term, etc) to promiscuous men.

So, no, you're full of shit as far as I'm concerned. You're within your right not to date a promiscuous woman, but don't act like TRP's double standard makes sense. A guy having a ton of partners isn't exactly attractive to women who want something serious even if it means they get more ass pats from their bros.

  • [-]
  • funkless_eck
  • 5 Points
  • 08:16:22, 20 May

I'm a bit worried this discussion gives credence to the idea that human beings can be divided into 10 groups based on their attractiveness. But from who's perspective, using what criteria?

  • [-]
  • Hereletmegooglethat
  • -10 Points
  • 08:29:19, 20 May

Well I'm not sure why you're worried, it's not like it's a bad thing, that's just how it is.

It's based on male perspective and the criteria is mostly standardized. There was a study that showed men being able to collectively rate the attractiveness of women in a pretty standard way across the board, often labeling 7's as 7's and so forth.

Women when asked ended up rating 80% below average. I'll try to find the actual study tomorrow so that I'm not just spouting off bullshit.

In the meantime you could see the same being said from one of the posts made my OKcupid which showed that again that 80% of men were rated below average.

  • [-]
  • funkless_eck
  • 8 Points
  • 08:37:42, 20 May

What about the perspective of the rest of the world that aren't white middle class men?

What about the perspective of a Bedouin woman in Oman? What about the perspective of a working class transgendered person in South Africa?

Surely the ideals of beauty are going to be different in Hong Kong, Sudan, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Uruguay...

And even within "Western" society - the definition of the beauty of women by men is going to be different to a gay 15 year old boy, a 32 year old single guy, a 50 year old father of 3, a 70 year old priest, a 19 year old frat boy, and a 45 year old CEO...

  • [-]
  • fiofiofiofio
  • 6 Points
  • 10:49:17, 20 May

Don't bother asking. I know the study he's referring to, and he's completely misinterpreting it.

  • [-]
  • funkless_eck
  • 1 Points
  • 11:15:00, 20 May

Would you mind giving me the low-down, please?

  • [-]
  • Angadar
  • 4 Points
  • 11:56:48, 20 May

It's an okcupid blog post, not a study.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

  • [-]
  • Hereletmegooglethat
  • -5 Points
  • 08:40:39, 20 May

Oh Olay I get what you're saying, I Just don't see why you're concerned with that. If I were discussing that with anyone that represented those then sure I'd adjust to better explain, but right now we're in the same society and I'm straight, that's going to be pretty much similar.

  • [-]
  • funkless_eck
  • 12 Points
  • 09:22:34, 20 May

This issue is that because you're a straight male - you've neglected to consider anyone's perspective except your own. Which is selfish. You may wish to divide society into 10 distinct groups based on your subjective opinion but can you see why pretty much any interlocutor you may have would have an issue with that?

What's so good about YOUR opinion anyway? Even if you were to rate a woman a "10" why should she be flattered by that if she doesn't know you. What is gained from telling anyone they are a given number except to fulfil your own ego that you have this power to categorise people?

Why do you rate women and not men? Sure maybe you're not sexually attracted to men but why don't you rate their clothing choices? Ability to make roast beef? Shoelace choice? Hairstyle? Eye colour? Finger length? Ear lobe shape?

Because you have assumed that because your libido is important to you, it must be important to others. It's not.

What if you were to discover that someone you'd rated a 9 was rated 2 by everyone else? What if your 3 was a 10 in my eyes? It's entirely subjective and useless information. So why tell us about it? I don't want to hear about what turns you on about 10% of the women in the world, and judging by the votes on these posts - neither does anyone else. It's a bit gross.

And worse, it's mildly offensive to rate people out of 10 based on their looks alone, especially when you're a middle class man doing it on the Internet. (Cue response of "oh just lighten up DUDE" - well, no. You got to tell us about what makes your peen hard - blech - so I get to ride your ass about this)

There are more than 10 types of people in this world. I'd go so far as to say there are as many types of people as there are people. It's dehumanising and creepy to rate people out of ten. People aren't things. People are people.

EDIT: anyone else's mind BOGGLING that I have to tell people it's offensive to rate women out of ten?

  • [-]
  • flyingpenguins32
  • 8 Points
  • 12:49:28, 20 May

Yep.

It's especially frustrating when you consider some men will fight to the death for 'reasons' to keep labelling women with a subjective attractiveness number, but if you put men in a shirt with a number on it to identify them, and then have them run around after a ball, these same men will refer to that person by name or position description if they don't know the name.

  • [-]
  • fiofiofiofio
  • 7 Points
  • 10:50:17, 20 May

>Women when asked ended up rating 80% below average. I'll try to find the actual study tomorrow so that I'm not just spouting off bullshit.

I know the study. You are, in fact, just spouting off bullshit.

  • [-]
  • NotSquareGarden
  • 3 Points
  • 14:45:48, 20 May

So, if you work off of TRPs incredibly misogynistic and bullshit premise, then it kinda makes sense if you squint a little? Alright. I'm not sure how you helped anyone.

  • [-]
  • SaraByAccident
  • 4 Points
  • 15:10:21, 20 May

we don't ban you guys on sight, but we do ban for shitwizardry. and asshattery. So, I mean, we might as well ban you on sight.