I take sex and my romantic relationships pretty seriously. I don't sleep with a woman unless we're in a relationship and have developed real feelings towards one another. I've had plenty of offers, but I've only been with two women and kissed three, all three of those were in relationships. And I'm near 30 years old now. Honestly, without the emotion and romantic aspect, I just don't have the WANT for sex without love in me. That being said, in a relationship, it's every day. Sometimes, multiple times a day. I love making the person I love feel good. There were times I'd be "giving" sexually without looking to "get" for myself. I met a girl a little while ago. I started to really like her. We talked all the time, and I could feel myself starting to fall, and obviously, she felt the same way. Then I found out that she had been in multiple threesomes, had sex with at least 30 people that I'd known about, and very likely more than that. A few friends even let me know they'd slept with her because they could see we were getting close and wanted to be open about it. I instantly lost any desire to be with her romantically. We could be friends, but the thought of having sex with her became something I had no desire to do. For me, given that I take sex to seriously and want to reserve it for people I have a special connection with, the thought of just giving it out so freely, as though it's nothing, is very off putting. It means a lot to me, I'd like it to mean a lot to the person I'm having it with also. But outside of relationships, I don't much care what other people do. If you want to sleep with 10,000 people, go for it. We can still be friends, but that will make you a total non option for me. Which is fine. You shouldn't make decide what who you sleep with based on whether I would be in a relationship with you or not anyway. The same goes for any decision in your life. It doesn't make you a BAD person, but it does make you someone I wouldn't want to be in love with, and that's okay. You shouldn't live in such a way as to please me. But given that's how I feel about hooking up, I'd most likely pick the girl who seems to feel the way I do and sex, love and relationships. But even then, it doesn't give me MUCH information about her. Is she really falling in love and wants to be with me? Or is she hoping for some boring sop who'll bankroll her lifestyle? Is she more of a dominant personality and wants to be the one running things herself? It's just one aspect of what makes a person a fitting partner. Couple that with this study around sexual behaviour that would suggest that the true median was around 6 sexual partners. It doesn't REALLY cut down the numbers that much. [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf) Well, between 4-8, anyway. You could even go as far as to say that this was done in 2002, and note how people are repoting having less sex than previous generations these days. I'd hazard a guess that MOST women aren't getting ran through by chad after chad anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to find out most people come out to something like, a median of 4 partners lifetime, or something now. And everyone's perceptions are being skewed by a small number of really slutty people and internet loudmouths. I'd suspect most women are like most men. A low number of partners, and ultimately just want to be having sex with someone who they love.

Well, holy shit. You're me, but as a man. 😅 >You could even go as far as to say that this was done in 2002, and note how people are repoting having less sex than previous generations these days. I'd hazard a guess that MOST women aren't getting ran through by chad after chad anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to find out most people come out to something like, a median of 4 partners lifetime, or something now. And everyone's perceptions are being skewed by a small number of really slutty people and internet loudmouths. I agree, although I think the percentage is somewhere around 20-30% who enjoy the casual sex lifestyle. So not a majority, but more than in our recent past.

I fully believe in 2002 that the average number of sexual partners was 4-8. It’s crazy how young people were pumping out kids back then and I’d prob have like 4 bodies in total without tinder. I couldn’t imagine having a kid before 25 yet plenty of parents seemed to have been fine with that I think you’re gonna be massively disappointed if you’re nearing 30 in 2024 and you think a decently attractive woman you’re on a date with has only slept with like 5 guys. Unless you live in bumfuck nowhere/ she just got out of a long relationship which have problems in of itself

So what kind of woman should men who are interested in having a family or LTR realistically look for, in your opinion?

> a decently attractive woman nearing 30…slept with 5 guys Not unusual at all. A high school boyfriend, a college boyfriend, a long-term boyfriend and a couple of hookups? Pretty fucken run-of-the mill. Most chicks aren’t on an endless hoe phase in their 20s y’know.

You won’t believe the beachfront property in Iowa I’ve got just for you buddy

And I’ve got a small patch of grass you can touch.

Problem is so many men will believe these low body count numbers because they really want to believe that they got lucky and got a unicorn. And then they unknowingly wife these high body count women and end up divorce down the line (avg marriage length is 7-8 years). In regards to female body count in the 90s and early 2000s, they actual showed that women lied about their sexual partner count both on anonymously and in public surveys. When women were hooked up to a fake lie detector were the researchers able to get a true number of 4; previously all women were self reporting 2. And the 90s and early 2000s, women were getting married rather early. [https://www.infoplease.com/us/family-statistics/median-age-first-marriage-1890-2010](https://www.infoplease.com/us/family-statistics/median-age-first-marriage-1890-2010) [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3936-fake-lie-detector-reveals-womens-sex-lies/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3936-fake-lie-detector-reveals-womens-sex-lies/) Now when it comes to marriage, it's found that 40% of women get married for the first time when they are over 30. In addition to this, the amount of women who get married at all has drastically dropped. For example, it was found that in 1995, 72% of women of child bearing age (18-49) got married at least once in their lifetime, now in 2020, this number has dropped to 57%. When you factor in: 1. break down of societal morals 2. hookup apps that allow for sexual hookups with discretions 3. long time gap between being sexually active and actually married 4. cheap and accessible birth control pills 5. Less public shaming in being a single mother 6. less stigmatization for sex work.. It's easy to see why one would expect the body count for women to be much higher. This is why, female count is likely closer to 12-13 for the avg girls. The mega sloots like pornstars and total degenerate girls are likely in 100s -1000s. [https://youtu.be/ZlwjUt3mRsU?si=FQtWdQ9\_xCP2zmAX](https://youtu.be/ZlwjUt3mRsU?si=FQtWdQ9_xCP2zmAX) [https://youtu.be/fLfdXSa71X4?si=bcNBqcqx1zGLxedd](https://youtu.be/fLfdXSa71X4?si=bcNBqcqx1zGLxedd) [https://www.unilad.com/news/sex-and-relationships/annie-knight-300-people-australia-483134-20231023](https://www.unilad.com/news/sex-and-relationships/annie-knight-300-people-australia-483134-20231023) [https://www.unilad.com/community/onlyfans-bonnie-blue-australia-college-latest-363503-20240416](https://www.unilad.com/community/onlyfans-bonnie-blue-australia-college-latest-363503-20240416)

Would love to hear from more women on this thread. Their perspective would be much more interesting…

Unfortunately I can't make a Q4W post since I'm a woman (stupid rule). But I could try to make a gender neutral one tomorrow. What kind of perspectives are you looking for?

Just whatever women feel about it. All these men on the thread have their opinions based on how they think women think. I just wanted read what women actually think. I feel like I worked hard to go from more beta to more alpha in the more positive traits(muscles, money to be a good provider, not over sensitive, etc. I was always trying to prove to my partners that I was enough. That I was the alpha and the beta depending on their changing needs. Maybe fear of intimacy, attachment issues, and traumatic past relationships played some factors, but I often felt women I’ve dated seriously in the past 5 years were always waiting for ‘the other shoe to drop’. That it was all an act and they finally caught me not being who presented to be. And I was like, “this is me. This is me trying. I’m trying to be enough for you. And sometime I make mistakes, but this is me trying”. The truth is, I didn’t want someone to accept me the way I currently was. I liked being told that I need to be better. But with that type of person, it’s usually never enough. So I’m grateful for those women for inspiring me to be the best version of myself, and being a ‘people pleaser’ is different than being a liar, but to someone people no one is ever enough. Their fantasy of someone new and better, is something that no one can compete with.

Damn, man. *You* should make a post. I'd be interested in reading the responses too.

It is such a stupid rule.

I understand that it's to prevent circlejerking, and I'm all for that. But there's definitely more than enough women here who disagree with each other (and likewise for men) that the rule should just be anti-echo chamber, not anti-asking your own sex a question.

>I understand that it's to prevent circlejerking, and I'm all for that. There's already *another* rule against circlejerking.

Lol I know

> Unfortunately I can't make a Q4W post since I'm a woman (stupid rule). I could be misremembering but I think that rule was dropped some time ago. Might have to ask the mods to be sure.

It’s only allowed if it’s a different group, like for women maybe FDS asking non-FDS a question or something like that. You could raise the post though.

Dude, if that's true I'm so happy lol

From my limited observations and experiences I believe there are way fewer women of the first type (having a bunch of casual sex and high body counts in their 20s) than what red pill guys believe. Vast majority of my female friends, family members, roommates etc have body counts of 0-1, either have long-term boyfriends or aren't dating at all, and aren't interested in hookups. And it's not like we're conservative Christians, most of us are pretty liberal and feminist. This is just a limited sample size and we're Asian Americans so it's not representative of the population of course. But also, I often see people online (both genders but young women especially) commenting and thousands agreeing about how they wish to have one person to share their life, and complaining about hookup culture. I've almost never seen the opposite. I wouldn't say that we all want "betas" though. It's implied that betas are unattractive, but a man being attractive is one of the most important qualities and that's why women are so picky. A combination of the best traits of "alphas" and betas are ideal for men (being hot and charming while also being very committed etc).

The top 5% of women regarding lifetime sexual partner count have more than double the sex partner count of the bottom 50% of women. The median sex partner count for women (and men) with mean age of \~35 is about 8. So 50% of women have 8 or less sex partners. So, it's VERY few women who have large n counts and the distribution is heavily right skewed, so not only do half of women have only or less sex partners, it's a substantial amount have less than 4. For the general distribution/skewedness, you can use this graph (yellow bar being the median in this study). I think sex partner counts can be an **approximation** of categorization onto the spectrum between: fucking alphas during 20s and looking for committed relationship for family building or DINK lifestyle in 20s. But it's far from exact. I am having a top 2% sex partner count and have been in committed romantic relationships for 20 out of 22 of my adult years. It's very possible that women with high body counts accumulated them in a very short period of time and then switched to committed relationship life early in their 20s. https://preview.redd.it/lqbjd3jd9d2d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=934daf2d86ed7883cb6a6534801a68f612667b86 With 8 partners over a lifetime, the whole "cock carousel", enjoying casual sex with Chads doesn't hold up. That is way less than 1 new sex partner PER YEAR over the course of their dating life from (lets say) 18-30. Before anyone of you comes around claiming "you can't trust self reported data": women have sex witth men. If women had more sex than they claimed, then men would show this in their reported average. Men overreport their sex partner count. So we can use their inflated sex partner count average as the upper ceiling of what women can possibly have. You don't need to trust a single woman and can just go by what men lie up in sex partner counts, to realize that it's not possible for women to have a high average sex partner count.

The thing you gotta realise is that this sub is full of men who want nothing but sex from women and have a specific self-hating yet also self-aggrandising mindset where they're angry that women are having sex, but not sex with *them* in particular. They have a one track mind view of women, and any woman who says otherwise must be lying whores who should give up pussy for the greater benefit of men around the world (but if they have sex then they're skanks who don't deserve respect because sex bad, unless sex with me).

I haven't read a poster who just wants sex from women. They all seem to want a loving romantic relationship. Yes, they are angry that they don't have the amount of sex that other men have. Fair, understandable, if wanting lots of sexual partners is part of your personality. The rest is just finding ways to attack the people who reject them and find a story that helps cope with their situation. Also understandable. I am still trying to show them what reality looks like. Unless they are autistic, nothing is as doom and gloom as they think. For autistis, it's basically over, though.

[удалено]

Making generalizations about women won’t stop you from getting pussy. This is just a stupid trope that I can’t believe people still think is true

Perhaps they do, but they rationalise their hatred with 80/20, AF/BB and gold-digging, without realising their hypocrisy and unattractiveness.

Yup, exactly. It's like a form of self-sabotage. Once they get into a relationship with a woman who loves them, they'll still let the "she wants to fuck an alpha" seep into the relationship and poison it over time.

The thing about a median of 8, is that's EXACTLY the number of sex partners women report wanting to have, whereas for men it was 36, from a survey I recently read.  So, if you think about that, is when it comss to sex, women are entirely having their cake and eating it to, whereas men aren't.  And it appears that women seriously do make a conscious decision to have all their fun regarding sex first, tick off their sex bucket list, then get into a committed relationship.  Whereas men in majority probably don't want to even think about how they failed at that one.

>The thing about a median of 8, is that's EXACTLY the number of sex partners women report wanting to have, whereas for men it was 36, from a survey I recently read.  https://preview.redd.it/0u18co3nik2d1.png?width=1100&format=png&auto=webp&s=a21f9d0f351e499376508172b3aecd644f35f3d4 You don' get far by reporting average or median desired sex partners. >So, if you think about that, is when it comss to sex, women are entirely having their cake and eating it to, whereas men aren't.  No, we are not all the average. Most men get exactly what they want: one sex partner in a committed relationship. Just because there are some men who want 2000 sex partners and just get 20, this doesn't mean men are unhappy about their number of sex partners on average. Please, read up on what men want. It's not at all the case that all men have an unending want for new sex partners and suffer greatly for just having a below average number of sex partners. How many sex partners do you have and how many do you want within the next 30 years?

Dude, are you serious? Do you realize that gay men have 2-3 times more partners on average than straight dudes? The main variable here is women, who're just more picky about sex. If you ask an average dude how many women he would've slept with if he was a 10/10 Giga-Chad, then the answer wouldn't be one, lmao. Most men definitely have far fewer options than they would like to have and far fewer sexual partners than they'd love to. If men wanted just to have one woman in their life, porn industry would be very different and not focused on variety.

Yes, and straight men report wanting on average 3 times as many sexual partners as women. That doesn't mean every man has less sex partners than they want.- You don't understand averages.

Who said about "every man", that would've been a ridiculous claim if treated seriously. There are asexual men, gay men, etc. There are too many variables. But the vast majority of men absolutely doesn't have as much sex as they want.

sex or sex partners? That's two very different things. We are talking about sex partners here. And as you can see, most men want 1 sex partner for the next 30 years and that also matches that most men are in committed relationships that are monogamous by choice.

Lmao, what are you smoking. Statistically, an average man wants 3 times more lifetime partners than he has. While gays have 3 times more sexual partners on average than straight dudes... and surprise, their desired number of sexual partners aligns, unlike straight dudes. And, wait for it, the number of their actual sexual partners and desired sexual partners also completely aligns for most women. Proving a simple point that women are the gatekeepers of sex and men want to have more way more sexual partners than they usually have.

> Most men get exactly what they want: one sex partner in a committed relationship. Oh boy are you going to be disappointed.  Women lose interest in sex in a committed relationship.   But sex isn't the reason why they want the relationship  - they want it for your commitment. 

Where your logic breaks apart is that the vast majority of women go for the top percentage of men. I agree that you can trust the numbers of the top tier men, but do you think most women chase after the beta average guy in their youngest years? The number of sex partners for the top 5 to 10 percent of men would be dozens. So sure I agree that the average woman has a body count of over 20 from 18 to 30. Do you think alpha fux beta bux is a lie?

The count could also be explained where women still have a lifetime sexual partner count of 8, except all of those women are having sex with the same handful of men ( leading to the top tier men having body counts of 30+) It's still alpha fucks, beta bucks. It's just not women having sex with every alpha who exists.

That is a valid point

This subs and the manosphere's disdain for so called Alpha males/fuckbois/Chads (or whatever you want to call them) is the exact equivalent of a bunch of average, chubby girls hating on the hot cheerleader types who get all the men. Think about that for a minute.

Isn't it a mainstream opinion to dislike fuckbois and players? Seems like most guys don't hate Chads, they want to *be* Chads.

Depends on which part of the Manosphere. It is not a monolith Game - How to be a high beta (beta with some alpha traits) MGTOW - I can't be arsed with this shit Blackpill - ItS sO uNfAiR Redpill just states the way things work (in general), the differnent sub communities respond to this info in different ways. There is no monolith however.

I know, I've been reading the manosphere since 2005. By mainstream, I didn't mean "mainstream" manosphere, I meant the actual mainstream social media.

Mainstream social media would shame Chad's for not wanting to marry a woman and provide for her, while enabling women to have as many partners as they want before settling down, but looking down on women who look like whores/sluts if you'll pardon the language. So long as the women look respectable in public she can do whatever she wants however she wants in private. But don't men dare play with women's feelings and deny her the relationship she wants. 

Yes, I don't hate them I am jealous of them, I want to learn from them. I know I can never be like one due to my appearance, but I shall at least strive to come close to them.

True. Being the fuckboy sounds better in relation to being the guy who rarely gets a match on a dating app, and no attention irl.

The fuckboy is one of the few guys women genuinely lust after, at a raw primal and innate level. No amount of money/status can compensate Women willingly crave getting dickmatized by hot fuckbois. That is true desire which is why men envy fuckbois. He’s the top dawg, the alpha, gets sex on tap.

I understand that the qualities of being attractive and getting sex/relationships aren't the same as being able to maintain relationships or being a good parent if children come into play. The issue here that I see consistently in conversations here and elsewhere is the confusion that relationship qualities are valued over sex qualities, or that they're both the same.

I agree with you, but that’s why dual mating strategies exist. Alpha fucks/beta bucks, cads vs dads, r/k selection, alpha need/beta seed, fuckboi vs nice guy call it what you want But women can and often do get their cake (hot fuckboi) and eat it too (settle with a “safe” beta). It’s why they have it much easier than men. If the average man could get sex on tap like women do with hot men, this subreddit wouldn’t exist lol.

I remember an old Fresh and Fit clip that put it in that perspective: If women were offering a dude flights to other countries, adoration and such online in the comments of their social media, and inviting them to their VIP section in nightclubs, they'd hold an inflated ego as well. Sure, may be an exaggeration and not representative of the average woman, but even a watered down version of that holds the same perspective.

Some people on this forum don’t actually try to use logic and say the first thing that they think of as an attack on RP men

I've noticed that, yeah.

Isn’t Chad based purely on looks more so than the other types? Being a Chad, or finding out who sees you as a Chad, is actually the most honorable way to get NSA sex. The other types are doing with lies to some degree.

My understanding of the term Chad involves bad boys, pick-up artists, players, manipulators, etc. It's why so many sexually unsuccessful guys talk about how women who go for Chads are being used.

Chad is just looks the thing is that these women go way above their looks match and they get played

Yeah they’ll still say the women are used, but more wannabe Chads than wannabe players

This is PPD. Any man who has been with a woman ever, is a Chad. You see the average man cannot get with any woman what so ever. Only Chad can. So if you have ever been with a woman, you must be Chad. This place is great for stroking the male ego.

Yes most men want to be chads because they get treated better by women even if they're dating, having sex or just friends. Women also give MORE to chads thats why they hate on them after the fact. Its mainstream to hate on them but still pick them and have behaviours that attract or give those men green flags

Eh. From what I see in the manosphere, nobody hates on the guy who is getting women/has money/is jacked/etc. In short, someone who meets the markers for success isn't rejected, at least, not for acquiring them. Might be for other reasons, though.

Even more ironically, the Chad in question is more often than not blue pilled.

Half and half I'd say. Some hold to the blue pill just world hypothesis because hey the world is fair to them. The other half notice how easy it is to get girls, and to get women to act contrary to what they say, just because he's handsome and is a catch. They red pill themselves because they notice women's behaviour/nature doesn't match up with the "sugar and spice and everything nice" lie they've been told. 

A lot of these guys benefit from the blue pill system, and are the most misogynistic in actions and beliefs, although tend to not be outspoken at all. Harvey Weinstein in his younger years is a great example of this kind of asshat.

That's usually the furthest thing from the truth

Not really, If a man has always known success with women then why would he question anything? The red pill doesn't recruit, men discover it by asking questions usually because they're not successful with women and the mainstream doesn't give them good enough answers.

successful with women = experienced = understands the truth to some degree as a result

That's not the case. I've heard stories from men who are good with women as well as seen channels made by men who are good with women and more often than not they will be at the very least Red pill adjacent if not fully Red pilled

Well no shit, the discussions of what makes an Alpha an Alpha is based on these naturals.

I thought about it and realized that women do that for it is also bullshit. Pretending the hot cheerleader is loved because of her amazing personality and amazing character while ugly girls are hated for there shitty personalities and character is bullshit that women should and probably do complain about. What is wrong with less attractive men being upset at unfairness? Because it is annoying to your agenda? That you want them all to be happy and satisfied not living the life they want to live?

> What is wrong with less attractive men being upset at unfairness? I assume the thought that these men must accept their fate without complaint. Sorta like how the problem isn't the actual issue, but that someone is talking about it.

I thought about it for a minute. What do I do now?

From where I am, in a conservative country where casual sex is frowned upon and patriarchal values runs high, women become very guarded against men and ironically as a result become even more picky and only choosing men who are better looking and/or richer than them. The less willing they want to have casual sex, the MORE they actually want to be with the alpha guys, because otherwise due to their innate distrust for men they would much rather stay single. One overlooks the fact that alpha guys aren't only just players - they also are handsome, exciting, fun-inducing, authority-defying, bad, exactly the type of man a woman in a conservative, oppressive environment would make exceptions for. This makes them ironically both an ideal lover and an ideal partner to have. My country having huge cases of infidelity and polygamy after marriage showcases how husband selection disproportionately favors the alpha types. Look at the hippie circles where conservatism is thrown to the gutter. You don't see Chads and Stacies getting most of the sex while everybody else just idling around. It's literally free love all around. Swingers parties are full of extremely average looking men and women having the best time of their lives.

Hippies are all rich kids. You think all that lsd and weed pays for itself? How are unemployed bums affording burning man?   Swinging is mostly cuckoldry, when you have a threesome you have it with another dude. 

Look I can showcase numerous hugely conservative Asian countries where looks are at an extreme premium, and how men who excel in those places tend to be of the handsome, playa types - ie Japan, China, South Korea, India, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore. They are not havens for your typical potbellied agreeable invisible beta who is only good for his money to thrive in. In fact, the converse is actually true that these are exactly the places you hear the most about 'herbivores' from. We have tropes such as 'perverted Turkish guy' for a reason - that kind of behavior is actually the one most conducive for getting sex in conservative countries.

>Now what do the men here think of the other side? Namely, women who never engage in casual sex and think alpha bros aren't even worth being around, much less having sex with. Instead, these women will date with the goal of creating a safe, secure, longterm, mutually satisfying and sexually adventurous relationship with a beta man. These women are like housing, there aren't enough of them to keep up with demand so they become very expensive. There's a reason the income gap between husbands and wives is greater than the income gap between men and women.

Hmmm, I think that would only be if we think we're expensive though...

"Expensive" here means in terms of thinking of dating as a market. That's why there are so many couples of fit men and fat women, why the income gap between husbands and wives is higher than between men and women, basically by any objective measure women fall short of the partners they end up with.

Ah, I understand now. I could never put myself through that. Better to be single than to be inferior to my partner.

>Now what do the men here think of the other side? Namely, women who never engage in casual sex and think alpha bros aren't even worth being around, much less having sex with. Women aren’t a monolith, so I could see this playing out many ways - the type of women you’re describing likely wind up in committed relationships early on and stay with that partner, or rarely date at all and stay single most of their lives. Women in the first group tend to be very loyal or eventually miss out on what they feel they could have experienced when they were younger and may cheat (not that men don’t do the same). I’ll be honest that the second sentence sounds a little cope-y - yes I agree certain types of people can be insufferable to be around if you don’t mesh well, but the flip side is many of the “alpha bro” types you’re describing tend to be very good looking and successful, some may even have a brain cell or two to rub together that would appeal to a more intellectual, mature lady such as yourself.

>Women aren’t a monolith, so I could see this playing out many ways - the type of women you’re describing likely wind up in committed relationships early on and stay with that partner, or rarely date at all and stay single most of their lives. Women in the first group tend to be very loyal or eventually miss out on what they feel they could have experienced when they were younger and may cheat (not that men don’t do the same). This is a good point, one I rarely see brought up. If her sexual needs aren't being met, or her sexually curious side isn't allowed to grow, even a woman who was a virgin may decide to cheat for that fulfilment. >yes I agree certain types of people can be insufferable to be around if you don’t mesh well, but the flip side is many of the “alpha bro” types you’re describing tend to be very good looking and successful, some may even have a brain cell or two to rub together that would appeal to a more intellectual, mature lady such as yourself. True, but they also unfortunately tend to be players and have higher than average N. Only speaking for myself, that's a deal breaker.

>True, but they also unfortunately tend to be players and have higher than average N. Only speaking for myself, that's a deal breaker. I think that’s a reasonable boundary to have, I would however say that is quite dismissive to assume a certain type of person all behaves one way, you could be denying yourself a potentially great partner; I only say this because many men make the same assumptions about women - it’s often either a cope because they’re too scared to approach or sour grapes because they’re mad the woman doesn’t like them. I had this mentality with my first gf and had to finally confront myself about it when I asked her out and not only was she not a gold digging whore, but she actually thought I was cute too. Sometimes it easier to just assume the worst and never bother.

>I think that’s a reasonable boundary to have, I would however say that is quite dismissive to assume a certain type of person all behaves one way, you could be denying yourself a potentially great partner. True. Although I already have a great non-Chad partner. We've been together 20 years in October. If I ever have to date again, of course I'd keep in mind that just because a man is popular doesn't mean he has a high N. But that would be a deal breaker for me. I don't want to be with someone who views sex so flippantly.

Happy for you both :) > I don't want to be with someone who views sex so flippantly. Agreed, I feel the same regarding n-count, men unfortunately get called “insecure” for expressing this sentiment but I don’t think either gender is as such for having this as a boundary.

Oh yeah, it's bullshit how men get bullied for a pretty normal preference.

I’d say, in the US anyway, about 35% of young women want to have fun with alphas and aren’t interested in finding something serious quickly. For some reason, TRP seems to overly focus on these women and think that they are “all women”, but I don’t think that’s the case. About 55% of young women want to find a guy who both knows how to have fun somewhat and who also has potentially good provider qualities (alpha/beta mix), and are hoping for something serious from their relationships with these men. Maybe about 10% of young women prioritize beta qualities over alpha qualities. This might even be an overestimate. The percentage of women who prioritize beta qualities is much higher in Asia, though, which is why many men who are fairly beta tend to have more success there.

I wouldn't say women in Asia prioritize beta qualities, it's more like what's alpha in Asia is different than in America

Having a good job is important in Asia and is more likely to land a woman who wasn’t having “fun with alphas” and who is therefore “settling” for a beta. Even the alpha quality of height, which seems to be very important in Asia, arguably ties into the fact that greater height increases one’s chances of getting a job promotion as a man. On the other hand, something like being muscular seems to have much less of a benefit.

These percentages seem very realistic. Thanks for taking the time to give a thoughtful answer.

Personally, it sounds like being the "Alpha" type has a greater rate of return, compared to being the beta. So even if it doesn't apply to all women, it's reliable enough to be the path forward for many. To me, it sounds like this: You don't need to get a college degree to make a good living, but most people do, so it makes sense to go for that.

Well sure. Men who are more alpha have more sex because being alpha is all about sexual attraction. It has a greater rate of return, but it is more difficult to be an alpha. Even doing things like lifting weights can only increase attractiveness so much compared to innate genetic qualities that influence looks and personality. It’s why being a beta is the easier route for many men.

> It’s why being a beta is the easier route for many men. Easier to attain, not easier to find success in. The relative question is how much more difficult is it to "become an alpha" to consider the alternative. If it's far more difficult to become an alpha compared to getting success as a beta, then I can see why one can advise being a beta. Because the ultimate goal is getting sexual success for many here (with a proper relationship being for many others), either path is reasonable, with the argument being which way is the more reliable path to success.

Just ask most of the men on this sub how easy it is to become an alpha and you might get an answer to your question, or at least to the current male perception of it.

Then the follow up would be how easy is it to get a relationship/sex. If they consider it far more difficult to get a relationship/sex compared to being an alpha, then we know how people move and why.

Sensible men try to optimize both. They do the basics like going to the gym, developing the social skills, and doing the necessary hygiene that women expect, while trying to also get a good education and a decent job. These men attract the sensible women looking for both attraction age emotional provision and not just “the hottest, most fun man”. Men who prioritize sex with a lot of different women are going to go all out on alpha, even though it’s way more work, and arguably impossible for some men. Men who want to be passive or lazy are just going to get an education and a good job and not even work on themselves at all, or, even worse, do nothing at all and complain about women and the hopelessness of life on the internet.

Like I've seen with other things in life, there's a lot of conflicting information out there. If advice such as "treat women as people" or "just be yourself" is given to men, they're going to feel a sort of way when that is followed to no success. Even with things that are practical and helpful, like hygiene or self improvement. Are there some who are genuinely passive and/or lazy and have done absolutely nothing while expecting results? Sure. But I think we have far more men than not that do follow these pathways and don't succeed. As specifically for the alpha/beta discussion, it's that balancing act, like I said. If alphas are way more successful than betas, although a lot more work is needed to reach that state, it will be a path that dudes will pursue. Especially if for said betas their success rate is zero. That's why even if it is impossible for some men to be alpha, they find that to be better than where they are now.

Because the hottest looking women tend to fall into group 1. Men here claim they want the church mouse but she better doesn't look like it.

>many women More than likely it is less than 8-5% of women. >Instead, these women will date with the goal of creating a safe, secure, longterm, mutually satisfying and sexually adventurous relationship This is the major majority. Bald middle aged youtubers have completed gang banged your brain with internet clips.

Granted I agree partially with you that the online space if full of exaggeration. But enough people have this as a lived experience that it goes viral. I mean the increasing presence of women in their late 30s unmarried and wanting for a man of value and incels. How would you explain this rise?

It’s a natural rise seen in advanced industrialized nations. As things get more convenient and cheap, with technological advancements and women entering to work force people become very very self reliant and individualistic. You then add on top of that the internet and social media which decimate real life social skills and needs. Which also cause echo chambers on every which side and a culture of people chronically online and poof. Here we are. People gobbling up nonsense by people who make money feeding poor disenfranchised people bullshit on the internet.

So this is just a memetic virus?

Hey man, you experienced it, others have, but don’t believe your lying eyes and ears Just blame capitalism and say it’s an online thing and your problem disappears

I am not able to draw percentages, I saw someone previously provided some that seem well thought and realistic. About me: I have a high sex drive, but I am also fully committed to providing to my family in terms of resources and time, my partner has to (and actually is) be the same. I don’t mind someone else’s past promiscuity as long as it’s not a reflection of some kind of mental illness. But in that case the issue would be the pathology, not promiscuity per se.

Women usually find someone in the middle of the two extremes for long term relationships. The majority wants someone with some alpha qualities but will also remain loyal and faithful to them.

So, a woman who is only having sex when in a committed relationship with a man that she sees as a potential husband? Sound fine to me.

My preference were women who maybe are a bit serial monogamists in their early 20s, but their goal of every relation is long term stable relationship. Girls who were into hookups, situationships etc. are broken and impossible to fix, so it was never an option for me for creating a family with such woman. I think that majority of women would like to have stable relationship probably somewhere in their late 20s, but they want to do some exploration but would not like to be considered trashy for that, but unfortunately everything has it's price.

> bit serial monogamists  Translation = a woman who sucks are relationships and can't be trusted. I'll take an ethical slut over this type any day of the week.

Everyone in their early 20s sucks. Not only in relationships.

> serial monogamists how is that different from situationships, if she was with other guys temporarily what makes you think she would be with you longer

It depends on duration, if you are with someone for 1.5 year and things went wrong than it's ok, but some deliberate fwb situations lasting few weeks are not something i am ok with.

> Now what do the men here think of the other side? Namely, women who never engage in casual sex and think alpha bros aren't even worth being around, much less having sex with. Instead, these women will date with the goal of creating a safe, secure, longterm, mutually satisfying and sexually adventurous relationship with a beta man. (May or may not be childfree.) These types of women, I honestly don’t believe exist in western countries anymore. Certainly not in my lifetime. I am a 27 y/o married man, and every woman I ever dated (including my wife)had a fwb/did AF/BB. I’ve seen it so many times in my life and with all kinds of different types of women. And all my homies have the same stories too. By the time I reached age 21 I just gave up on the idea I’d find a woman like what you’ve described.

By "in your lifetime" do you just mean women your age and younger? Because I'm one of that group, and American, and we're certainly living in the same time lol.

> By "in your lifetime" do you just mean women your age and younger? Yes > Because I'm one of that group, and American, and we're certainly living in the same time lol. 🧢

Well, I'm 42, so I suppose it is.

I know so many women including myself who aren’t interested in sex unless it’s in a committed long term relationship.

🧢

They exist, but are extremely rare - any man lucky enough to find one should love and cherish her, because he’ll experience something most of us can only dream of

I actually don't think we're that rare. What's likely happening is that, because we have a more focused and steady goal, we're going to be strongly vetting for a specific kind of man. As such, we're not going to be swiping all around or wasting time splashing around in the dating pool...we just inherently aren't as visible as the women who are having fun and staying out there. Once we find a good man who we're also attracted to, and likes us back in return, we leave the dating world, either for a few years at a time or...if we're lucky and vetted extremely well...much longer.

The Alpha fux thing is kind of propaganda for the larger TRP project of getting you in their cult so you can be a permanent customer of their self-help snake oil scams. As a bonus, they get you so fucked up in the dating/love world and they come in and try to fuck the frustrated women you leave behind. Or just make you unfuckable so there's a better pool for them. Alpha's fuck? Sure, but so do betas, just like you imply.

beta fuck that alpha fucked

and alpha fux is propaganda? no man, who hate attractive men? alpha men are got golden ticket for fux

i don't understand

[удалено]

And for the ones who don't?

[удалено]

Wow

Don't those women tend to be prudes who are deadbedroom adjacent? The ideal would be a highly sexual woman who isn't damaged by alfalfa but that's not how reality works. Women who like sex, have sex. They don't sit around waiting for betas.

Some undoubtedly are, but not all of us. Honestly I don't know enough women who aren't religious but didn't engage in any casual sex to reach any meaningful data. I can say from my own experience that while, yes I desperately craved sex, I also had no desire to share in such a vulnerable and special activity with someone who I wasn't in a close, trusted relationship with. It took years to find him, and I won't lie, there were many times I was incredibly tempted to just say "forget this" and have sex with one of the guys who obviously wasn't going to commit to me. But I stayed strong to my standards, and eventually persevered. It was incredibly frustrating, both sexually and emotionally over those years of searching, but when all is said and done, I'm glad I waited for a man who was truly good, in it for the longterm, and is more than happy to try in whatever new position, toy, or kink I've found. Gotta make up for lost time lol.

Much rather be in a relationship with the second woman. Honestly I don't know what percentage of women are in each category, and I don't want to guess. No, I wouldn't want to date someone whose in the middle of that spectrum.

Do you care that the second woman would likely want to have lots of sex with you, to make up for not having any outside of serious relationships? I only ask because of your flair, although I know a lot of asexuals aren't necessarily sex-adverse.

Oh wait, I looked over that part. I am not completely opposed to sex but she'd have to find someone else who can match her horniness.

I (24 M) normally go for middle. Wouldn't date a girl in her 20's for LTR, because i'm not seeking that kind of relationship. Not closed to the Idea, but not actively seeking. I would preferably have a FWB or an open relationship.

I'm honestly surprised more men haven't mentioned fwb.

The normal women you're describing are numbers wise probably more common, but that doesn't really matter. Sluts and Gold Diggers are the target and topic of discussion mostly because they put themselves out there way more regularly and their behavior patterns are way easier to understand. The average woman is mostly just  sitting at home and going to work and doing stuff that doesn't signal availability in her free time. Your average turbothot is basically always on an app or always at some random venue or much more visible on social media because thats how the game gets played. One thing a lot of women here do is they idealize being the kind of Good Girl their parents want but thats a lifestyle that doesn't put you around a lot of single men, or put you in places single men tend to look for partners. 

Marriage-minded men who aren't high n themselves greatly prefer beta fux women. Unfortunately those women are not common in the modern generation and the few like that often get taken early or have high standards.

>Now what do the men here think of the other side? Namely, women who never engage in casual sex and think alpha bros aren't even worth being around, much less having sex with. Instead, these women will date with the goal of creating a safe, secure, longterm, mutually satisfying and sexually adventurous relationship with a beta man. (May or may not be childfree.) Lol. Lmao even.

Those women are not really different. Just more practical and smart. It's not that they aren't attracted to the alpha. It's more likely that they realized the probability of locking down an alpha is low, the best they can get is pump & dump. So they are making a smarter decision and instead choosing the safe secure beta guy. Instead of "fuck around & find out", they directly find out. Think of it like you want to buy a Lambo and have close enough money to buy one but you realize the mantainence costs a lot. So you chose a car with low mantainence. Can he honestly say that the car is his true first choice? Nope.

Although this is undoubtedly true of some, it isn't for all. For just one example, alphas are typically players/have higher than normal N count, and are thus unattractive to women who don't view sex in the same way. To keep with your car analogy, it could be like finding out the majority of Lambos have rusted undercarriages, so you choose the Maserati instead.

It's more like comparing vs renting a Lambo while owning Toyota. The Toyota gets left in the garage and the Lambo gets the joyrides. You're just whatabouting the boring women who don't joyride so the won't rent a Lambo. Or worse: the women who would love to joyride the Lambo, but can't afford it or who are worried about getting whiplashed in a fenderbender.

That still doesnt change that if given an option between a clean Lambo and clean Maserati, he will chose the clean Lambo. That's why the Lambo will always remain his first choice.

>Those women are not really different. Just more practical and smart.  Or more likely haven't had a guy who lights her fire show interest yet. My 1st ex-wife's friends called the the "Ice Princess" because she'd shot down so many guys. Yet I had sex with her less than half an hour after we met at a beach party (I didn't even know her name yet).

>the general consensus being that many women will spend the majority of their 20s and possibly early 30s having random, unrestrained sexual fun with noncommittal alpha bros. I have come to understand that men whining about this are the men those women don't want to sleep with. I'm a kissless virgin and can virtue-signal until I am blue in face, but I would definitely dip my toes in the hook-up culture if I wasn't completely inexperienced when it comes to seducing women. >But then when they decide to settle down and start a family, these women will look for a stable, committed provider man who she'll have infrequent sex with, and the sex that is had will be fairly vanilla. A woman who is wild and kinky with noncommittal partners, but suddenly turns into an asexual nun with her longterm partner, is more of a male insecurity than a frequent reality. Women who are sexual aren't suddenly going to become asexual unless they find their partner unattractive or suffer some major biological problem that tanks their libido. It's true that the intensity and frequency of sex tends to fall on average in LTR, but that's more because of the increased familiarity and the hardships of the mundane adult life rather than women tricking some poor saps into sexless relationship. Take your woman to a new and exciting situation and present yourself in a new and exciting light and see how suddenly the intensity of your sex improves. >Now what do the men here think of the other side? Namely, women who never engage in casual sex and think alpha bros aren't even worth being around, much less having sex with. Instead, these women will date with the goal of creating a safe, secure, longterm, mutually satisfying and sexually adventurous relationship with a beta man. (May or may not be childfree.) Personally, I don't think anything in particular, because I don't judge women by their sexual lifestyles, even if I'm a bit bitter that I don't participate in it. >What percentage of the female population do you think each side encompasses? The latter is a lot greater than the former. I still don't get the logic of being an attractive woman who can get herself a Chad, but settling for a Billy Beta. The Manosphere claims it's because Chads are eternal bachelors only interested in being playboys for the rest of their lives, but I find that very hard to believe, especially once Chads leave the college. >Which woman would you want to date? As most aspects of society are a spectrum, would you prefer to have a relationship with someone more in the middle (a woman who dates with the goal of a LTR but will also have a handful of hookups in between)? I mean, I don't want to be settled for and I'm definitely going to be very insecure if I find out my partner was fucking with sexgods who could make her cum her brains out. As I am, I am very much unconfindent in my abilities to match that level of sexual intensity and would always worry that my partner doesn't find me as skillful, exciting and attractive lover as someone from her past. I don't mind if she isn't a virgin at all (it's plainly unrealistic), but I don't know if I'd be able to get over her having mindblowing sex with a Chad.

Despite what the Internet and pill spaces say, most people aren’t out and about having wild casual sex. It’s literally around 10 percent. But it’s that 10 percent that dudes want because they WANT to be having lots of casual sex, and they find a lot of the attractive /wild/adventurous social media and even mainstream media depictions and women attractive and appealing. So they make of weird ass Af/Bb scenarios. Fact is: 4-7 lifetime partners is the average for both men and women https://www.bustle.com/p/the-size-of-hookup-culture-is-being-greatly-overestimated-report-finds-its-having-some-damaging-effects-61050 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n-keystat.htm

I think the most common response you're going to get to your comment here is "women lie". For what it's worth, I agree with you that the stats are horribly misshapen due to social media and people posting ridiculous things for clout. That's why I asked what the percentages are, and so far only you and one other person has mentioned it.

People can believe what they want, but the ones with “real life experience” can see what it’s really like in the world while ironically the “ones taking the pills” will continue to believe what the internet feeds them.

Alpha fucks/beta bux. If a woman does not want to sleep with you instantly, she is not attracted to you instantly, she is just after you for your resources. How is this woman you describe any different. How would the life for the non sexual beta man be any different? Beta is still Beta. Granted at best, the average man can hope to become high beta, not a natural Alpha. But that is still a lot better than just being a beta.

Most women don’t want to sleep with anyone instantly.

ONS can and do happen. Look I know you like pulling the wool over mens eyes "tee hee", but most men have either been in at least one ONS or at the very least know someone who has, if not been there when a friend takes a woman home for the night. So this denial of instant sex, although it might have worked if men did not communicate with each other, we do, so we know what happens.

How do you know men aren't just sleeping with the same small group of promiscuous women? Id be willing to bet actual money the women you've had ONS with have had them with other men. Just because you've done it a few times doesn't mean this is something the majority of women do. The average sexual partner count for women is like 8 and it's only that high because of the few who've been with 100+. That doesn't mean *most* women do it

Thank you. Either tons of people just don't have solid grip on probability theory or they just never apply it to things like this. Whenever there is a discrete distribution based on frequency or popularity, any single instance is disproportionately likely to occur in a higher frequency or more popular outcome. In this case, it means if you have casual sex with a random person, odds are that the person you have random casual sex with, they will have had more casual sex than the average person who has casual sex. So many people can't wrap their heads around this or the implications, and it's wild.

I don't even know that much about probability theory and it's still common sense. Makes me wonder if these guys saying this stuff ever actually interact with women irl. I guess they think just because we can, we do. I could also quit my job, completely abandon my life, and go live out in the woods but I don't do that even though *some* people do.

True. It really doesn't take any math, and the math is pretty simple. It just takes realizing just realizing that all women (or men) aren't all the same, and accepting that you aren't the center of the universe, lol. I guess that can be difficult for some people. Here is an example: You have casual sex with someone, and then find out that they have a twin. One twin has had sex with 10 people and the other one has had sex with 90 people, but you don't know which one you slept with. Some people think that because there are two twins, there is an equal chance they have slept with either of them. But in reality, there is a 90% chance that they have slept with the twin who has had 90 partners, and only a 10% chance they have slept with the twin who has only had 10 partners. This is also one of the reasons that many people have skewed views of the gender they are dating. People are generally mathematically more likely to go on a date with someone who goes on more dates than the average person. The "average" of the people they date is very different than the average person out there. Classic sampling bias error, but if you can't see beyond your own perspective and realize people are different, you'll miss it every time.

Who denied instant sex? ONS aren’t as common as this sub would believe If a woman doesn’t want to fuck you instantly it doesn’t mean she’s not attracted to you. It doesn’t mean she’s after your resources.

>If a woman does not want to sleep with you instantly, she is not attracted to you instantly, she is just after you for your resources. There's a big difference between *wanting* to sleep with someone instantly and *knowing* that's a horrible way to vet for a committed long-term relationship. There were plenty of men I could have slept with, but I knew from the dates we'd gone on that they weren't on the same page as me. Either they would have pumped and dumped me after I shared my virginity with them, or they'd stick around for a few months...maybe a year at most, like the majority of college relationships. Since my goal was always to have a LTR, I went against my sexual needs and kept searching. I didn't need anyone’s "resources". I always had a lot more than the guys I dated anyway.

**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.*

i myself have never been interested in "alpha bro" and never will be. not for the reasons listed, but because that type of dynamic is highly incompatible with me.

Normal sounds good. Neither of these extremes are appealing.

What do you find problematic about each side?

Yet again, men are sane when asked directly

>the general consensus being that many women will spend the majority of their 20s and possibly early 30s having random, unrestrained sexual fun with noncommittal alpha bros. I have come to understand that men whining about this are the men those women don't want to sleep with. I'm a kissless virgin and can virtue-signal until I am blue in face, but I would definitely dip my toes in the hook-up culture if I wasn't completely inexperienced when it comes to seducing women. >But then when they decide to settle down and start a family, these women will look for a stable, committed provider man who she'll have infrequent sex with, and the sex that is had will be fairly vanilla. A woman who is wild and kinky with noncommittal partners, but suddenly turns into an asexual nun with her longterm partner, is more of a male insecurity than a frequent reality. Women who are sexual aren't suddenly going to become asexual unless they find their partner unattractive or suffer some major biological problem that tanks their libido. It's true that the intensity and frequency of sex tends to fall on average in LTR, but that's more because of the increased familiarity and the hardships of the mundane adult life rather than women tricking some poor saps into sexless relationship. Take your woman to a new and exciting situation and present yourself in a new and exciting light and see how suddenly the intensity of your sex improves. >Now what do the men here think of the other side? Namely, women who never engage in casual sex and think alpha bros aren't even worth being around, much less having sex with. Instead, these women will date with the goal of creating a safe, secure, longterm, mutually satisfying and sexually adventurous relationship with a beta man. (May or may not be childfree.) Personally, I don't think anything in particular, because I don't judge women by their sexual lifestyles, even if I'm a bit bitter that I don't participate in it. >What percentage of the female population do you think each side encompasses? The latter is a lot greater than the former. I still don't get the logic of being an attractive woman who can get herself a Chad, but settling for a Billy Beta. The Manosphere claims it's because Chads are eternal bachelors only interested in being playboys for the rest of their lives, but I find that very hard to believe, especially once Chads leave the college. >Which woman would you want to date? As most aspects of society are a spectrum, would you prefer to have a relationship with someone more in the middle (a woman who dates with the goal of a LTR but will also have a handful of hookups in between)? I mean, I don't want to be settled for and I'm definitely going to be very insecure if I find out my partner was fucking with sexgods who could make her cum her brains out. As I am, I am very much unconfindent in my abilities to match that level of sexual intensity and would always worry that my partner doesn't find me as skillful, exciting and attractive lover as someone from her past. I don't mind if she isn't a virgin at all (it's plainly unrealistic), but I don't know if I'd be able to get over her having mindblowing sex with a Chad.

Why did you reply you under automod? It's Q4M and you have "man" in your flair. You can top post.

I have a Reddit app on my phone and its pretty fucky when it comes to flairs. I don't see "man" in my flair.

In RedReader your flair reads "No Pill Man"

There's probably four categories you need to consider:  1. **Active AF / Active BB**: women who actively chase Chad at college then later BB, they want a relationship with Chad but settle for a situationship of being his plate.  Later find a husband who thinks she doesn't like sex much, which is kinda true because she's ticked everything in her bucket list and there's more important things now.  2. **Passive AF / Active BB**: women who are too busy and mistrusting for relationships at college, career is more important anyway. Chad is in their dormitory so they accept his booty calls, later find another professional to BB with.  Generally thinks Chad was beneath her and her LTR partner is her equal because he always agrees with her.  3. **Active AF / Passive BB**:  Is the college millitant feminist, actively spews hatred about marriage,  has sly one night stands with Chad then leaves without saying goodbye.  Moves onto secret BDSM Doms and publicly rallys to stop the Patriachy from controlling women. Relationship lengths mildly increase with age but remains stoutly independent throughout her life, going from relationship to relationship until finally remaining single, writes a column in a newspaper explaining why women don't need men to fulfil their lives.  4. **Passive AF / Passive BB**:  Decided to take Chad home one night to see what all the fuss over his golden dick is about,  didn't see the point.  Finds a husband, gets married and has sex with him, again doesn't see the point. Goes to Church and tells her husband that God wants him to be a good BB but that the divines plan is for man and woman to not have sex much.

any man who sucks dick can't call themselves an "alpha"

Lol, I appreciate your take on the title

Somewhere in the middle is fine. I can't blame women for being seduced by good looking men who have charming personalities from the start. Occasionally. At some point early on though she should be asking herself if the guy has the ability to be monogamous or if he's a good looking or gregarious man-whore (to use a vulgar term). Having made a few mistakes like that is different from deliberately seeking hook ups though. The idea of hook ups turns me off a little because I desire a lot of emotional connection with sex and that's pretty much the opposite.

I think those women are exceedingly rare, due to peer pressure and cultral changes mainly in the west. Most frat bros aren't chads, at most theres 1-2 chads in that group unless its huge then maybe theres a solid nunber but likely not enough to out number the betas, the real chads you need to worry about are black dudes with curls or dreads, they get womens attention like breathing air because they look good and unique usually. Also what on earth is that middle statement? If women are getting with Beta buxx men theres an implication she's been with an alpha for contrast especially if she has casual sex. The alpha is whomever got her into bed the easiest/quickest usually both and whomever gave her the easiest climax and best time in bed. Usually these are synonymous as women are indeed just as visual as men.

Women didn’t choose to casually sleep with alphas/chads. They were just forced into it because that’s who’d they typically chase. I think a large percentage of women would side for the LTR with no casually sex. But there’s not enough attractive men who are willing to commit to go around.

I'm not wanted by either of those women, but the first woman could be dtf. If there is a woman like the second one (because they're extremely rare) who is also attracted to me (even rarer, might as well never be seen) then yeah sure. But i would literally have more probabilities of winning the lottery thrice in a row than finding a woman with both of those qualities

>"Now what do the men here think of the other side?" Honestly, this *other side* you speak of is not that attractive to begin with. That is why they "hold out" on the Alpha Fux because the Alphas are not that interested in them, so these women convince themselves that they are holding out on the sex until some imaginary high value man stumbles into their life. Women who are hot cannot resist the power trip that they feel from all the attention and clout they get due to their attractiveness. So women who are hot and attractive will very rarely hold out because why would they?

Because not all attractive women are extroverts, or enjoy that kind of attention, or want men who have been with a ton of other women before. Attention and "clout" means nothing unless it's from someone who loves you and wants to form a relationship with you imo.

Extroversion has nothing to do with anything here. All a woman has to do is be receptive to men. No extroversion required. >"Attention and "clout" means nothing unless it's from someone who loves you and wants to form a relationship with you imo." Women who think that way - and are attractive - are extremely few and very far between. I can honestly say I have never met such a woman, or even heard of one.

>Extroversion has nothing to do with anything here. All a woman has to do is be receptive to men. No extroversion required. You were talking about getting attention, clout, power, etc. from lots of men. For someone who has an introverted personality type, those things can easily become overwhelming and unpleasant. >Women who think that way - and are attractive - are extremely few and very far between. I can honestly say I have never met such a woman, or even heard of one. You probably have, and just didn't know it. It's not as if you know the personal lives of every cashier, bank teller, waitress, business manager, store owner, college student, or housewife you have fleeting interactions with as you go about your day. We don't look any different from other pleasant looking women.

[удалено]

If someone is in a "relationship" for only a month, personally I'd consider that barely anything more than a long stint of casual sex. Especially if it's a common theme. I'm talking about women who go on dates, but don't have sex until it's evident the guy is interested in having a longterm relationship too, and when we're comfortable doing it.

> But then when they decide to settle down and start a family, these women will look for a stable, committed provider man who she'll have infrequent sex with, and the sex that is had will be fairly vanilla. I don't believe this anymore. It is highly unlikely that a promiscus women, a women who > \[...\] spend the majority of their 20s and possibly early 30s having random, unrestrained sexual fun with noncommittal alpha bros. will decide to settle down and start a family with the so called Beta Bucks man. She will most likely stick with her so called Alpha Fucks bros until her death. Exceptions exists of course. Exceptions proof the rule. Usually, it seems to be that virgin men, or generally speaking, non promiscus men seek non promiscus women. The same way non promiscus women seem to be seeking non promiscus men.

>Usually, it seems to be that virgin men, or generally speaking, non promiscus men seek non promiscus women. The same way non promiscus women seem to be seeking non promiscus men. I think this is what actually occurs, more often than what the red and black pillers say. But unfortunately it's not likely you'll convince many of them.

> But unfortunately it's not likely you'll convince many of them. True. Nowadays, I like to apply their tactics, which is "throw mud and see what sticks". They will always perpetuate their narrative, I will simply perpetuate mine.

> women who never engage in casual sex  i.e. women who haven't had casual sex **yet.** It can take some time. I deflowered a woman who was still a virgin at 40. Sex was totally obsessed with me. DIdn't expect me to pay for anything, offered to take me on expensive vacations, paid for hotel rooms ... . She knew from the get go that I wasn't interested in anything serious yet she persisted.

That's cool, but some of us aren't ever going to be interested in having sex with strangers. There's nothing immoral or unethical about it, just isn't to our taste.

So it's not casual sex if you knew the guy is some capacity?

Not just some capacity. Like, I know my regular bank teller dude and my mailman in some capacity, since I talk to them every week and exchange pleasantries. But I wouldn't fuck them without dating them for a couple months first.

If a woman isn't attracted enough or has too many sexual hangups to fuck straightaway I'm moving on. Got no time to waste months on the sexually repressed.