This discussion on the Red Pill Subreddit is possibly the Red-Pilliest Red Pill discussion I’ve ever seen:
![Im_Hitler 87 points 7 days ago Theyre ruined by 23 in most cases. Especially if they went to college. Jesus christ what is wrong with women. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive gold [–]sirmadam 54 points 7 days ago The girl who lives next door to me is 16 and already ruined. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive gold [–]Im_Hitler 43 points 7 days ago Lol I was talking to my younger cousin last night. Hes about 20 and he says the majority of girls his age had had up to 10 partners by the time they were 16. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive gold [–]Jigsus 33 points 7 days ago What the fuck? I bet naked bushwomen have less sex. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive gold [–]Im_Hitler 24 points 7 days ago Its probably very specific to the geographical location but the lesson is that girls are only getting alot more sluttier alot younger. Wouldnt surprise me if by 18 they are completely desensitized to sex. Good luck to the poor bastard that LTRs a 'young innocent' girl from that generation. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive gold [–]sirmadam 24 points 7 days ago Basically any girl at 16 who is half good looking is completely ruined. I'm holding out for some late-bloomers coming out of their shells. I'm really not down with putting any effort into getting a girl who's had more miles of dick in her than I've walked in the past year. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive gold [–]Billybob25112 20 points 7 days ago Eyes half open, blank look on their faces. They all have the stare by the time they're 16. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive gold [–]the10thrider 28 points 7 days ago Ahh, yes, the Thousand-Cock Stare.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/hitler1.png?ssl=1)
(I had to break the screenshot into three parts, hence the weirdness with the lines.)
In case anyone is wondering: these guys, in addition to being horrible people and probable pedos, are also completely wrong factually. A CDC survey found that men aged 25-44 reported they’d had a median of 6.1 lifetime sexual partners; women reported 3.6. Another CDC survey found that only 9% of women aged 15-44 had more than 15 sexual partners in their lifetime, as compared to 22% for men. Less than 2% of women had more than 5 sexual partners in the last year, as compared to 3.9% of men.
The differences between the numbers for men and women may, in part, be the result of different ideas about what constitutes sex. Men, given to padding the number of partners they’ve had, are more likely to count oral sex and handjobs as sex than women, who are more inclined to want to minimize their number. But even if we assume all the women are lying, their “real” numbers aren’t likely to be any higher than those of their male peers, which are likely exaggerated a bit.
Obviously having a lot of sexual partners is no crime. It’s just a bit weird how obsessed these guys are with women’s “number,” and how prone they are to wildly exaggerate what this “number” is. Combine this with their endless discussions of what they see as the mass “cuckolding” of men by sexually insatiable women and it almost seems like they’ve got some sort of unacknowledged fetish going on here.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, in itself; the problem is that their paranoid fantasies about hypersexual women provide them with an excuse for, well, being the douchebags that they are.
H/T — r/thebluepill
Kootiepatra, we’ve already solved this mathematical puzzle on Mammoth. 🙂 You see, only young and conventionally attractive women count. So what they actually mean is that only 20 % of the men get to have sex with the majority of young and conventionally attractive women.
@Bryce — Relationships don’t make you jaded unless you are the kind of person who finds the negative and the bitterness in everything. Most people grow and learn from experience.
I have several boyfriends before I met my husband, and a few flings. He still blew me away because I fell so deeply in love with him, and because he was a terrific guy. That’s why he was the one I wanted to stay with for the rest of my life. The prior relationships? Were learning experiences, and I’m really glad I had them. Plus, he ended up looking great by contrast — there were reasons I didn’t stay with the prior guys!
Trust me; if you are a good match with a woman and are a good, caring partner, her prior experiences won’t make her look down on you — they will make you shine even brighter by comparison.
I first got a glimpse into the truth behind the ‘virginal’ movement when I was in high school. There was a study that came out that showed that girls who play high school sports had a significantly later ‘start-date’ for sexual activity AND were more likely to use safer sex practices. Basically, the self-esteem boost that comes from competitive activity made them more likely to be assertive in turning guys down.
But the traditionalists rejected the implication that girls should be encouraged to engage in sports–because there was also a very slight correlation between high school sports and lesbianism. (Note: With how marginal it was, I always just suspected that it meant that just like being more willing to say ‘no’ to a boy and have it stick, sports increased the confidence of the lesbian students enough to make them more likely to come out of the closet.)
The whole thing is about control of women, nothing more or less.
Catalpa,
There is another group of men the manosphere doesn’t give a rat’s behind for. The elderly need support. Elder care is pretty shitty in the US.
@Lea
YES! +1 Internets for you!
I think PUA types throw out “jaded” and “bitter”, when a woman doesn’t fall for their BS or blindly go along with what somebody says when their actions are contradictory. No wonder they dislike experienced women so much. They’re too perceptive to fall for the lines.
“How dare that bitch say yes to a man before she knew of my existence! She exists solely for me and my peen!”
On the topic of controlling a woman’s sex life, I recall this documentary being put out a few years back:
@Paradoxical Intention
Holy Shit. I hadn’t seen that before and it looks very good (but infuriating)!
Okay, so in an effort to prove that it’s logically impossible for Red Pillars to demand that men should get to sleep around while women should stay ‘pure’ for each fella, or as close to pure as possible, I’ve managed to create a maths problem that I’m struggling to solve. Because maths isn’t my strong suit. MAMMOTHEER NERDS, HELP.
For the sake of simplicity let’s say there are 50 Red Pillers and 50 virgin women that are conventionally attractive enough for them to desire. For the sake of devils advocate let’s say that none of the women have any concept of bodily autonomy. I know I know, just suspend your disbelief for a second. Each of the RPers wants to bed 5 women but also want each of those 5 to have had no more than two previous partners. How many women must there actually be for this to be plausible?
Oh, and show your work. >:D
p.s if this turns out to be a relatively simple calculation that i could have done myself please don’t think ill of me. I’m tired, okay?
Sorry to spam but let me change the question: what’s the minimum number of women required for that to be plausible? THAT’S what I was stuck on.
I believe that the Red Pillers want there to be a large pool of conventionally attractive young women who will sleep with scuzzballs they just met, so that the RPs can get laid every night. They also want a large pool of conventionally attractive young virgins who are so naive or have such limited choices that they would be willing to permanently attach themselves to one particular scuzzball and never have any sexual or romantic experience outside that relationship. Then the RPs can sleep with all the women they want, while heaping contempt upon those women for being sexually available — and then go home to naive permanent-property “good girl.”
The madonna/whore complex REQUIRES both madonnas and whores. And, you know, this is actually how it works in most overtly misogynistic societies — there’s a pool of “nice women” whose sexuality is under draconian male control throughout their lives, and a pool of female sex-workers or entertainers who men can and do sleep with freely, who are treated as pariahs outside the bedroom even if they’ve been starved, coerced, or sold into their roles.
@Thalia
I agree that they want both madonnas and whores, but the numbers are still impossible. If they want each man on the planet to have a good girl wife AND a large pool of sluts to choose from, there needs to be many many many more women on the planet than there is. Even if they didn’t want every man to have that, in fact. Their dreams simply cannot play out in reality.
Plus, I have seen it banded about among some of them that they expect all their whores to be near virginal as well.
Oh, yeah — I meant to say that this system also sucks if you are male and poor and can’t buy access from other men to the prostitutes and the pretty brides. It’s like a lion pride — a handful of big male winners who get to sleep with a bunch of lionness, and a bunch of males who are shut out of mating all together. Lions GTOW. These societies suck for almost everybody.
Apparently sex is the only human activity that you get worse at the more you perform it.
[Trigger Warning: Repulsive Manospherian Sexual Proclivities]
It seems to me that what these guys are saying is that they do not want to have sex with a woman, what they want to do is coerce a crying, squirming, unwilling minor child into submitting to painful assaults of a sexual nature. Grown women who actually enjoy having sex are “ruined” for that purpose.
sunnysombrera: Since each man is willing to only accept a woman who has had sex no more than twice before himself, but wants to sleep with five total women, it’s actually a fairly simple formula.
In the general case, let Minimum Women = W; Number of Men = M; Maximum number of total partners had by women = P; Minimum number of women had by each men = N.
W = M * (N/P).
Each man in your example needs 5/3 women. Since talking about fractional people is icky, we want something divisible by three–add one dude. 51 men need 51 * (5/3) = 17 * 5 = 85 women.
sunnsombrera
If I’m figuring right, I think there would need to be 125 women in order for 50 men to have 5 partners each while their partners had no more than 2 each. My reasoning is thus: for 50 men to have 5 different partners with the women having only 1 partner each would simply be 50 * 5 = 250 women. If each woman can have 2 partners that’s 250/2 =125 women.
sevenofmine: That’s what I got when I first started answering, then realized it was 2 prior partners–so three total partners.
freemage: Ahhh, right you are. They will have had 3 total partners once everyone has boinked.
In the realm of the disgusting and disturbing, check out this:
http://www.donotlink.com/framed?686005
Okay, late to the party, but I am Groot!, this is completely hilarious:
Oh, my sides! Seriously. Is this what you tell yourself when you can’t get anyone hot and bothered? “You’re too desensitive!”
Wow…just…wow.
Another way to think of the pairing problem is as a graph. Each sexual interaction between two people is a line, and each person is a node. There must be 5 lines coming out of each PUA node, and no more than 3 lines coming out of each woman node.
It gives the same formula that others came up with, but maybe it’s easier to visualize. It’s also the main explanation given for why the average number of partners men and women have must be the same (for heterosexual folks, anyway).
I didn’rlt see if anyone else posted about AVFM-affiliates tried to mess with a ComicCon:
http://www.themarysue.com/calgary-expo-gamergate-evicted/
Jaysus-H-Chriss, I’m dehydrated.
[Transplanting trees.]
That above post is a bit of a word and letter salad.
*ahem*
I don’t know if anyone else has yet posted about this, but some AVFM-ers tried to mess with a Comic Con:
http://www.themarysue.com/calgary-expo-gamergate-evicted/
And thanks to this site, I immediately recognized the names mentioned as being “Gamer Gate-Affiliated” as actually being AVFM douchecanoes without probable actual interest in games, comics, or geek culture.