Social Justice · Women

Slut believes women should sleep with at least 25 guys

Oh man, slut culture is really quite something. While the number of women who complain that there are no good men left has been increasing sharply, female solipsism is a force powerful enough to make younger women completely ignore the fate that will await them. They see their 35-year-old colleague who happily took every Tyrone and Jamal’s dick years ago. She wanted to settle down eventually and all the “good men” who had, you know, a job were suddenly unavailable. The plausible conclusion a sane woman would draw from seeing that is that good men don’t go after used-up women who crashed so hard into The Wall that Jerome’s cum splashed out of her ass. Nope, that just couldn’t happen in ten year’s time to your typical garden-variety whore in her twenties! Other women may be that unfortunate, but she’ll find her buff billionaire who doesn’t mind seeing dried cum from three men on her lower back when he undresses her.

One deluded slut thinking that her behavior won’t have any consequences would only wreck her own life. However, it is worse when sluts promote sluttiness, such as Amanda Ross in her article, “You should sleep with at LEAST 25 guys before settling down, and I’ll tell you exactly why.” In essence, her claim is that a woman has to have sampled all kinds of cocks before she can settle on the one cock she really wants. That is interesting, because this implies that a slut who has had more dicks in her than she has read books in five lifetimes would become, like totally, faithful and shit. After sampling two dozen dicks, she would know who the one dick would be. Her argument would make some sense if she had written that she has to pick one dick who has to satisfy her for a year or two before filing for divorce and collecting alimony.

Something tells me that the writer is a bit of a moron. In this article, she recommends big dicks, presumably based on experiencing one massive cock tearing up her pussy. Months earlier, though, she was “under the complete delusion that small dicks were ‘the best.'” It seems that whatever she has experienced is “the best”. Until very recently she didn’t know what it feels like to sit on a really big dick (maybe I should ask my girlfriend to write a guest post on that topic). Now that she has experienced it, it’s the best ever. Similarly, now that her N-count is ridiculously high, it’s the ideal number and if her number was higher, it would be even more ideal for the ideal woman she is.

Amanda Ross is a perfect example of the modern woman: ignoring that actions have consequences, um, I mean, living in the moment, and being absolutely unable to think critically. What about the guy she intends to settle down with? She thinks that just because she has been able to jump from Jamal to Tyrone to Jerome to Chad to Matt to Brad that she’ll also get hitched right away. Boy will she be in for a surprise! The average guy even fucks women below his stature if it’s convenient.

We have A-listers banging gutter-tier women. Boris Becker got sperm-jacked by a cleaning lady. Arnold Schwarzenegger banged a maid who was so ugly you could mistake her for an animal. Tiger Woods banged some very hot women, but also chicks that would make me lose my appetite if I saw them. Grudgingly, those men may pay child support, but they won’t marry those women. Similarly, Chad may want to bang a Six or a Seven out of mere convenience, but he won’t put a ring on her. That is where Amanda Ross’s plan falls apart: quality guys pick young women with a very low partner count. Women who have had so many cocks that they lost count, on the other hand, will have to make it through life as diversity hires and cat ladies.


Did you like this article? Excellent! If you want to support what I am doing, then please consider buying my amazing books or donating to the upkeep of this site. If you want tailored advice, I am available for one-on-one consultation sessions.

37 thoughts on “Slut believes women should sleep with at least 25 guys

  1. Come on, Aaron… babe.net? you are aiming for a low hanging fruit. Even lower than jezebel…. the only feminist site I can think of thats below babe.net is bolde.com

    And babe only just got on the radar because they penned the now infamous Aziz Ansari “expose” under the #metoo banner…

    I find it hard to believe these are not satire.

  2. I am the first to admit that I am a man slut. I am also the first to admit the appeal of 25 or more pussies as opposed to the researched average partner count for men of 7. But I am not a woman. Whether I want to settle down or not is another matter. I can do so well into my forties. Women can’t wait till their thirties in my opinion. Don’t blame anyone but biology for it. Its not that men lose interest in women after a women reached age thirty but that she loses all her sex appeal by that time and therefore, they lose interest in them.

    The funny thing is that the taboo of dating older men for young women actually plays well for the man. But the taboo of dating older women for younger men doesn’t.

    1. “as opposed to the researched average partner count for men of 7. ”

      This is way to high.
      How do I know? If you can fuck 7 chicks, you can fuck 20 or 50 or 100. And if they can, most men will.

      I say avg lay count for men is 1-3. This is net – prostitutes not included.

    2. This is way to high.
      How do I know? If you can fuck 7 chicks, you can fuck 20 or 50 or 100. And if they can, most men will.

      You’re right. It’s an arithmetic average actually.
      They got 7 not because most people are at “around 7”, but there are ton of people with 2-3 lays, and a bunch of people with 20-30 lays.

    3. Your are not wrong and neither am I. My calculation included possible use of hookers as well as that it is just a average. The median itself is at about 2-3. The number is at 1 in some countries for most people in there.

    4. Fair enough.

      It’d be interesting to see how many men actually have been to hookers. I think that number is quite low.
      My gut feeling tells me that lots of the revenue comes from a small pool of regulars so maybe… one out of ten men has ever been to a brothel?

    5. I think the numbers are a bit higher. I occasionally ask guys I know loaded questions. For instance, some time ago a friend of mine told me about his trip to the Czech Republic, so I randomly inquired about the quality of the hookers. I didn’t think he was a whore monger, but he then told me a few stories.

  3. I wonder if these women are really that clueless about men and biology. Or that this is a calculated attempt to drag the competition down to her level. Or simply a attempt to justify her bad behaviour to escape judgement and save face. Or a combination. Is this like the children’s story about the fox that has lost it’s tail?

    1. The fox that lost it’s tail story.
      There’s an old children’s story about a fox that loses it’s tail. The fox gets stuck in a hunters trap and loses it’s tail. All the other foxes make fun off him. He cant grow a new one. So he try’s to convince all the other foxes that it’s better without a tail. He argues that hunt dog’s often grab foxes at their tail. And tells the others they should also remove their tail. But than one of the others makes the point. The fox wouldn’t have asked them to remove their tail if he never lost his own. He’s just trying to drag them down to his level. Because he can never grow a new one.
      Could it be that this woman knows she screwed up her SMV? And is now trying to make other women screw up theirs? Because she knows she’s not able to compete. And she can never undo the damage.

    2. I think that the one thing hardcore feminist hate more than white men. Is pretty girls with a high sexual market value. They seem to be dragging down these young women on purpose. Trying to become worthless sluts. Cutting their hair. Gain weight. Take tattoo’s and nose rings. Focus on everything except the things that make them desirable to men. You could say that their war on young women is even worse than their war against men. And it’s absolutely evil in nature. Trying to pretend to be someone’s friend and ally. While their real goal is to destroy them. This is something women do to each other all the time. Talking behind the other girl’s back in a calculated attempt to destroy her reputation.

    3. “Or simply a attempt to justify her bad behaviour to escape judgement and save face. Or a combination”
      I agree with you ben , especially how they justify.
      If I ever call out a woman on her dumb shit she always excuses it along the lines that all women are as shitty and stupid as here like “you would never understand women””this is how women work” ” i am a woman”.

    4. @ben (I wonder if these women are really that clueless about men and biology. Or that this is a calculated attempt to drag the competition down to her level.)

      I think “cooperative breeding” explains this:
      “these woman” as you called them, want to raise their position in the hive –
      ultimate goal is the “queen bees” status (that only one woman – queen – decides EVERYTHING and also gets EVERYTHING), so that feminist women
      (exactly like real commies) want to bring everyone down to their level (or even lower) so they could start benefiting from new situation, which they cannot do in the old one (under competition).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_breeding
      “Dominant males and females exhibit SUPPRESSIVE behaviors towards subordinates to maintain their breeding status. (…) For example, if there are more male helpers as compared to females, then the dominant male will suppress subordinate males and experience a higher cost.
      The opposite is true for females. Breeders will even suppress subordinates from mating with other subordinates.

    5. chairman: We discussed cooperative breeding before. And i can see some elements within society. But within this instance it doesn’t really fit. (The opposite is true for females. Breeders will even suppress subordinates from mating with other subordinates.) This female is even promoting breeding with many partners. So it doesn’t really fit. It does seem more like she wants other women to destroy their smv. Hoping to better her own trading position. But most of all justifying her own bad behaviour. And avoiding responsibility for her actions. I’m just wondering if this is a conscious attempt. Specially the bringing others to her level part. Or is it a natural instinctive reaction. Maybe because she feels degraded. She wants other women to be degraded as well. You also see much older women with a sexual fantasy of dominating younger women. Often helping men fucking these younger women. And sexual abuse victims willingly helping their abuser to make more victims. Girlfriends helping their boyfriend raping women.

    6. chairman: When it comes to the male dominance instinct. I think most is well known. When it comes to the female dominance instinct there are still some unanswered questions i believe. Men do try to climb up. But women seem to have real pleasure in bringing other women down. And i suspect it’s because after the age of 24 they simply cant climb up in reproductive value. They only go down in value. So the only way to stay relevant in the mating game. Is by keeping other women down. And maybe even trying to keep value by helping the men attract and dominate other younger females.

    7. chairman: Older and ugly feminist with low sexual market value are also often more dominant. And they focus lots of attention on the younger more attractive females. Either they promote that these younger women have sex with many low value males. Or they want to engage in sexual activity with these females themselves. It seems that females with low sexual market value instinctively try to compensate with dominance. Either by direct dominance. Or indirect dominance by males.

    8. ben (But within this instance it doesn’t really fit.):
      I think of it, as this woman not promoting breeding per se but promote sex without offspring. At least for me those are 2 different topics- breeding means to produce offspring. By having sex with many partners, I agree with you here, “she wants other women to destroy their smv”.
      She consciously tells other woman what to do. By that she wants to climb to the top position and makes other woman (those that listen to her) her subordinates. If they do have sex with many partners without offspring,
      while being in their peak fertile years, they will undisputably destroy their own smv. Thus their chances of generating offspring with desirable male will be suppressed.

      As side note: if i remember correctly similar discussion popped out last year when you guys discussed third way feminist having child(ren) and forbidding other woman from doing so by scarying them, and turning them against men. By means of tells of “rape culture”, “street harassment” etc.

    9. Here is something to consider: if feminists succeed in turning all women into sluts, then even the most desirable men will have to settle for a slut if they want to have children — at least until we have artificial wombs. Consequently, the market value of a slut in a sea of sluts is roughly identical to all other sluts, while women with a low partner count in a sea of sluts have excessively high sexual market value.

    10. ben: (I’m just wondering if this is a conscious attempt.
      Specially the bringing others to her level part. Or is it a natural instinctive reaction.) What is conscious with regards to women nowadays?
      Take hypergamy, or apex fallacy, or cheating or whatever for example, those are all actions based on animalistic instincts untamed by civilised society. Thanks to feminism women are not guided on what to do and how to behave in society. So what uncivilised, by feminism, woman could do? Run wild.
      And thats exactly what modern females do. Without strong father figure or strong man in their life they act on their instincts. And what said woman have to do, when, in flash of consciousness, she realizes she royally fucked up? Bring competition down, below even her level.

      Here text about fembots glorifying catching STD:
      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/15/feminists-privilege-sexually-transmitted-disease/

    11. Thanks for sharing that link. I had to double check that I wasn’t looking at a parody website.

    12. Aaron: Yes that’s exactly what they do. I’m more interested in what part of this behaviour is biological. Feminist are waging a war against desirable women. I would like to know in more detail if it’s instinctive behaviour. Just like hypergamy is linkt to the maternal instinct. It could be linked to hormonal levels. Making them more dominant and less attractive. Just like submissive men are less attractive to women. And try to compensate with gifts and being the nice guy. Are these women instinctively compensating by being more dominant against other women? Pressure and sometimes even forcing them to reproduce with men. Often the undesirable men. In order to take them out of the mating game. Could this be a biological driven part of the female mating strategy?

    13. chairman: (I think of it, as this woman not promoting breeding per se but promote sex without offspring) That doesn’t fit with a biological instinctive behaviour. Their instinct doesn’t know about birth control. If this is instinctively driven. It’s more likely the objective is to get these young and desirable women pregnant by the undesirable men. So she herself can mate with the more desirable men. Or simply take down the social status of her competition. So she herself can mate with the more desirable men.

    14. Thanks for clarification.
      As for your question:
      ben (Pressure and sometimes even forcing them to reproduce with men. Often the undesirable men. In order to take them out of the mating game. Could this be a biological driven part of the female mating strategy?):

      mother 45, let her boyfriend 18yo muslim molest her daughter 12.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5306279/Mother-refused-report-Afghan-migrant-molesting-daughter.html

      why this all happen, you ask? Could it be instinct evolutionary strategy.
      Human females outlive their fertility which is rare in the animal kingdom.
      Older woman could help to raise new children.
      Older woman, running wild, will act on her urges to “help” raise new children.
      So older woman could instinctively guide (even force) breeding of younger girl no matter what. With, not so alpha males, but that doesn’t matter. sperm is sperm.
      If woman want to have a baby to nurse, woman do everything to get it.
      Thus, said forcing, could be not related to smv of other woman, but to their own instincts.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origin-of-menopause/

      “The most popular explanation, the “grandmother hypothesis,” argues that a generous post-reproductive life span makes sense if a grandmother improves the survival and reproduction of her grandchildren, thus ensuring continuation of her own genes—including genes that contribute to longevity.”

      “”Women stop breeding on average when the next generation starts to breed.””

      “This makes evolutionary sense, Cant and Johnstone say, because, contrary to most mammals, young women tend to move to their mates’ communities, where they become immigrants whose only genetic kin are their own children.
      There is no genetic profit in helping their mothers-in-law bear more children, because they will not share any genes with those children. But an older woman who helps her son’s wife reproduce will benefit by bequeathing 25 percent of her genes to her grandchildren.”

      “”We show that the mother-in-law’s best strategy is to stop breeding, avoid competition, and allow the daughter-in-law to breed and help her,””

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmother_hypothesis

      “It builds on the previously postulated “mother hypothesis” which states that as mothers age, the costs of reproducing become greater, and energy devoted to those activities would be better spent helping her offspring in their reproductive efforts.[1] It suggests that by redirecting their energy onto those of their offspring, grandmothers can better ensure the survival of their genes through younger generations.”

      http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2012/10/the-grandmother-hypothesis-an-explanation-for-human-development/

      “While chimpanzees and other primates raise their children alone, human mothers also receive outside help, allowing them to have children more frequently. This group effort creates a rearing environment that is drastically different from those of other apes and helps to distinguish humans from other primates.
      Because human mothers have to distribute their attention to several children at the same time, humans are additionally much more social than their evolutionary peers. Hawkes believes that this unique human rearing environment creates shared intentionality, an idea set forth by Michael Tomasello, which states that humans want to be connected and work together in society to achieve common goals.”

      https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-evidence-that-grandmothers-were-crucial-for-human-evolution-88972191/

      “But why would females evolve to only ovulate for 40 or so years into these longer lives? Hawkes and other advocates of the hypothesis note that, without menopause, older women would simply continue to mother children, instead of acting as grandmothers. All children would still be entirely dependent on their mothers for survival, so once older mothers died, many young offspring would likely die too. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes more sense for older females to increase the group’s overall offspring survival rate instead of spending more energy on producing their own.”

      http://scienceline.org/2013/02/revisiting-the-grandmother-hypothesis/

      “Grandmothers are unlikely to be the only ones providing support, however. Among the Hadza families Hawkes studied, only four of the eight cases she counted as “grandmothering” came from actual grandmothers. The rest were aunts and other female relatives – expanding the term “grandmother” to include any senior woman who helped raise the children of younger women.

    15. chairman: You make some interesting points. The only difference is that these women (hardcore feminist) are not related to the younger girls. Some behaviour could be linked to the maternal instinct perhaps. Since these women are often childless themselves. And are not capable of attracting a mate. Maybe it’s the same principle instinctive behaviour as baby stealing. Sometimes infertile desperate women steal baby’s. Maybe this is the same. Instinctively making other less dominant females reproduce. So she can claim control over the baby after birth. A result of the maternal instinct running wild. Could make sense. Could also go with the cooperative breeding theory. Just a little different than some other animals. She’s not spreading her own genetics. But it could be a successful method to reduce inbreeding. In this way less desirable males have breeding opportunity. And they might give resources to the undesirable female thats taking care of the offspring. Securing her survival and status within the tribe.

    16. chairman: It could also be as simple as pimping the younger women out to require resources. Because she’s not capable of attracting a mate herself. Normally men wouldn’t give a undesirable woman resources. But if she’s in control of the younger women. They might give her resources so she’ll pimp out the younger female to them. If prostitution is the oldest profession. Maybe the same go’s for pimping. The undesirable older woman would control the most valuable resource to men in this way. Maybe they are just natural born pimps. I see this happening in thailand as well. Almost all prostitutes have a mamasan. A older female pimping out the younger girls.

    17. chairman: Personally i believe that’s what feminism is all about. They dont want a man to control a woman’s sexuality. Because she wants that control over younger women for herself. Turning these younger women into whores. So she can pimp them out to the beta males. She can secure herself an army of beta male drones. Basically becoming the queen of the hive. It’s the only way for these older ugly dominant females to require resources. Because otherwise they have nothing to offer to men. Men wouldn’t give them resources. And they wouldn’t be able to survive. But if she can control the sexuality of younger desirable women. She climbs from the bottom social position. Straight to the alpha position.

  4. “They see their 35-year-old colleague who happily took every Tyrone and Jamal’s dick years ago.”

    Aaron, you discriminating racist. Lately you are ignoring Mahmud, Ali, Yusuf et al. Give ’em some air time, too man…

  5. You complain a lot about how college girls get laid with “bad boys,” then look to settle down later. But… that’s what men do as well, given the chance. I want to date sexy idiots now, and a sweet career woman later.

    So… I only understand your frustration if you aren’t one of the guys who gets laid in college.

    On a more collaborative note, if you want to disincentivize women from divorce-raping you, get a high status job and shop around for a woman who also makes money. Unions like that are typically stronger because divorcing you is a net financial loss to her.

    So, I think the general strategy of becoming a strong mate choice yourself will solve a lot of the problems you are encountering. Good luck 🙂

    1. What have you been smoking? Men and women are fundamentally different. Thus, you can fuck around in college all you want. As long as you end up with a decent job as an adult, you’ll be able to date. However, “Brian”, guys don’t care about how much women make. If they want to raise a family, guys avoid sluts, however.

      Furthermore, due to female hypergamy, you won’t ever get a woman who is more successful than you. Thus, you won’t ever escape divorce rape. The exceptions are so incredibly rare that they are not worth talking about. For instance, Mike Chernovich got rich through divorce because she ended up making millions through the IPO of her employer, or so the story goes. She wasn’t rich when she married him, however. I haven’t looked into this in detail, but I would not be surprised if he got dumped because she was rich and he wasn’t.

      Lastly, “Brian”, you are the one who needs luck. There is no wall waiting for me while you’re rushing into it at full speed.

      EDIT: The uninitiated reader may also want to pay attention to the not-so-subtle use of shaming language “Brian” used. That is particularly popular among women and beta cucks.

    2. Brian: Maybe you should do some research on the male vs female selection process. I suspect you’re probably a woman. Career women are not really considered marriage material by most men. And the sexual market value progression for men and women is totally different. A woman that’s 30 years old has lost 90% of her eggs. A Man that’s 30 years old is at the beginning of his earning potential. Men and women select their partners on totally different qualities. You cant make a one on one comparison. If you want to make a more relevant comparison. Maybe you should look at male gambling addicts or alcoholics as a counterpart of the female slut. Because those would have about the same sexual market value. A slut is just as much a liability for a man as a partner. As a alcoholic gambler would be for a woman. Men do not select women on earning potential. Men select women on beauty and youthfulness. because they are signs of good genetics and fertility. Women are looking for a man that’s capable to provide and protect.

    3. Brian: This article of a woman arguing that women should become sluts to increase future relationship chances is ridiculous. It’s just as ridiculous as a man arguing that all men should get drunk everyday. And gamble their money away to increase the chances of a good marriage later on. Women would look at that and think those men as huge liabilities. They wouldn’t feel confided that a man with a history like that would make a good protector/provider. Men look at sluts as a liability. They are likely to get pregnant from a other man. He cant know if any offspring is really his. And when women wait until they are older until they settle down. Her capability to create and care for healthy offspring is significantly lower. The pregnancy chances decrease over time. And the chances of birth defects increase. Women’s market value is directly linked to their sexuality and their ability to reproduce. Like men’s market value is directly linked to their ability to provide and protect.

    4. Brian: You are a perfect example of a Western woman that’s buying the feminist lie. I hope you’re young enough to change the direction you’re probably heading. If you are really a man. (small chance) Than maybe CNN would make a good news outlet for you. They can give you great advice on how you can let other men fuck your wife in order to better your marriage. Either way, best off luck. You’re going to need it.

    1. That woman does not allow comments. I do. However, I put comments on moderation because there are simply too many idiots out there and I rather keep this blog clean.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *