After I had posted the article, A Young Slut’s Diary, a rather unexpected thought crossed my mind: Considering that the purpose of sex is procreation, should it not be the case that women who make the most effort in turning themselves into sex objects and who have the most sexual partners have the most children? Let’s explore this question in further detail!
Before we dive deeper, let us define what a slut is. To my understanding, sluts are not women who only have an excessive amount of sexual partners. Instead, think of a phrase like, “she is dressed like a slut!”. Such statements are made when women whose looks are clearly above average go the extra mile to appear sexually available. We are talking about Sevens and above. They dye their hair blonde, use excessive make-up, wear tight clothes, and show more skin than would be appropriate. Those women want the most sexual attention they can get. In the extreme, and this is what I have witnessed in some clubs, those women may even walk around in lingerie.
Of course, the feminist objection is that a woman who puts her sexuality on display does not indicate that she is willing to have sex. Quite frankly, anybody who says such nonsense should be laughed at. Such women dress like sluts precisely because they want to be seen as sexually available, hoping that Chad is going to make a move. On a side note, so-called “slut walks” are laughable. They are full of fat and ugly chicks who wish they would be hit on by Chad, but simply aren’t. A woman can’t just call herself a slut and believe that this makes her one, just like some little dysgenic dweeb cannot get a few of his dweeb friends together and start a “Chad walk”.
A slut does not just make the effort of dolling herself up for nothing. Afterwards, she will go out, seeking out places where she can maximize her visibility. She wants to be seen by as many Chads as possible. In case Chad shows up and hits on her, which is pretty likely, she will happily let him bang her, but she does not do this with the purpose of getting impregnated. Instead, she wants the attention and the confirmation that she can attract good-looking guys.
Sluts do not want to get pregnant. They may use the pill or an IUD, but if they are really messed up, they will use abortions as a birth-control method. For sluts, sex is not about procreation but merely about the continuous confirmation that Chad still wants to fuck her, and she can only know for sure if Chad really fucks her. This is what she wants to get out of her nightly escapades, and as her large number of sexual partners shows, she does not care about long-term relationships at all. In a way, this is as if you watch the same kind of movie, but only about half an hour of it. It almost seems as if those women are stuck in some kind of loop, quite similar to Groundhog Day or, to use a somewhat more recent example, Edge of Tomorrow, except that they have a much harder time breaking out of it.
I once met a woman, another young slut, who seemed to be in a weird mood after sex, and she told me that her doctor recommended that she should have her IUD removed soon, which she had been using for years, and she had a strong aversion against using the pill. She got melancholic because I was likely the last guy to fuck her on an IUD, which has enabled her to have carefree sex. Ever the pragmatist, she wanted to know if we could try practice using a “menstrual cap”, i.e. she wanted to keep me around for practice with that device. (I don’t think I have ever felt so objectified by a woman.) I did not raise the question whether she should slowly move on from partying and whoring around.
By the way, the feminist obsession with abortion is easy to explain: they want the option of sleeping around and in case they get pregnant, they want to hit the reset button. This is all this is about. “My body, my choice” means that she wants to have as much unprotected sex with good-looking guys as she can, and if she, due to drugs and alcohol, ends up fucking a guy who is not even half as attractive as she thought, she wants an easy way out.
There are sluts who never manage to break out of the infernal loop they are trapped in. Some desperately try to reinvent themselves in their late 20s or early 30s, but rarely successfully, but other sluts, upon realizing that they get fewer and fewer men, make a different decision: They make the decision to maximize their sexual appeal. This is when they spend money on botox, fillers, breast implants, liposuction, and whatever else is available, all in an attempt to keep being able to bang random guys. Often, they swap their breast implants for even bigger ones because they have to compensate for the fact that they are no longer as slim as they used to be. These women may also get more and more tattoos after this turning point, presumably because they wrongly assume that they got dicked by more guys in their 20s partly because of their tattoos. This is somewhat analogous to getting breast implants, i.e. more of something is intended to give better results. Some of these women hit the wall hard in their late 30s. In fact, there are a few actresses, and porn whores, who have gone down this route, completely destroying their lives and appearance. Pamela Anderson is a good example, but there are countless others.
Sluts are similar to a glitch in our societal matrix. They can only exist because birth control and abortion exist. Otherwise, their need for male attention would lead to them getting knocked up quickly, and this would put an early end to their plans of sleeping around for decades. Yet, because there is effective birth control, they can essentially replay the first level of Super Mario Bros. over and over. It really makes you wonder if they even understand how bizarre their actions are. They act as if they crave sex and want to get knocked up when they really don’t. Often sex is just a means to an end, i.e. male attention, to them. This is why sluts seem to have not more children than regular women. They have fewer, and plenty have none, and it is primarily due to their addiction to getting sexual attention from men.
In primitive times, however, it would have made sense that those kinds of women would be able to reproduce more, as long as they secured the necessary help for raising the children.
This could be with multiple partners (and there is evidence that primitive females where quite promiscuous) or altetnatively, having lots of sex with the same partner.
Over time, as cultural norms evolved, those that emphasized monogamy outcompeted the others, which strongly suggests this is a more efficient arrangement. This is also the reason female sexuality was more tightly controlled, in a world with little to no birth control options.
Once that changed, this societal order was upended in the span of a generation or two. Evolution suggests that sooner or later we could adapt and find a new model, but that may take several generations.
And it may not be possible without large scale societal collapse.
It is interesting why monogamy outcompeted other forms of relationships.
From evolutionary perspective, the Chads are attractive because they are most likely to rise to the top of social hierarchy and polygamy allows those on the top to leave more offspring relative to monogamous societies. Based on that logic one would expect that individuals of highest genetic fitness are to be found in Africa and the Middle East.
Some speculate that the leftwists will simply abort themselves into oblivion and be replaced by religious conservatives, who have larger families.
Genetic fitness depends on the environment. If you live in an environment in which you can pluck the tastiest and healthiest fruits imaginable, and animals are trivially easy to hunt because they are so abundant, there is not evolutionary advantage for any kind of long-term thinking. This is a relatively prominent hypothesis among fringe scientists. The key tenet is that harsh European winters forced people to cooperate and plan ahead, whereas the same was not true in Africa. This may explain why the Europeans built Notre Dame whereas, as far as I know, no African tribe went beyond building primitive mud huts.
Monogamous societies distribute women more equally among the men, reducing the necessity of violent competition among men to get any reproductive success, and commiting the males to investing heavily into offspring that they are more certain is theirs. This leads to more stable societies with greater internal cohesion, so the theory goes.
On the other hand, you can see that in very competitive species males have to invest a lot of energy in fighting (and killing) other males, and getting hurt in the process. In species where females are extremely choosy, like orangutans, beta males frequently resort to raping unwilling females in order to reproduce.
I thought so as well, problem is that there is no reliable way yet to make sure conservative families will raise enough likeminded children that transmit those values down the life. Chances are greater, sure, but modern culture and education system is extremely efficient in corrupting them once they leave their parents tutelage, often earlier.
You could think of some sort of cultural evolution, where they pull back from society somewhat, like some conservative disapora communities do. Or the amish. But that comes with a heavy price as well, and these communities remain minorities.
Thats why I think a generalized collapse of the welfare states may be necessary before it is possible to rebuild education and culture on more solid bases.
Based on what I read, the Amish population has been growing exponentially. This article claims that their numbers double every 18 to 20 years:
https://amishamerica.com/how-fast-are-the-amish-growing/
If this is true, this would be an incredible growth rate. Of course, even if it is true, the question is if this growth rate can be sustained and, more importantly, their culture can be maintained. If they grow too big, only to allow a feminist coven to infiltrate them, then their evolutionary success may be short-lived.
I dont fully buy the harsh european winter thing – Africa is quite diverse geographically, there are plenty of harsh environments, no shortage of wild animals to kill you, and no shortage of hostile tribes waiting to kill you for your cattle and women. All of this presents a pretty competitive environment which should exert the appropiate selective pressures to favor intelligence and forward thinking.
One possible explanation is that cultures that managed to master reading and writing early on suddenly had the possibility of preserving large amounts of knowledge, transmit it more widely and efficiently, and therefore got used to working their minds much more, which led to greater intelligence development over generations.
In this way they may have gotten themselves such a large headstart that cultures that could not invent and alphabet were left behind in the stone age.
This is an interesting angle, too. Could it be that some subspecies of homo sapiens are so disadvantaged that they will never be able to evolve significantly above apes? After all, it seems that some are unable to develop a written language, or even invent the wheel.) I am not only thinking of some African tribes but also of the Australian natives which, quite frankly, have an appearance that is a lot closer to apes than humans. Related is that the out-of-Africa hypothesis of human development no longer has much support. Humans evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world, and all evidence suggests that the various races differ significantly in terms of potential. This leads to the thought experiment what Africa would have looked like had Europeans settled there. Oh, wait, we did create Rhodesia and South Africa, but this is all history now.
Keep in mind that writing was more often passed through inter-cultural contact than independently discovered. Even runes are thought to have been influenced by Phoenician alphabet or one of its derivatives. Jared Diamondesque argument of why Africa didn’t develop writing would be the lack of trade routes and Sahara desert acting as a barrier for exchange of ideas.
Aaron,
“…out-of-Africa hypothesis of human development no longer has much support.”
I believe somewhere in the 2010s, a new hypothesis called The Braided Stream Hypothesis emerged to explain that humans were the products of braided genetics and to explain why there’s evolutionary gaps which the Out of Africa and Multiregional hypothesis doesn’t seem to explain much.
I have not heard of this but my initial reaction is that it sounds like a leftist attempt to save the we-are-all-the-same hypothesis. Instead of all of us coming out of Africa, now we are part of a “braided stream”, no matter what race we belong to.
Thanks god the out of africa hypothesis is fake leftist propaganda otherwise we would be closely related to those filthy subhuman creatures . That horrible thought makes me puke.
It seems you need to learn that there are no human races and that we are all the same. Also, keep in mind that the great replacement of the West is not happening, but if the elites talk about it, it is a good thing and you should be glad that it is happening.
Furthermore, I have to disavow your comment. Everybody else on here is, in fact, saddened that the Out-of-Africa hypothesis turned out to be a hoax. The moment I heard about this, I cried like Jordan Benzos Peterson when he groveled in front of a Jewish audience the other day.
Indeed, writing was only invented few times, then mostly transmitted, adapted, inherited, and further developed. Unlike speaking and listening, which every human develops naturally during infancy, reading and writing must be learned.
If I drop you in the middle of a foreign tribe in the Amazon, and come back to check on you a couple years later, chances are you will have learned enough of their language to communicate on a day to day basis.
On the other hand, if you are illiterate, and I drop a library on you, you will not learn shit from looking inside the books. Same if I drop a book written in arabic or russian in your lap, you will not figure it out by yourself either. We do not have the necessary cognitive structures to figure out how to read and write naturally, it must be taught and learned.
The possibilities are enormous, once you can reliably store and transmit knowledge you no longer rely on trial and error and unreliable oral transmission. For a long time this was recognized, and there was a reason only elites knew reading and writing.
The invention of the printing press revolutionized the world because it allowed the masses to access that knowledge production and transmission process much more easily.
I think “sluts” do reproduce more, because they simply are born with the presence of mind to realize that men value beauty and fitness more than intelligence and political leaning. It is common to find female friendships where the more spruced up and “ditzier” one is married and with children while the frumpier, and “know-it-all” one that could have put more work into their personal appearance and social skills. The fat dudes among them are the ones that have completely checked out from any desire to reproduce and just wander like cattle between social events and extracurricular activities with no direction. Read the concept of “female troika” to understand this phenomenon:
https://www.scienceofpeople.com/female-threesomes-hot-girl-semi-hot-girl-and-the-sidekick/
From personal anecdote, I found out that a woman I had a drunk hookup with last year (right after my friend hooked up with her on a date earlier that day) is now married and expecting her first child, all in her mid-20s.
On the other hand, this year I attended a Mormon wedding that consisted of the worst looking and worst dressed women I’ve seen present and the bride and groom were both 35+ as a consequence of “saving themselves for someone special” and of course saving sex for after marriage. So, religious conservatives will not reproduce rapidly, as they are likely more sold on “inner beauty” at the expense of developing traits to catalyze chemistry between the sexes at a faster rate.
The type of woman you describe are not sluts, but simply the minority of women who have a realistic view on the world, and an ability to engage in some long-term thinking. They deliberately select their sexual partners, of which there will be relatively few, and they work hard to enter places where they can meet eligible men. Such a woman will try to learn about your background and aspirations before engaging in any kind of sexual activity. To put it a bit differently: All sluts are attractive, but not all attractive women are sluts.
I am not sure about the Mormons, but Amish women seem to have a reputation for being well above-average in looks. Probably it helps a lot that the rest of America struggles with obesity. They also tend to have a lot of children.
Aaron,
“…the minority of women who have a realistic view on the world, and an ability to engage in some long-term thinking.”
1. How would I know a woman engages in some kind of long-term thinking and she’s not impulsive and all about living life to the fullest?
“Such a woman will try to learn about your background and aspirations before engaging in any kind of sexual activity.”
2. Does this mean she has placed the guy as a beta male provider category and must wine and dine her since she’s refraining from any kind of sexual activity?
1) Her not fucking you on the first date and instead trying to learn about your goals and circumstances is a very good starting point. This is not great if you want to ramp up your notch count, but if you are looking for a long-term relationship, this is not a bad place to be in. Just make sure that she is not some slut who has fucked everybody else within two hours.
2) Yes, those women want a guy who can provide for them, but surely they would prefer if their man is also reasonably good-looking. You do not necessarily need to wine-and-dine, them, though. This is more common among women who want to extract the most money, or the most expensive meals, out of you. If she is really interested in you, she should be fine with just hanging out and spending time with you.
Aaron,
“Her not fucking you on the first date…”
1. What if she makes an exception to fuck me on the first date, and hasn’t fuck no one else on first date? Would she still be worthy of pursing a long-term relationship?
2. What about women who put on a façade and pretend to be somewhat sexually inexperience because they see the resources while she bangs Chad on the side? I’ve come across women who don’t act like hard core sluts, but they’ve had a moderate number of sexual partners like 8-13. From my personal experience, spotting these sluts tends to be tricky because they tend to behave a certain way around me but eventually their colors come out. Is there a way of spotting these sluts a lot faster? They tend to be sluts on the low down. I’m aware that these women are not worthy of pursing a long-term relationship.
1) Yes, to some extent, but it could well be that she fucks a lot of guys on the first date, telling them that she “normally is not like this at all”. It is important that you give yourself time to form a proper opinion about her as first impression can be deceiving. This is even more true if you have just fucked a hot piece of ass, and you do not have enough distance to properly think about her behavior. Generally speaking, though, a woman who fucks on the first date, even if it happened just once, shows poor impulse control.
2) Normally, their sexual experience reveals that they are not quite as innocent as they would like to pretend to be. It does not take much to notice that you are not the first guy she has been in bed with, and the more confidently she acts, the more likely it is that she is just a slut in disguise. Also, don’t forget that you can just ask her about her sexual history, ideally during pillow talk or after you have been seeing her for a while. One week is normally plenty of time for those women to develop enough trust to tell you about what sluts they really are.
Aaron,
“Normally, their sexual experience reveals that they are not quite as innocent as they would like to pretend to be.”
I’ve met women where I bang them on the first date and they lay there like a dead fish. Usually, by the time I bang them the second or third time, they start getting freaky. Now, is it reasonable to assume that if she lays there like a dead fish, she’s not so innocent?
No, not necessarily. Some sluts need a bit of time to get comfortable with you. Also, she may be genuinely intimidated by you and afraid that she will mess things up. Thus, lying there like the proverbial dead fish is seen as a safe default position by them. What you could try is getting them off with your fingers first, or possibly lick them albeit there is an STD risk. Afterwards, they may suddenly act much differently.
“Sluts do not want to get pregnant. They may use the pill or an IUD, but if they are really messed up, they will use abortions as a birth-control method.
…
the feminist obsession with abortion is easy to explain: they want the option of sleeping around and in case they get pregnant, they want to hit the reset button. This is all this is about. “My body, my choice” means that she wants to have as much unprotected sex with good-looking guys as she can, and if she, due to drugs and alcohol, ends up fucking a guy who is not even half as attractive as she thought, she wants an easy way out.”
It sounds like they want to get pregnant by Chad by default (hence the refusal to simply use birth control), then have a nine-month window* to decide whether to try to set the hook for marriage/child support, or bail if they find a better Chad or if the previous one turns out not to be as Chadly as they thought.
I have to admire God’s self-restraint in not simply sending us an asteroid strike.
* Or longer; no doubt the next push will be for post-birth abortion.
The Democrats are already working on post-birth abortion. They get plenty of support in this regard from various esteemed organizations.
Your comment made me realize something else: a slut may decide to bang Chad, get pregnant, and then try to get him to commit. If this fails, she could simply abort the kid. Thus, due to abortion she is given the ability to exert sustained pressure on some hapless man with virile sperm. Surely, there are some sluts out there who do not want to be single mothers and therefore prefer this strategy. If Chad holds the line, they fold and abort the baby.
I love sluts with tattoos and piercings, if im lucky id like to marry one. Id like to watch my future wife having a gangbang. It’s exciting.
Aaron,
“Some sluts need a bit of time to get comfortable with you. Also, she may be genuinely intimidated by you and afraid that she will mess things up.”
1. Why would a slut need time to get comfortable if they are ready to fuck on a whim, go to a restroom stall and drop their panties quick?
2. When you say “intimidated” do you mean that she feels inferior to you and wants to feel like an equal partner?
“There are sluts who never manage to break out of the infernal loop they are trapped in.”
3. Why is it that they aren’t able to break away from their lifestyle? Our lives are governed by routine. Seems like they haven’t developed the awareness to reflect on their life.
1) Sluts can also get flustered. After all, not all Chads are 10/10s. You may be the tallest, most muscular, or most well-endowed guy she has ever fucked, or be in the top 5% or so. This can throw them off because such an experience is out of the ordinary for them.
2) Yes, indeed. Sluts feel most comfortable when she can tell herself that she is probably the hottest chick you have banged in a long time. Her elevated opinion of her own looks makes it easy for her to believe this. In contrast, if she is lying in bed with one of the most attractive guys she has ever fucked, she cannot easily make the same conclusion because if that were the case, then why is not every guy she fucks as good-looking as the current one?
3) Indeed, a lot of people, i.e. men and women alike, are trapped in routines. Questioning their choices makes them very uncomfortable so they just keep doing what they have been doing all along.
Aaron,
“After all, not all Chads are 10/10s.”
What do you consider Chads for short-term and long-term since 80 percent of women find men unattractive? I though being a Chad was just having above average looks.
“Chad” is a shorthand term for an above-average looking male. This is correct. Of course, there are differences in looks as well, which are sometimes humorously referred by the labels “Chad-lite” or “Giga-Chad”. The latter will get a lot more women to readily spread his legs for him than the former. Yet, even a Chad-lite can have a sex life that is completely out of reach for an average looking male.