Everyone is familiar with the rule of three. Supposedly, women divide their sexual pasts by three whereas men multiply it by three. This is nonsense, but as with most popularly accepted nonsense, there is a grain of truth to it, which is that most women lie about their sexual histories.
Now, most is not all. But regardless, how can you tell? While the following metric is not necessarily applicable to all women, it is 100-percent reliable in the cases where it applies. Not only is it openly recommended by female relationship experts, but I have observed that every single woman confirmably lying about her sexual history says exactly the same thing.
“What does the past matter? The past is the past. You should be focused on the future! Our future!”
The fact is that past behavior is the best and most reliable predictor of future behavior. Only a moron will knowingly invest with a con man. Only a fool will knowingly buy a car with a long list of mechanical issues. Only a lunatic will keep doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.
Any woman who tries to shift the conversational focus from her past to your future is a sexual con artist. And while their readiness to deceive is perfectly understandable given normal male preferences combined with female hypergamy, it’s immoral, unjustifiable, and sufficient reason to end a relationship if either honesty or a limited sexual history is important to a man.
The blatant dishonesty of the statement can be seen in the fact that a woman would never, ever, be inclined to let the past be the past and focus solely on the future if the man’s history happened to include being a domestic abuser, a rapist, a pedophile, a serial killer, or a friend of Dorothy.
In response to the inevitable female response about how men do it too, I will simply point out that the sort of men who are deceptive about their sexual histories are the very sort of men who absolutely should be avoided at all costs. Because the sexual histories they are attempting to hide usually don’t involve women, or at least not adult women.
Note that if an Alpha or a Sigma seems a bit shady over providing a precise number, it’s not because he’s hiding anything, it’s because he doesn’t feel that he can really take full credit for activities that are on the periphery. It’s female projection to imagine a high-status man would ever seek to minimize what are seen, from the male perspective, as trophies.
This is not to say that a man should overreact to a woman lying about her past, because remember, most women do. So, unless you’re going to devote yourself to chastity or sodomy, you’re probably going to be involved with a woman who lies to you about her past. And the correct thing to do about this is… nothing.
The point here, the only point, is to free yourself of your own self-deceptions about others, particularly women. Your actions are the only ones you can control. Obsessing over the past or present actions of others is a pointless fool’s game best left for low-status men living in delusion bubbles constructed to protect their fragile psychologies. Because only if you accept reality for what it is can you correctly interpret what you see around you.
Many a whore has made for a faithful and loving wife and mother. In fact, that’s the outcome of which courtesans have dreamt for centuries; there are certain wealthy locales in Europe where the rule is to never ask how an older man met his beautiful younger wife. For most of human history, marriage has more of a transactional relationship than a romantic one; it is foolish to pretend that things are entirely and completely different today.
In short, it is usually better to be aware of the truth and choose to let it lie than to insist on dwelling in deceit and self-delusion. Stop expecting women to act like men; they would not be half so charming and intoxicating if they did.
Is the number of sexual partners a reliable predictor of divorce-rape?
If so, are the consequences of divorce-rape to the male in our current gynocracy potentially existential?
If so, how is evaluating that metric anything but prudent?
Here’s your path forward:
Today’s 19YO female has a double digit body count. The “Velcro” that allows for the pair-bonding which makes marriage work is long gone.
Exceptions do not prove the rule. Just because you’re happily married now doesn’t mean you’ll stay that way. And as far as that “couple you know,” statistically at least one of them has cheated.
Marriage is certainly not a rational decision but if you want it today, go to a traditional culture and stay there.
In our information-rich world any other decision is foolish in the extreme, and you deserve what you get.
Is the number of sexual partners a reliable predictor of divorce-rape?
If so, are the consequences of divorce-rape to the male in our current gynocracy potentially existential?
If so, how is evaluating that metric anything but prudent?
Here’s your path forward:
Today’s 19YO female has a double digit body count. The “Velcro” that allows for the pair-bonding which makes marriage work is long gone.
Exceptions do not prove the rule. Just because you’re happily married now doesn’t mean you’ll stay that way. And as far as that “couple you know,” statistically at least one of them has cheated.
Marriage is certainly not a rational decision but if you want it today, go to a traditional culture and stay there.
In our information-rich world any other decision is foolish in the extreme, and you deserve what you get.