This is a post about sluts. It is a post that will inflame the small animal passions of milquetoasty, nonjudgmentalist men and women alike, for in this post is evidence — hard evidence — that sluts are bad choices for long term girlfriends and, especially, wives. Chateau reps have written extensively (and gleefully!) on this subject, always with a phalanx of indignant detractors yelping in protest and vomiting some lame excuse or another.
The mentally flaccid nonjudgmentalists are running from ugly truths they cannot bear to accept, and never is this more apparent than when discussing the price that sluts pay in the open sexual market. Here, for instance, is an excerpt from an infamous post that sent hordes of internet whores into screeching hissy fits:
[T]his goes without saying, but apparently there are some commenters who believe being completely nonjudgemental of anything a woman does is the mark of an alpha. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Only alphas have the market value to mercilessly judge the women they choose to bring into their lives.
Men subconsciously judge women’s sluttiness for eminently practical reasons, just as women judge men on a host of alpha benchmarks for similarly practical reasons. No moral equation required. “Slut” is, in fact, a morally neutral term in the context of the sexual market, where a slutty girl is viewed, justifiably and desirably, as an easy lay who will go all the way right away, and undesirably as a girlfriend or wife prospect in whom to invest precious resources. With the law and social institutions of the modern west arrayed against male interest as it hasn’t been in all of human history, it is of critical importance that men get this part of choosing girls for long term investmest and wife and mother potential down to a science.
Well, the science has arrived; at least, the science that proves that sluts are suckers’ bets for LTRs or marriage. You want to marry or have a loving long-term relationship with a girl without an elevated risk that she’ll divorce you or cheat on you? Then you had better get good real fast at screening the sluts from the relatively chaste girls so that you can lavish your resources and commitment on the latter.
The Social Pathologist has crunched the numbers, and the verdict is in: women with lots of past partners are more likely to divorce than women who didn’t take a self-empowering spin on the cock carousel.
The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage.
A good guess as to what precipitates this “marital disruption” — the slut gets bored with her betafied hubby.
Here is a handy graph associated with the study:
As The Social Pathologist writes:
Note, the really disturbing [finding] still holds. As soon as a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50%.
Poetry of Flesh’s brand spanking new hubby wept. On the other hand, she is old enough to be less of a flight risk, so there’s that. Which is nice for him. I guess.
Players and traditionalists, take a close look at that graph. When a woman has had 16 or more past lovers, the odds that a marriage to her will end in divorce rise to over 80%! Even “average” women with “only” five past lovers — women that few men would admit in public qualify as sluts — see an increase in odds of divorce to 70%. What man would want to screw his chances by marrying that? No wonder women react so vehemently to accusations of sluttitude and to helpful hints from yours truly on how best to identify sluts before you get in too deep.
Basically gentlemen, if you want to beat the sordid odds and enter a marriage with a less than 50% likelihood it will end in divorce, you need to date virgins or girls who have had only one partner before you. Good luck with that! Of course, you can do as the Chateau recommends and skip out on marriage altogether. This option opens the playing field for you to continually date and dump sluts as you see fit, minus the accompanying divorce theft financial rape.
Interesting conjectures arise as to why sluts pose a greater divorce risk than more innocent girls. The most obvious is encapsulated in this maxim:
Maxim #80: The more cocks that have ravaged a woman, the less any one cock will mesmerize her.
Sluts may have higher testosterone levels, leading them to cheat and, thus, to increase marital instability. Sluts may get bored faster with any one man. Sluts attract the sorts of men who themselves have no use for monogamous commitment. Sluts may just be fucked in the head. Their psychology doesn’t matter as much as the ability to quickly identify and discard them as potential wife and mother of your children material.
What’s really going to blow some readers’ minds is that, despite the happy smackdown of the platitude parade marchers, the Chateau is not necessarily anti-slut. After all, sluts are good to go. They make easy lays in a pinch when you don’t feel like investing much time or energy into winning over a more prudish girl. Sluts are often wild in bed from the get-go; no training required. And sluts have lower expectations; they will rarely pressure you for a ring.
Nevertheless, what the above study and graph should convince you is that there are solid biological and sociological reasons why men place higher value on virgin women, and this fact is immutable regardless of the handwaving by the polyamory crowd. Sluts are simply a poor investment strategy for men seeking something more than a fling. This goes doubly for relationships codified by the state.
It should also be noted that sluts, while possessing pasts spattered with the cumshots of multiple lovers, are not less discriminating than saints. Betas thinking that all they have to do is hone in on sluts for the easy kill are in for a rude surprise. Sluts want to be properly gamed by an alpha male just as much as good girls. The difference is that sluts will sleep with more alphas, and will jump into bed quicker with them, than will good girls.
No girl wants to be labeled a slut (even if she co-opts the term for herself in a vain attempt to de-fang it), which is why women lie about their past number of partners. Women know, deep down, that being less slutty means better treatment from men.
To men thinking about marriage, double the total number of past lovers your girlfriend admits to you, add additional lovers based on the slut cues she reveals, and divide a 1 carat diamond engagement ring by that total. Ergo, a woman with twenty cocks in her past would receive a 1/20th carat ring.
Preferably quartz.
[crypto-donation-box]
