Theory The myth of the "slut"

[Dial]

Here on this forum, I see a lot of people hating on females, especially young females, who act "slutty" because they act "slutty". And justifiably so- these females are often engaging in behavior that concentrates even more of the available sexual capital in the hands of "Chads" (I don't hold the same notions about the nature of Chad- let's just call them "top males"- as this forum, but I digress) decreases their chance of getting sexually aroused by anyone other than these top males, and decreases their ability to commit to a long-term relationship with a non-top male, thus increasing the chances of catastrophic breakup and delaying childbirth and families. However, that's not really what I'm here to talk about today.

I'm here to ask the question-"why is slutting fundmentally BAD for incels?" And the answer is, well, NOT what you think. You see, there is a cultural myth, often spouted by tradcons, that a "slut" is a female who will have sex with any man with a penis (who asks her), and do so enthusiastically. And that this is bad because her "body count" goes up, or she "delays marriage" or some shit. As if the problem with sluts is that they aren't selective ENOUGH.

Let's look up the definition of "slut", shall we? According to Dictionary.com https://www.dictionary.com/browse/slut , a slut is, "a person, especially a woman, who is sexually promiscuous." And what does "promiscuous" mean? Well- according to Dictionary.com (same website), promiscuous is- "characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis." Did you catch that? I highlighted the word "indiscriminate" for a reason.

This means that the myth is that a "sluts" are INDISCRIMINATE in their sexual selection, offering LITTLE OR NO SELECTION WHATSOEVER in their sexual partners. Meaning that both bottom 80% males and top males are both equally likely (and very likely) to get a "yes" from "sluts" if they simply walk up to them and ask them for sex. And that "conservatives" "tradcons" "right-wingers" "patriarchy supporters" etc. are fighting AGAINST what would obviously, if true, end inceldom.

I mean, think about it: If feminism results in more "sluts" walking around, and "sluts" are an "international problem across the West and more largely the world" according to the right, shouldn't incels side with the left, who are the "pro-slut" side? I mean it makes sense, right?

Except it doesn't at all. Why? Because sluts ARE EXTREMELY SELECTIVE when it comes to choosing partners. They are "top male only", and the "sluttier" they are, the MORE selective they are. "But wait," you say, "that doesn't make any sense. I thought sluts were UNSELECTIVE, as per the dictionary definition of the word? So why is it that with increase in "sluttiness", we have an INCREASE in standards and inceldom?" Well, the answer to this perplexing mystery is that the females who are CALLED sluts aren't TRUE sluts, but rather something else. Or more accurately, they are "sluts", not trusluts.

From this perspective, we can now see that the "dictionary definition" of "slut", "promiscuous", etc., and the general misunderstanding surrounding this is USED to pull young, teenage males into a form of complacency with hypergamy. To them, of COURSE they would want to side with the "side" that says promiscuity (perceived as females having lots of UNSELECTIVE sex) is good and "sex-positive" or whatever, because the Zeitgeist that they follow being pro-promiscuity would, in theory, increase their sexual chances. This gets many teenagers trapped in bluepill logic, as they just figure that if they simp harder or "approach more women", they will eventually be successful, and if they're not it means it's their fault for not having a good enough personality. By the time that they have been conditioned by the bluepill/Zeitgeist to believe that sluttiness/promiscuity is simply females having lots of sex, not necessarily with them (because that would be ENTITLEMENT ) it's already too late, they're caught in the trap. It's a classic bait-and-switch.

Basically, the common cultural mythology of the "slut" is a lie, and "right-wingers" feed into it just as much as left-wingers. The left isn't pro-"slut", they're pro-hypergamy. "Sluts" are not really what they say. A sufficient population of TRUsluts (even 5% of females) would end inceldom tomorrow. They don't really exist, at least not nearly in the numbers the label would suggest.

So stop attacking "sluts", trusluts are desirable for society, actually (but nonexistent ) . Instead, mindfuck them by pointing out that they aren't fitting with the dictionary definition of the word when they act so hypergamously.

Nine months ago, I created a Discord server to test my hypothesis. I called it "TruSlut Union", and the purpose was to point out this contradiction and get trusluts who were willing to have sex with some limited number of guys over a certain period of time for free. Any guy on the server within a 50-mile radius could request sex, and she would have to give it to him as long as she had not overstepped her numerial limit for the month (I think it was 10 per month or something, females on the server lobbied to make the number lower than it was originally, which was 20 per month).

On the server, over the course of one month of tryharding to make the server better and upkeep it, I got one verified female to post pictures of herself from multiple angles and put up an advertisement in the advertisement channel. She was in Helinski, Finland. Then, shortly after that happened, I ran away from home due to personal problems with my dad, and my dad got my "best friend" to wipe my Discord account clean "for my safety" just because I had a MAP server. He didn't know my password, but hacked it anyway. Shows you how loyal irl "friends" are to you, ultimately.

The server is still up, but I guarantee it's dead now, and it's inaccessible: https://disboard.org/server/788118754843426827

There are no real sluts. If there were, it would be good. There are only thots.

I hope one day we can find a way to get all females to be trusluts, then we wouldn't even need enforced monogamy to keep society stable (at least in the short run).

Feminism, sex-positivity, it's all about breeding nerds and guys who pursue meaning in productive and wonderful ways out of existence, ma doods. That's it. All it ever was, really.

Thanks for getting to the end. I hope you got something out of this post. Follow me idk.

 

[Animecel2D]

 

[OwlGod]

overcomplicating things is a sign of low iq

 

[Linesnap99]

no point in not calling them sluts. and they know what they are.

 

[RandomGuy]

gibberish

 

[unsettling]

@Dialgatime321

 

[unuser]

Very interesting op, I've read it all.

But, dictionaries are merely descriptive and not prescriptive, so it can't say what is the correct definition of a word, because languages are constantly evolving and organically modifying themselves. Dictionaries only record what meanings people may be giving to the words in a given moment. (I learned this the hard way getting my ass beat in a debate )

However your insight about feminism is interesting.

I think the only solution to our problem is state-enforced eugenics, either to reduce the amount of males relative to females or to ensure all men to be born aren't genetically shit, or both. And free surgeries and social/sexual training to all incels.

 

[Overdosed]

I wonder if this means that women who insult others as "sluts" conveys the insulted as '(openly) willing to sleep with non-chads', unlike the average woman (chadsexuals)?

 

[Deleted member 34772]

Water

 

[NorthernWind]

"Sluts are selective".

WW.

 

[HeimatVertrieben]

Then, shortly after that happened, I ran away from home due to personal problems with my dad, and my dad got my "best friend" to wipe my Discord account clean "for my safety" just because I had a MAP server.

what the fuck

Anyway, you need to stop making such a big deal of semantics, and actually think about what is really meant when people say things. The usage of slut is a holdover from a time when looks weren't as highly valued in society, and men upheld a pro-civilization zeitgeist where a man's worth was what he could provide to society, rather than just his looks. In the past, a pretty guy who didn't work was generally considered worthless, and so in that framing, a slut is a woman who fucks worthless men. The word is a psyop on women to get them to prefer a productive normie over some thugmaxxed chad, and think that picking the latter would be a lack of taste on their part. Women are highly susceptible to groupthink, so this kind of stuff actually worked even though it seems dumb. Men figured all this shit out, how to keep women in check, how to build civilization, etc.

It has all been figured out before, and we simply need to return to those old systems. Traditionalism is the answer, forced monogamy is the answer. The concept of a true slut makes zero sense, every biological being simply must have a selection system, that's how evolution works, all you can do is influence through social structures whether that selection favors you or not. You seem to have some resistance to this idea, which no incel ever should. Don't be greedy, accept your looks match.

 

[Deleted member 35245]

View attachment 506721

 

[Deleted member 36342]

Retarded GAYcel thread. Fornication is satanic and destroys every society, that's why jews promote it throughout the world and most importantly for them - in the countries of western civilizational type - the engine, the leading force of the planet. Fornication is unnatural and destroys the bonding between people, it distords the inter-sexual relationships and such relations in general, it's the exact oposite of love. But it affects women more than men, whores can't be good wives nor mothers.

 

[OwlGod]

Dictionaries only record what meanings people may be giving to the words in a given moment.

the meaning extractable from words is reflectivity of our coadjuvancy in describing and creating reality.

 

[Dial]

overcomplicating things is a sign of low iq

Eh you're probably right, my brain is fried on psychiatric drugs right now. But I have gotten a proctored IQ test before, and it was around 116.

Very interesting op, I've read it all.

But, dictionaries are merely descriptive and not prescriptive, so it can't say what is the correct definition of a word, because languages are constantly evolving and organically modifying themselves. Dictionaries only record what meanings people may be giving to the words in a given moment. (I learned this the hard way getting my ass beat in a debate )

However your insight about feminism is interesting.

I think the only solution to our problem is state-enforced eugenics, either to reduce the amount of males relative to females or to ensure all men to be born aren't genetically shit, or both. And free surgeries and social/sexual training to all incels.

Thanks for reading my whole post!

Dictionaries aren't perfect, but it would be easy enough for them to change the definition of (sexual) promiscuity, for example, to better fit reality. The fact that they don't shows that there are lingering cultural misconceptions.

Eugenics is great and all, but it won't solve inceldom, it will just put different people at the top. Since the sexual market is a zero-sum game, one man's gain is another's loss.

I wonder if this means that women who insult others as "sluts" conveys the insulted as '(openly) willing to sleep with non-chads', unlike the average woman (chadsexuals)?

I wish, lol.

In reality, it's just enforcing whatever traditional social norms are still in place, which why you hear it less nowadays.

what the fuck

Anyway, you need to stop making such a big deal of semantics, and actually think about what is really meant when people say things. The usage of slut is a holdover from a time when looks weren't as highly valued in society, and men upheld a pro-civilization zeitgeist where a man's worth was what he could provide to society, rather than just his looks. In the past, a pretty guy who didn't work was generally considered worthless, and so in that framing, a slut is a woman who fucks worthless men. The word is a psyop on women to get them to prefer a productive normie over some thugmaxxed chad, and think that picking the latter would be a lack of taste on their part. Women are highly susceptible to groupthink, so this kind of stuff actually worked even though it seems dumb. Men figured all this shit out, how to keep women in check, how to build civilization, etc.

It has all been figured out before, and we simply need to return to those old systems. Traditionalism is the answer, forced monogamy is the answer. The concept of a true slut makes zero sense, every biological being simply must have a selection system, that's how evolution works, all you can do is influence through social structures whether that selection favors you or not. You seem to have some resistance to this idea, which no incel ever should. Don't be greedy, accept your looks match.

JFL at thinking females ever preferred productive normies to thugmaxxed chads for anything other than resources.

However, interesting insight regarding the usage of the word, "slut". I still don't see how females having no selection bias would correlate to thugmaxxed males having better chances at sex unless the default was preferring productivity over thugmaxxing, which once again I don't think was ever the case.

Or are you saying that the purpose of the word was to get females who preferred thugmaxxed guys to productive guys to THINK that they had no standards, thus making them ashamed, when they really did? The rest of your comment seems to point towards this.

"Every biological being has a selection system"- true, but to think it would be easier to get females to like something different than to be unselective seems silly. It's easier to get guys to be unselective than to get them to prefer landwhale, for example. So why wouldn't it be true the other way around?

"Don't be greedy, accept your looks match" But why when we can do so much more, without compromising society?

Retarded GAYcel thread. Fornication is satanic and destroys every society, that's why jews promote it throughout the world and most importantly for them - in the countries of western civilizational type - the engine, the leading force of the planet. Fornication is unnatural and destroys the bonding between people, it distords the inter-sexual relationships and such relations in general, it's the exact oposite of love. But it affects women more than men, whores can't be good wives nor mothers.

JFL at the Cringestians in this comments section.

But really though, good luck getting young people on your side preaching about "satanism" and "fornication". Traditionalism didn't make people happy. Modernism/post-modernism doesn't, either. We're going to have to forge a new path, a third way, to propose as an alternative to young people, if we want to succeed.

 

[Caesercel]

If she ever had more than one partner she's a certified slut

 

[I want to believe]

Sometimes I think about that. So, I agree with you about the wrong definition of the word "slut".

 

[Deleted member 36776]

Op ignore the morons. Your post is based asf.

Bluepill conditioning is justified in the environment where foid sexuality is repressed in key ways. American right-wingers cling to that old set of books as if hoping that, by denying the reality of the post-Sexual Revolution foid's marital and sexual behavior, women will choose to conform to the behavior that used to be expected of them in more conservative times. Slut-shaming stigmatized female non-monagamous behavior while (as you observe) on the surface re-inforcing bluepill indoctrination about the true nature of their behavior.

This is why I am pro-legalization of sex work. It really is a way of redistributing female erotic capital hence why the female hivemind in the U.S resists it.

 

[kanyepilled]

what the fuck is up with greycels coming on here and typing literal paragraphs of water is wet posts? perhaps its just them venting ideas they've built up for awhile in an environment where they won't be persecuted for it, but everything you just said can be summed up with "AWALT."

 

[based_meme]

OP is correct. They are still sluts, AND they're more selective. What OP hasn't taken into account is that their promiscuity is directed towards the top-tier men only. All the other men (us included) she doesn't see as potential sexual partners, so to the rest of men who aren't chads, tyrones etc., she is completely platonic towards. We never see how much of a dirty whore she is, because she saves all of that for chad, who does everything from choking, to spitting and pissing on her, if he so pleases, and she gladly submits.

 

[Dial]

Op ignore the morons. Your post is based asf.

Bluepill conditioning is justified in the environment where foid sexuality is repressed in key ways. American right-wingers cling to that old set of books as if hoping that, by denying the reality of the post-Sexual Revolution foid's marital and sexual behavior, women will choose to conform to the behavior that used to be expected of them in more conservative times. Slut-shaming stigmatized female non-monagamous behavior while (as you observe) on the surface re-inforcing bluepill indoctrination about the true nature of their behavior.

This is why I am pro-legalization of sex work. It really is a way of redistributing female erotic capital hence why the female hivemind in the U.S resists it.

See, I agree with you to a point. It's important to ensure a more equitable distribution of erotic capital. And you are right on the money with regards to American right-wingers, etc.

However, I don't think that bluepill conditioning is ever justified, even under patriarchy. I think that this mindset, this tolerance of reinforcing bluepill narratives, causes all soft patriarchies to eventually dissolve into more egalitarianism. If we want to create a system that lasts, it must actively try to convince people that females aren't oppressed, that they are hypergamous unless made not to be through incentives, etc.

I also don't know how much prostitution solves in the long run. Will these females end up as single moms, or will they, more likely, contribute to people waiting longer and longer before having kids? Who will take these used up females? Well, we all know the answer, but is that really good?

Honestly, if trusluts were a thing, we could just allow randomness and paternity tests to sort everything out, with males being forced to take care of their children and the females they impregnate with some kind of rotation, and then have all relationships be open relationships but with the raw use of vagina off limits, and people could get out their promiscuous and degenerate urges without the complete destruction of the concept of civilization. It's less than ideal, but it compromises at a point not too alien to modernity, yet without a significant incel problem.

And Kamala Harris supports prostitution legalization. So the idea isn't exactly entirely outside of the zeitgeist.

OP is correct. They are still sluts, AND they're more selective. What OP hasn't taken into account is that their promiscuity is directed towards the top-tier men only. All the other men (us included) she doesn't see as potential sexual partners, so to the rest of men who aren't chads, tyrones etc., she is completely platonic towards. We never see how much of a dirty whore she is, because she saves all of that for chad, who does everything from choking, to spitting and pissing on her, if he so pleases, and she gladly submits.

I have taken that into account, and that's part of the idea I was attempting to express. If I failed, that's my fault.

 

[LeDepravedCel]

This means that the myth is that a "sluts" are INDISCRIMINATE in their sexual selection, offering LITTLE OR NO SELECTION WHATSOEVER in their sexual partners. Meaning that both bottom 80% males and top males are both equally likely (and very likely) to get a "yes" from "sluts" if they simply walk up to them and ask them for sex. And that "conservatives" "tradcons" "right-wingers" "patriarchy supporters" etc. are fighting AGAINST what would obviously, if true, end inceldom.

Your point is merely autistic semantics so far.

When we say she's a slut the emphasis is not on whether the partners are discriminate, regardless of whether the dictionary implies that.

 

[based_meme]

I have taken that into account, and that's part of the idea I was attempting to express. If I failed, that's my fault.

Then WTF. You're not saying anything new that we don't already know.

Water is wet tier post.

 

[ThoughtfulCel]

Ask me how I knew this was made by a greycel

 

[Caesercel]

If she ever had more than one partner she's a certified slut

The only correct answer

 

[OwlGod]

I wonder if this means that women who insult others as "sluts" conveys the insulted as '(openly) willing to sleep with non-chads', unlike the average woman (chadsexuals)?

that just means a personal issue. someone can be something but still insult other for being the same because of unrelated reasons.

 

[based_meme]

Ask me how I knew this was made by a greycel

KEK

 

[belowhumanity]

this is just far too complicated for a fucking incel forum lmfao. we arent stupid, literally nobody thought that sluts arent selective

 

[HeimatVertrieben]

JFL at thinking females ever preferred productive normies to thugmaxxed chads for anything other than resources.

However, interesting insight regarding the usage of the word, "slut". I still don't see how females having no selection bias would correlate to thugmaxxed males having better chances at sex unless the default was preferring productivity over thugmaxxing, which once again I don't think was ever the case.

Or are you saying that the purpose of the word was to get females who preferred thugmaxxed guys to productive guys to THINK that they had no standards, thus making them ashamed, when they really did? The rest of your comment seems to point towards this.

"Every biological being has a selection system"- true, but to think it would be easier to get females to like something different than to be unselective seems silly. It's easier to get guys to be unselective than to get them to prefer landwhale, for example. So why wouldn't it be true the other way around?

Yes, you have it correct, I meant the word was a strategy to control how women thought. In any case, resources mattered a whole lot more in the past than now, you would literally starve if things went bad, and criminals were simply killed. In this context thugmaxxed chad looks a lot less appealing. You might say this is betabuxxing, but the difference back then is that the guy had a radically better chance of not getting cucked. If a wife cheated on her husband and was found out, she would be socially ostracized, which also mattered a WHOLE lot more at that time. Not a perfect system, but much better than what we have now.

Your point about making females unselective being easier than making them prefer something else is so dumb I really can't believe it. Everything I know about women would contradict this. They are social creatures, they look at what other people value and just try and copy that. That's what makes them so dumb, and so controllable. But trying to remove selection is simply idiotic, my point was that it goes against all evolution, and so would be like pushing a boulder uphill sociologically. How do you extol the value of no values? It makes no sense. Besides, selecting partially for productive men isn't even that bad an evolutionary strategy in most cases, so it wouldn't end up being that unnatural.

And how would child-rearing work? For society to function the woman needs to settle and raise a family at some point. Why would I want my wife to have been a slut? It ruins pair-bonding abilities. I would prefer an ugly virgin who wouldn't cheat on me to some slut supermodel that would just fuck some other guy for the novelty of it.

You talk about how unlikely a return to traditionalism is, but honestly, you have a terrible idea for a system that has never even been tried.

 

[mentally lost cel 1]

that a "slut" is a female who will have sex with any man with a penis

This is unironically true for thugmaxxed ntmaxx or chads, that’s why it’s fucking bad

Every biological being has a selection system

lol they would fuck truecel if he was thugmaxxed, there is no selection system and it doesn’t even work

Here on this forum, I see a lot of people hating on females, especially young females, who act "slutty" because they act "slutty". And justifiably so- these females are often engaging in behavior that concentrates even more of the available sexual capital in the hands of "Chads" (I don't hold the same notions about the nature of Chad- let's just call them "top males"- as this forum, but I digress) decreases their chance of getting sexually aroused by anyone other than these top males, and decreases their ability to commit to a long-term relationship with a non-top male, thus increasing the chances of catastrophic breakup and delaying childbirth and families. However, that's not really what I'm here to talk about today.

I'm here to ask the question-"why is slutting fundmentally BAD for incels?" And the answer is, well, NOT what you think. You see, there is a cultural myth, often spouted by tradcons, that a "slut" is a female who will have sex with any man with a penis (who asks her), and do so enthusiastically. And that this is bad because her "body count" goes up, or she "delays marriage" or some shit. As if the problem with sluts is that they aren't selective ENOUGH.

Let's look up the definition of "slut", shall we? According to Dictionary.com https://www.dictionary.com/browse/slut , a slut is, "a person, especially a woman, who is sexually promiscuous." And what does "promiscuous" mean? Well- according to Dictionary.com (same website), promiscuous is- "characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis." Did you catch that? I highlighted the word "indiscriminate" for a reason.

This means that the myth is that a "sluts" are INDISCRIMINATE in their sexual selection, offering LITTLE OR NO SELECTION WHATSOEVER in their sexual partners. Meaning that both bottom 80% males and top males are both equally likely (and very likely) to get a "yes" from "sluts" if they simply walk up to them and ask them for sex. And that "conservatives" "tradcons" "right-wingers" "patriarchy supporters" etc. are fighting AGAINST what would obviously, if true, end inceldom.

I mean, think about it: If feminism results in more "sluts" walking around, and "sluts" are an "international problem across the West and more largely the world" according to the right, shouldn't incels side with the left, who are the "pro-slut" side? I mean it makes sense, right?

Except it doesn't at all. Why? Because sluts ARE EXTREMELY SELECTIVE when it comes to choosing partners. They are "top male only", and the "sluttier" they are, the MORE selective they are. "But wait," you say, "that doesn't make any sense. I thought sluts were UNSELECTIVE, as per the dictionary definition of the word? So why is it that with increase in "sluttiness", we have an INCREASE in standards and inceldom?" Well, the answer to this perplexing mystery is that the females who are CALLED sluts aren't TRUE sluts, but rather something else. Or more accurately, they are "sluts", not trusluts.

From this perspective, we can now see that the "dictionary definition" of "slut", "promiscuous", etc., and the general misunderstanding surrounding this is USED to pull young, teenage males into a form of complacency with hypergamy. To them, of COURSE they would want to side with the "side" that says promiscuity (perceived as females having lots of UNSELECTIVE sex) is good and "sex-positive" or whatever, because the Zeitgeist that they follow being pro-promiscuity would, in theory, increase their sexual chances. This gets many teenagers trapped in bluepill logic, as they just figure that if they simp harder or "approach more women", they will eventually be successful, and if they're not it means it's their fault for not having a good enough personality. By the time that they have been conditioned by the bluepill/Zeitgeist to believe that sluttiness/promiscuity is simply females having lots of sex, not necessarily with them (because that would be ENTITLEMENT ) it's already too late, they're caught in the trap. It's a classic bait-and-switch.

Basically, the common cultural mythology of the "slut" is a lie, and "right-wingers" feed into it just as much as left-wingers. The left isn't pro-"slut", they're pro-hypergamy. "Sluts" are not really what they say. A sufficient population of TRUsluts (even 5% of females) would end inceldom tomorrow. They don't really exist, at least not nearly in the numbers the label would suggest.

So stop attacking "sluts", trusluts are desirable for society, actually (but nonexistent ) . Instead, mindfuck them by pointing out that they aren't fitting with the dictionary definition of the word when they act so hypergamously.

Nine months ago, I created a Discord server to test my hypothesis. I called it "TruSlut Union", and the purpose was to point out this contradiction and get trusluts who were willing to have sex with some limited number of guys over a certain period of time for free. Any guy on the server within a 50-mile radius could request sex, and she would have to give it to him as long as she had not overstepped her numerial limit for the month (I think it was 10 per month or something, females on the server lobbied to make the number lower than it was originally, which was 20 per month).

On the server, over the course of one month of tryharding to make the server better and upkeep it, I got one verified female to post pictures of herself from multiple angles and put up an advertisement in the advertisement channel. She was in Helinski, Finland. Then, shortly after that happened, I ran away from home due to personal problems with my dad, and my dad got my "best friend" to wipe my Discord account clean "for my safety" just because I had a MAP server. He didn't know my password, but hacked it anyway. Shows you how loyal irl "friends" are to you, ultimately.

The server is still up, but I guarantee it's dead now, and it's inaccessible: https://disboard.org/server/788118754843426827

There are no real sluts. If there were, it would be good. There are only thots.

I hope one day we can find a way to get all females to be trusluts, then we wouldn't even need enforced monogamy to keep society stable (at least in the short run).

Feminism, sex-positivity, it's all about breeding nerds and guys who pursue meaning in productive and wonderful ways out of existence, ma doods. That's it. All it ever was, really.

Thanks for getting to the end. I hope you got something out of this post. Follow me idk.

They literally throw themselves to thugs who kill them or get them in serious trouble by destroying the society

 

[Cope or die]

The thing about sluts is they are only interested in sex. Given how many options women have for opening their legs, they can easily have lots of meaningless empty sex with the top men. There are no other requirements except being a top tier guy for sluts because again they just want sex. Now other women, that arent sluts, and need more than just sex, will be more selective based on qualities other than meaningless sex. They also wont give up sex so easy. So the non-sluts will make men offer them more than just sex and they give the man sex in exchange for whatever else it is that he has to offer besides looks and sex. Thats the difference.

 

[Escthectrler]

Not one letter

 

[Izayacel]

overcomplicating things is a sign of low iq

your avi is the very definition os Slut