I'd say "A" in general, but my viewpoint is "B", which I voted. I still hope that there is a glimmer of hope, somewhere, somehow.
That said, I am not against women having high partner counts (the traditional sluttiness). C is misguided but does hold an important kernel of truth. Namely, that women on average don't have higher partner counts than men (how could they, globally speaking)? It's just that a woman who has an average number of partners (i.e. not slutty), yet gives it up only to alphas, is just as bad as the one who gives it up to lots of alphas, and is definitely worse than the one who gives it up indiscriminately to both alphas and betas. She is just extremely calculated (in the long run), but that does not make her any better, or make good men suffer any less.
I thus propose a new measure instead of "good girl" and "slut" labels that we now know: The Jerk Reward Score (JRS).
JRS = (# of partners who were alphas, players, thugs, criminals and other men that women generally claim they don't want) / (# of partners).
(Disclaimer: I don't equate players with criminals, ofc., I'm just grouping together men who generally don't really care about her other than for her holes)
Alternatively:
JRS = (# of times when she had sex with men who were alphas, players, thugs, criminals and other men that women generally claim they don't want) / (# times she had sex). This is a more forgiving and more realistic measure, that is not overly judgemental and that I can live with. I won't chew a woman up because she had a one-night stand in the past, provided it's not a pattern.
Barring a few exceptions, I'd hazard a wild guess virtually all modern, western women have JRS above 80%. And anything above 50% is already very disturbing, while anything above 20% is worrying. A 0% is ideal, but where do you find such a woman?
That said, I am not against women having high partner counts (the traditional sluttiness). C is misguided but does hold an important kernel of truth. Namely, that women on average don't have higher partner counts than men (how could they, globally speaking)? It's just that a woman who has an average number of partners (i.e. not slutty), yet gives it up only to alphas, is just as bad as the one who gives it up to lots of alphas, and is definitely worse than the one who gives it up indiscriminately to both alphas and betas. She is just extremely calculated (in the long run), but that does not make her any better, or make good men suffer any less.
I thus propose a new measure instead of "good girl" and "slut" labels that we now know: The Jerk Reward Score (JRS).
JRS = (# of partners who were alphas, players, thugs, criminals and other men that women generally claim they don't want) / (# of partners).
(Disclaimer: I don't equate players with criminals, ofc., I'm just grouping together men who generally don't really care about her other than for her holes)
Alternatively:
JRS = (# of times when she had sex with men who were alphas, players, thugs, criminals and other men that women generally claim they don't want) / (# times she had sex). This is a more forgiving and more realistic measure, that is not overly judgemental and that I can live with. I won't chew a woman up because she had a one-night stand in the past, provided it's not a pattern.
Barring a few exceptions, I'd hazard a wild guess virtually all modern, western women have JRS above 80%. And anything above 50% is already very disturbing, while anything above 20% is worrying. A 0% is ideal, but where do you find such a woman?
"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for squid that has never crossed your mind before