The first is just loyal to you for a while, until she's not.
That's not really loyalty.
Paraphrasing Roosh: "Being in a relationship with a woman is like working for IBM. You're providing value or you're out on your ass."
Both the high standard stuck-up girl and the "friendly nymphoslut" are going to be expecting something (though their needs will differ...maybe the first wants provider dough, while the second just wants to enjoy your conversations, personality, and company.) You could argue that the second girl is in fact more "loyal" than the first; she might be okay with hanging out with you from time to time for years, running errands for you, cooking for you and coming over to your place at the drop of a hat as you like. The price for that "loyalty" is that you accept she's going to hoe around. IBM pays a nice salary and the perks are great, but I don't finally control who the customers are.
But part of accepting red pill is trying to accept that neither is ever going to be "loyal" to you in the way Mommy was.
I think it's okay to struggle with this, but also try to accept that in some sense it's
okay that this is the way humans operate. Women aren't necessarily all evil manipulators because of it. The "tautostatement" 'It is what it is' applies here...if men and women's needs coincided 100% all the time you could argue that there'd be zero reason to do anything, or to bother with living at all.
I think you'll be happier for it.
Edit: caught myself putting red pill in "scare quotes", removed them.