Quite possibly my least favorite blue pill belief  is the idea that a woman should be judged on her prior sexual experience. It leads men into a false sense of security whenever they believe she’s a “good girl.” Since she’s not a slut, the reasoning goes, she’s proven to be more trustworthy than a slut. I say nay; assume she is a bad woman until proven otherwise. Especially if she calls herself a virgin, assume guilt.

While I agree that “You can’t turn a whore into a housewife,” it is also true that some slutty housewives are not whores. Men should be less concerned with finding a chaste wife than finding a loyal one. Consider the following about virgins: Either she is a virgin because she is young, or she is a old prude who wants to use men with her sexuality. In the former case, she is but a young girl with plenty of time for her to turn into a slut, since all sluts are born virgins, or in the latter case, she is the worst type of relationship material possible as she is unable to open up to a man’s love, only using her sexuality as a means to some end, always placing her interests above any man’s.

For a real world example of an old virgin, see Exhibit A:

Claims to be a virgin… don’t offer to marry her all at once now.

Olympic Athlete Lola Jones, in addition to loving attention, is also an extreme case of the old virgin archetype. She portrays her virginity as valuable, when in fact it represents her inability to bond with a man.

“I’ve been tempted. I’ve had guys tell me, they’re like, ‘Hey you know if you have sex it will help you run faster,'” Jones revealed, before sharing her response. “If you marry me, then yeah.”

She frames the conversation as something she is saving for “her husband,” that is, something she is using as a bartering chip for the best possible deal in the mating game. She makes it sound like no one has been willing to marry her. But given how much of a buyer’s market today’s dating game is, which is more likely to have occurred? Did Lola Jones never find any quality men? Or did Lola Jones never accept any man? It is obvious that her virginity is not an asset, but instead a giant red flag indicating her intimacy issues. She approaches love with a mercenary’s eye, evaluating men based on her personal gain.

I would say any woman who is a virgin after the age of 20 is already a bit crazy, and after 25 she will make the top 10 worst women you’ve ever dated (or at least top 100). But in any case, a woman who saves her virginity past her most sexually desirable years truly isn’t interested in marriage as much as she’s interested in herself. Although she’s never cheated on any man, she has never been loyal to any man either.


Likewise, a young virgin has not proven to be anything more than a pretty face, tits, and ass. Even if you’re the man to claim her cherry, she’s still nothing more than a new girl you’ve started banging. I’ll never forget how one of my close friends took the virginity of a 22 year old girl. He thought he had found “The One.” He could not get enough of the sex, and could not stop raving about her. But when he revealed he had to go get his Masters in another city, it was but only two weeks after he moved before she was sleeping with a different man.

My friend’s girl was not loyal. She valued herself over  her man, and that’s why, even though she “gave” her virginity to him, she was nothing but a slut who had saved her virginity. Valuing virginity, which is inherent to a woman’s birth, is just as absurd as valuing a woman for anything else inherent to her birth, such as her eyeballs or hair. Certain crazy religions have worshiped a woman’s virginity as if it revealed an important truth about her character, when, in fact, they have it backwards: A woman of loyal character is more likely to only sleep with one man in her life, but women who’ve only slept with one man may still be a lying, manipulative, nagging, and combative battleaxe. It is necessary for a woman of good character to have slept with few men, but it is not a sufficient.

Blue pill men mistake the effect for the cause, and see sexual experience as an odometer to be measured, when in fact it is nothing more than one card from her hand. You do not have a complete picture and if she’s smart, you never will. So don’t be a dumbass who places value on a woman’s sexual history. Without any sort of context, virginity means nothing. By logical extension, if there’s no reason to value a virgin, then there’s no reason to value any woman who claims to have limited sexual experience.

And continuing further, I would go as far to say that a huge slut may yet still turn out to be better relationship material (never marriage material) than a virgin, since with the slut you know what you are getting while the virgin is someone who may put on false pretenses with her chastity.

Whenever a woman tells you her sexual experience, realize that she is trying to manipulate you by showing you an incomplete picture, shrug your shoulders, and just give her a one word answer of your choice: “Cool.” “Okay.” “Neat.” “Whatever.”

“I’m a virgin.”  YOU: *shrugs* “Cool.”

“I’ve only had two boyfriends before you.” YOU: *shrugs* “Okay.”

“I’ve slept with 100 men.” YOU: *shrugs* “Neat.” (Guaranteed you’ll make her feel insecure with this reply.)

“I’m not like other girls. I’m not easy.” YOU: *shrugs* “Whatever.”

Read Next: A Feminist Helps Men With Relationship Game


Send this to a friend