“I got gangbanged in college and my fiance found out”

If it gets removed from the above page, you can also see it here.

28-year-old girl had a fivesome with some guys back in her college days who she’s still Facebook friends with. Her sister’s fiance spilled that fact to the girl’s boyfriend. Fiance walked out on her and is refusing to talk to her.

Everyone unanimously agrees: The girl is the one in the wrong here, and her fiance did the right thing walking out on her.

Now let’s analyze this situation further. What’s so bad about the gangbang? The past is in the past, right?

Except the girl didn’t learn her lesson.

And even if she did, she can’t edit her past and remove the undesirable parts.

A lesson in female solipsism

“It was college”

“I admit I was excessive, but at the time it was just what we did”

“I fucking hate my sister’s bf right now but maybe it’s not even his fault”

MEN ACT.

WOMEN ARE ACTED UPON.

A woman’s sense of reality is her feelings, which are triggered by other people acting upon her. Her role in life is receptive, to occupy worlds, not so much to create them. Creation is the man’s role.

Which is why women seem fundamentally incapable of being responsible for themselves. They need a man (or social body) to keep them in check, or children to take care of.

And when all they have is social body, they mold themselves to it.

Notice how often women speak in the “we” compared to men, and how naturally it comes to them.

When a woman says “it wasn’t my fault, x thing/person made me…”, she isn’t lying! That’s literally her perception of reality! X thing/person acted upon her, then she was receptive in y way.

Bad character or just female nature?

Both.

Being acted upon, being more receptive than self-directed, is female nature.

Not understanding the difference between right and wrong is bad character.

A woman of good character is just as hypergamous and opportunistic as one of bad character. The good women end up with the good men. The bad women end up with the bad men.

Female solipsism is one way to put the “acted upon” aspect of female nature, but the term assumes all women are unhealthy.

All women act in self-interest, just like all men do.

Women can be giving and nurturing despite their “acted upon” nature, just like men can be generous and honorable despite their natural inclination to compete and conquer.

A lesson in female value

The girl who wrote that Reddit post is a 7 at best.

We don’t know what she looks like, but we know how she acted. And lemme tell you something, legitimately gorgeous girls are SELECTIVE.

They know they can get high-quality guys, so they don’t settle for anything less. Since they hit puberty, even attractive, high-status guys have been bombarding them with attention and jumping at the chance to be with them.

The gorgeous girl’s very existence validates her sexual desirability. She doesn’t need to fuck around to validate herself that way.

The less attractive girls may have gotten a bit of attention from good guys, but then gotten passed up for another girl. And girls handle rejection worse than guys do, usually.

Ugly to average to above-average looking girls have much more to prove than the babeshows do, so they’re far more inclined towards promiscuous behavior to validate their sexuality.

The girls with the highest n-counts are psychologically unhealthy ones who aren’t gorgeous but are still fuckable to most guys.

Look at Jolie (girl in the blue top and jeans) in this video. Prime physiognomic example of a girl with high n-count.

That’s why I urge you gents not to get envious or distraught when you hear a story of wild college fun where a promiscuous girl got drunk and took a bunch of dicks.

She probably wasn’t that hot! If she was, she would be saving her sexuality to exclusively give to a higher-tier guy, not to a bunch of drunk degenerate college dudes.

Promiscuous girls rely on sex for a sense of self. That’s why they’re so slutty. Without those sexual escapades, they feel like they don’t have purpose in the world.

Gorgeous girls are more inclined to sublimate their sexuality, just like successful guys transform their sexual energy into creation instead of jizzing it out all the time.

The babeshows want sex just as bad as the sluts, but with a higher caliber of guy. And they know the value of their beauty because again, they’ve been bombarded with male attention since puberty.

So they transmute their sexual energy into BEAUTY, not into promiscuity and covering up flaws. They exercise, eat healthy, stay hydrated, stay away from drugs, and give themselves more purpose in the world than simply getting dick.

This sexual energy, properly transmuted, shapes their body into a more beautiful one.

Real beauty starts from the inside. Only low-tier girls think it’s about faking one’s looks and/or getting as many notches as possible.

In both cases, a woman’s value is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

She’s a mediocre thot, so she fucks casually to validate herself, stays a mediocre thot.

She’s a babeshow, so she goes for great guys, stays a babeshow.

What about the gangbang?

I argue that a gangbang doesn’t lower a woman’s value as much as it reveals her true value.

The gangbang didn’t turn her into a mediocre slut. Her mediocre sluttiness made her do the gangbang.

I imagine that girl’s fiance was blinded by an ideal of her. She was the marriage-material girl he’d finally settle down with.

I don’t know the full picture of their relationship, but I imagine she “girl gamed” him into seeing her that way, just like she’s “girl gaming” in the post.

“I can go on and on about how great he is but I won’t waste your time. He’s awesome. “

Don’t look at WHAT she’s saying as much as at WHY she’s saying it.

Despite her game, the truth came out. She was a SLOOT.

Similar things happen to guys when they over-rely on game and don’t focus so much on building lasting value. Girl is into him at first, then she notices a lack of growth in him and jumps ship.

I personally would never get serious with a girl who’s been gangbanged. Not because that one event in her past sank her value, but because that event was a reflection of WHO SHE IS, plus I’d see through her affectations from the start.

Also, like it or not, a girl’s sexual history stays with her forever. Every new sexual partner changes her irreversibly.

Even if she has a change of heart and decides to put more barriers between suitors and her vagina, she’s doing it out of shame, not out of virtue.

You’re better off going for a girl who’s always been responsible with her sexuality.

What’s the line between an acceptable sexual past and SLOOT ALERTS?

I don’t expect any attractive North American or Western European girl above 18 to be a virgin. If she’s been with a few guys before me, that’s understandable.

What matters is how she treats sex.

Does she commodify it? Treat it as a hobby? Something she gives or that guys take from her?

Or does she treat it as an intimate bonding experience? Something she SHARES?

There’s a difference between “I’ve had sex with my exes plus this guy I was FWBs with” and this girl’s testimony of “I was single during that time and me and my friends…did a lot. With a lot of guys. Most of them I couldn’t even pick out of a lineup.”

The former is a typical Western woman, the latter is DEGENERATE.

Don’t look at WHETHER she fucks. Look at WHO and WHY she fucks. It’s no accident.

Girls don’t accidentally get gangbanged. They don’t accidentally fuck more guys than they can remember.

They’re still sexual beings however. Only a tiny minority in their 20s or older DON’T have a sexual history.

And if you work with me, you won’t ever have to be in the dark about a girl’s sexual past. You’ll feel it on her just like I do.

Has she treated her sexuality with respect?

Or has she been a SLOOT?

You won’t have to demand the truth from her. You’ll intuit her sexual history no matter what she says.

And this intuition will serve you well in discerning which girls will be good for you vs which ones are bad news.

You’ll avoid the shameful experience of investing heavily into a girl who hid her SLOOTy past from you.

Cheerio,

– Ben

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: