Why Do We Label Women “Sluts”? | Girls Chase

Why Do We Label Women “Sluts”?

One of our discussion forum members started a thread asking whether, when surrounded by women decrying the slut label, he should be truthful to himself and state that there’s a good reason behind this label, or whether he should tell women like this what they want to hear (and what he probably needs to say if he wants to sleep with them): that he thinks such a label is totally unreasonable... even if this is being untruthful to himself.

That’s an interesting question, but one I think that the answer to (supposing your goal is to become a real “knock her socks off” ladies man) is a fairly simple “fake it till you make it.”

That is to say, you may think she’s a “slut” now... but once you’ve got a significantly larger amount of sexual experience under your belt, you’re probably not going to care one way or the other about what label fits her best. So might as well just act like you’re already there and get the girl in the meantime. You’ll be glad you did later.

women sluts

But that raised an interesting question for me: why is that newer guys and less experienced guys or, alternately, bitter guys (not necessarily the same as new/inexperienced guys), use the “slut” label on women... while more experienced guys who’ve made their peace with women’s sexuality don’t really care?

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his Mastery Package.


Related Articles from GirlsChase.com


Anonymous's picture

Women with lots of sexual partners are invariably damaged women. These are the girls that need constant validation from men, and the only way they make themselves feel better is to sleep with lots of men. Interestingly, these girls also seem somewhat socipathic. There's no way I would ever date a woman like that no matter how sexually experienced I am. Anyway, I have a question that I've been pondering for a while...what do you think of the girls who still consider themselves virgins even after giving oral sex to multiple men? This girl told me shes given oral sex to five men but she still considers herself a virgin. She says she didnt have sex because she was "protecting her virginity." How a human being can delude themselves into thinking that way is beyond me.

DS's picture

Her P***Y is on lock, but she uses her mouth to make up the difference. But why care, really? Life's short!

Chase Amante's picture


People tend to find ways to view themselves however they want to. It seems to be pretty common among religious women (in both the West and the Middle East) for women to engage in oral and anal sex in order to preserve their vaginal virginity. I've even read stories about men and women getting married in some Middle Eastern countries, going to the doctor to find out why the wife isn't getting pregnant, and having the doctor realize that they're still only having anal sex and never realized they needed to start having vaginal sex for her to conceive.

For partner count considerations (say, if you're considering a woman for something longer term), I'd recommend considering any kind of sexual contact as another partner.

Personally, I have significantly more respect for a girl who has vaginal sex with X number of men than a girl who gives blowjobs to the same number of men while withholding vaginal sex in order to still claim virginity or chastity. The second girl is actively trying to sneak around and find loopholes to a rule she fears breaking but wants to break. The first girl is honest with herself and others and just does what she wants. Much healthier (and more respectable) in my opinion.


David Riley's picture

To add to Chase, a lot it has to do with fear of judgement. The girl who claims to still be a "virgin", feels she can judge others. For a example a girl I had met my sophomore year of college said "I'm not a whore like her, I only give head." It's a false sense of reality. They believe they are above the other girl. Unfortunately, some guys will ultimately look at them the same. The "virgin" however still believes she is special.

Just Dave

Alek Rolstad's picture

Well it depends...

There are two type of sexually liberated women. One of the types is like you discribed them.... they fuck around for validation. Such women can be good for one night stands and other casual encounters and nothing else. These women are usually low self esteem and not high quality in my experience.

And you have the other type who fucks around just because she really loves sex, she has a high sex drive, she is experienced, she knows what she wants, and she really wants it. This is what I would call a sexually confident woman,. these women are well fitted for relationships too and not only casual sex. However you better be a high sex drive male yourself who is adventurous in bed if you plan keeping her!


David Riley's picture

Hey Alek,

I notice will achieve a higher sex drive if you give them great orgasms. They become addicted to sex. One technique I do is save my orgasms and use multi-orgasms. This way I keep my energy levels. This way the girl will get worn out faster than myself. I normally don't have a regular orgasm unless I'm actually about to go right to sleep. Just thought I throw in a tip for guys who were worried about losing their girls. ;)

Just Dave

Woman K's picture

Hi there, and thanks for the interesting post again. All you're saying here rather makes sense. There's one thing I'm wondering about though. Maybe you've got a theory?

If men feel scared about getting "trapped" by women with more experience (aka "sluts"), and they have a reason for being, I reckon this would be true also the other way around. If a woman in search of a long term partner meets a gamer like you, a sexually experienced man, she has a reason to be worried, for sure. That kind of man also "knows the tricks", he's done it all before and it's no issue breaking hearts if it comes to that, it's easier for him to hook up with another than it would be for a greener guy. Same repressed fear, one would imagine. So, why not the same slut shaming? Why do not women "defend" themselves by labelling men under, well, something like sluts, the male equivalent of it? Is it just the biological truth that we get the babies and cannot be tricked to caring for someone else's child (as men can), or is there another explanation?

DS's picture

Good Points!

Chase Amante's picture

Woman K-

There is actually a similar phenomenon with women, but it's more nuanced.

Women tend to have love-hate relationships with high partner count men. There's both respect for the achievement and an element of disgust as well. I've experienced it firsthand with girlfriends - if you talk candidly about partner counts significantly higher than yours, they become this cascading mix of disgust and arousal.

I attribute the disgust to a fear of being used, a suspicion the man will probably cheat and/or leave them high and dry, and the potential humiliation of being "just another notch on his belt" when here she is pouring her heart and soul into the relationship. One of the things I've heard from girlfriends in this scenario (even very tough girlfriends) is a plaintive "Don't hurt me, okay?" in softer moments.

The arousal is just a "here is a dominant, powerful, sexual man that other women all want - and he's MINE" thing. If you want to talk evolutionary psychology, it's probably a "this man will give me sons who will spread my genes far and wide" kind of deal. Interestingly, the attraction of men for sexually experienced women may also be similar - highly charismatic, smooth, alluring experienced women are a cuckolding risk, but they also present the chance for a man to mate with a woman who will likely give him children very skilled at attracting high caliber mates... thus why every guy in the nightclub climbs over every other guy to get the same flashy girl in the center of attention who's probably been with tons of guys, all while telling himself he's SURE that she's got to be super picky and a saint at heart... because he doesn't want to talk himself out of mating with this woman whom he might not mate with if he was being totally honest with himself about her probable sexual history.

There is some shaming socially from women directed at prolific men, but it's not as severe as the shaming prolific women get. With men, it's mostly people trying to cockblock the guy and telling women things like, "He's a bad guy - stay away from him," and, "He's no good for you," and, "That guy's a player." It's mostly centered around reputation fears for women - if you get together with this playboy, everyone's going to know you're being dicked around while he has other girls on the side. Or everyone knows he's not serious and you'll look like a naïve fool if you're seen with him.

However, sexual conquest is seen as a key measure of success for men, and the risks that a sexually liberal man poses to a woman (e.g., wasted time, or reputation damage; or, later on, a dividing of his resources between children he has with her and children he has with another woman) are outweighed by the opportunities (e.g., the chance to be with a highly desirable man who's already been preselected by other women - he's a "safe bet" genetically speaking, unlike all these other question mark men a woman meets who might seem good at first blush but have serious problems underneath).

I think the far greater variation among men also plays a role in the much lighter social sanctioning men get for more partners; that is, men tend to occupy both the heights and the depths, making up both the most successful people (wealthiest, most famous, most powerful, most artistic, most inventive) and the least successful people (poorest, most destitute, most imprisoned, most mentally deficient). Knowing that a man has succeeded with women makes a woman less certain he will hang around and less certain he's a reputation risk, but far more certain he's likely one of the top tier men and not one of the bottom tier ones. Women all tend to hover more around the middle and not rock the boat nearly as much or lie at the extremes of the success curve that men do (not so many colossal successes nor colossal failures among women), so in the case of men selecting women there are still the risks of reputation damage, distraction from the man's mission, and cuckolding to worry about, but no significant reproductive or survival advantage to selecting a more sexually experienced woman.

Thus, sexual experience becomes more or less a net plus for a man when being selected by women (though they may still grit their teeth a bit and worry about him running off or hurting their image), while remaining a net minus for a woman when being selected by a man (though if she's used that experience to turn herself into a super charismatic seductress - however, few do - many men will still fight each other for her hand).


Alek Rolstad's picture

Women K.

Men do not usually care about being labelled as sluts or manwhores. The reason being is that there is no social stigma attached to it.

But hey, our culture is always changing and things might change.


David Riley's picture

Along with what Alek and Chase, it all comes down to curiosity. Women want to know if the rumors of the man are true. I had a friend in college who was hated by women but they kept sleeping with him. My nice guy friends would be the ones the would go running to when my player friend broke their hearts.

Just Dave

SimonW's picture

When I was chasing notches, I slept with a girl regardless of her partner count.

When I achieved self-actualisation and no longer needed the ego validation from sex, I rightfully viewed sluts with the disdain they deserve. It's an inherent, evolutionarily derived response to abhor promiscuous women.

A woman's main attribute is being the gatekeeper to sex, whilst the male is the gatekeeper to commitment. Any girl who has repeatedly given it away, cheaply, shows a distinct lack of self-worth, and a deeply unattractive personality to any man of sufficiently strong character, however you try to dress it up.

Chase Amante's picture


Self-actualization consists of, among others, the following things:

  • Acceptance of self and others
  • An innocent, appreciative worldview
  • Exceedingly compassionate views of others
  • Grasp of the concept that there is no 'correct' way of seeing things

If you are self-actualized, you will have no difficulty perceiving that while there are women who pursue more sex partners because they have self-esteem issues (or, additionally, the ones are just terrible judges of character and always go for the wrong man), there are also the ones who are naturally high sex drive and high novelty seeking, with these women tending to be extremely secure individuals... and secure in their love of men and sex. They're some of the most confident, complete souls you will meet, in fact.

Then again, you've mentioned disdain, and that's perhaps the polar opposite of self-actualization. In that case, I'd recommend this article:

"Most Important Thing to Becoming a Lover of Women? Don't Be Bitter."


SimonW's picture

I disagree with your definition of self-actualisation. It is not an objective concept.

For me it means being totally internally validated, and not compromising my core masculine values. Do not confuse being a man of strong principles acting in accordance with his own evolutionary programing with being bitter.

A bitter man dismisses women as sluts, whilst simultaneously being unable to obtain them. Once you reach the point where you can get them if you wish, then it is simply a case of adherance to your values to choose not to, and to disdain their behaviour.

Excessive tolerance of all behaviours is what has led western civilisation into a spiral of decline. Unrestrained female sexuality is a destructive force upon traditional society. Terms like "slut" existed to exact a measure of social control via shaming upon these types of behaviours.

I accept them for who they are in that I wish them no harm. I would offer them assistance if they were in peril. I just want nothing to do with them sexually, and most likely personally, since I don't respect their choices, and I don't want being a "slut" to become an accepted or even celebrated part of the society in which I live. I'm pretty sure I'm far from being alone on the matter.

Enjoy your site by the way. Keep up the good work.

Nick's picture

Chase's definition is correct, here I will help you out.


Check the link or other sites becuase they all describe the same things about the term,then look at the characteristics ,heres the first for the site I linked.

"Acceptance and Realism: Self-actualized people have realistic perceptions of themselves, others and the world around them."

Maslow himself who popularized the term uses the same definition as Chase. You should throw away your dictionary :), it is obviously misleading, or you should stop incorrectly using a term to justify your opinions(you know its a shit opinion, right?).

Anyway , you can use all the rhetoric you want to try and justify your shitty attitude about women but you should realize that if you became experienced with girls, all kinds of girls. Ones with high and low partner counts and in between you would form a different opinion. Lets say a more realistic opinion ;), you would have one of the two opinions that Chase has listed that experienced men have about women with high partner counts(read the article again if you don't know) and then you should use what you learned to gain more experience with women and then do the world a favor and get rid of that disgusting attitude.

If you feel that my post is hostile to you; well it is. Not because I think your a horrible human being(I don't think you are) but because that ignorant attitude of yours does more harm to people than good including yourself. So you can either respond to my post to try and defend your position, to solidify your beliefs like most people would, or you can say to yourself "Man, maybe what Chase is saying might have some merit, I am not afraid to be wrong, to stuff my pride so I can grow as a person, to experiment,to be different from my peers, because I realize I am only one human being with a finite amount of knowledge surround by those who also have a finite amount of knowledge but with different experiences and wisdom to impart that will help me grow, in the end I can decide what knowledge to keep and what to discard and no harm will come to me because I realize I am not afraid like most people are of what I might learn about myself and the people around me".

I want to say alot more but there is too much to say. The choice is up to you to decide what you can learn from this site.


Nick's picture

What a dumb opinion. With an attitude like that many women will lie to you about their past. This kind of thing might not seem like a big deal at first but when a person sets exceptions and finds they do not meet he will have a colossal meltdown. Hopefully after you have your lesson you will learn from it.

Dimes's picture

It's a great and very common opinion. Sluts are not in any way desired. They are damaged. Sure I fuck sluts. Sure sluts like me. Sure sluts give it to me. But these sluts aren't mine.

I'll go to great extents to find out how many parntners a girl has if I'm considering her for a relationship. It's why I will only have relationships with young women.If she lies and I find out. It it is over.

Nick's picture

Lol nope, its fine to have preferences for women for your relationships, but that opinion your defending for only exists because of girls using it at other girls to compete, shame, repress, or make other chicks look undesirable( they don't actually hate those actions, they do it themselves or wish they could, but keep their lips sealed) and because there are men who are bitter towards women and have unhealthy views about them. The opinion also exists because there are men who are just inexperienced and don't know much about girls.

You really want to be either of those people in that group( they're losers), because that is what you are showing me, men who are experienced and are not bitter towards women don't have those views that you defend. I have been out and about around all kinds of men and have never seen a man who could.

Really it is sort of like a growing pain for men who have those views, until they learn more about women and have more experience with women they will keep them, and only rarely does a man become experienced enough to where he starts having a realistic opinion about them and sheds the more unhealthy view.

Anyway, if you keep that opinion don't be surprised when you find out a girlfriend has lied to you about her past, its going to happen a lot ;) or that your girl ditches you for a man who doesn't share the same views you do :). Like I said they're growing pains!

Choice is up to you bro.


Jimbo's picture

Alright, calm your righteous nuts, Sir Dancel McChester Diewell III.

So your post basically implies that there are indeed good girls who wouldn't think about getting it on with some hot foreign dude during her trip to Europe 45 minutes after meeting him, or wouldn’t bang the captain of the football team if they ever got the chance to. That those who do so don’t do it because they’re biologically predisposed to, but because they lack self-worth.

Right. When you find that unicorn who tells you she’s next to chaste, and then you pat yourself on the back for finding a good girl with character and all that, don’t be surprised when you one day stumble onto her (written or visual) porn collection/history, only to find it replete with rough sex and gangbangs of chicks being used and abused like pieces of meat by sailors and nasty thugs, picturing herself in their places while wetting her panties. That is, if she doesn’t outright cheat on you once she gets security. Because your good girl is a woman at the end of the day, and all women are predisposed to certain desires and behaviors. And the thing that stopped them from being as promiscuous in the past was not their “self-worth” or “character,” but stricter social policing. They were more conservative because it was made riskier for them socially to be otherwise, not because they viewed themselves as “above that.” And even then, as Chase mentioned elsewhere, at some point of the Puritan era, something like 40% of the girls who married were pregnant.

And as much as you believe you're experienced, or "self-actualized," you're still not there yet. And by "there" I mean to the point where you get off your unicorn and realize that women are indeed pretty much all the same in certain respects. You can either go all good-gosh-and-good-golly, Mitt-Romney about it, which means if you’re gonna despise and shun “those” women, then you might as well despise all the womenfolk, or you can make your peace with it.

By the way, I’m not denying that a certain revulsion towards sexually promiscuous/kinky women has biological roots and explanations in the male, and neither did this article, but keep in mind that so does sluttiness in the female.

Anonymous's picture

Your rationale for 'fearing' sluts is based on a conscious concern that men maybe manipulated and lack control in the relationship.

OTOH, there is a strong biological argument that the basis is a man's concern that he would be committing resources to a woman and any child without guarantee of paternity. Just like women's instinctive 'shit tests' (which you yourself have said are biologically based/she doesn't realise she is pulling them). Couldn't you equivalently state that female shit tests are an uninformed/insecure woman's fear of not being in control?

Chase Amante's picture


I'm becoming increasingly less convinced the more I see that there are deep-seated biological fears of far off things like cuckolding or divorce rape, etc. More and more I think these are things a man has picked up and realized are risks, and they inform his manipulation fear at the hands of a more experienced or more challenging to control woman (or a woman he senses is more experienced or harder to control).

If you look at matriarchal societies, there doesn't seem to be this cuckolding fear (because fathers aren't much or at all responsible for investing resources into parenting). And as I've embraced a location-independent lifestyle and one where my life is focused more firmly on completing my own missions, I've seen any fear I had of being cuckolded go away too. For me, it's become something where, if it happened, I'd shrug, laugh, tell the gal, "Well, you had me fooled for a minute there!" and then take off and never talk to her or my not-progeny again and just make more that are my own with some other girl. Or in the case of cheating, meh - if it happened, I'd shrug, tell the girl I understand, the other guy must've provided something I did not, pick her brain for a little intel to see if I can figure out what led to the scenario for future reference with other gals, and then I'd jet.

To me, the fears seem to be situation-based and experience-/expectation-based rather than biology-based; if you're stuck in one place and don't have many options and it seems difficult or impossible to replace a woman once you're deeply into something with her, and you don't know how to identify or deal with such situations if they occur, something like this become a huge, terrifying fear demanding much consideration.

If you're free to move around and have tons of options and replacing a woman with an equal or better woman is just a little bit of work on your part away, and you're in a place where you've already dealt with situations like this and know how to identify the women most likely to place you in them and the signs that you are in them, the fear vanishes and just becomes and "if-then" contingency.

Sort of like how you might fear being beat up because you've had it happen or seen it happen before, but a few hundred hours of martial arts training later and now it's more of an, "Okay, I know how to handle myself in a combat situation, and even if I do get beat up, it's not the end of the world - I'll go heal, train harder, and lick him next time."


Anonymous's picture

I can see some of your points, but not others. While we are not quite a matriarchal society, you would acknowledge we are in a point of transition where society is being designed to benefit women at the cost of men. The call against slut shaming by feminists these days is simply to try to allow women to have it all - sex up the alphas when she's young and guilt betas into manning up when she's about to hit the wall.

Many men have a visceral disgust for obviously slutty behaviour just like women have a contempt for overly beta men. Yeah, they may take advantage of it, but don't want to be publicly associated with them in certain circustmances where their social standing could be calling into question.

Regarding being fooled about children, you make it easy to assume its a simple brush off - how can you be sure that you weren't raising someone else kid for sometime? You'd brush off years lost emotion-free? NOt so sure about that.

But ovreall I think your mindset works IF your philosophy is sex first, relationship later. The problem is, why you can be non-judgemental about a woman's sexual past, why invest in a woman who has given away her sexuality so freely before, particularly as she declines in value? The cost benefit analysis doesn't stack up.

Franco Lombardi's picture


Going to address two of your points here:

"Many men have a visceral disgust for obviously slutty behaviour just like women have a contempt for overly beta men. Yeah, they may take advantage of it, but don't want to be publicly associated with them in certain circustmances where their social standing could be calling into question."

"But ovreall I think your mindset works IF your philosophy is sex first, relationship later. The problem is, why you can be non-judgemental about a woman's sexual past, why invest in a woman who has given away her sexuality so freely before, particularly as she declines in value? The cost benefit analysis doesn't stack up."

Your two arguments here show me the same problem that most men encounter: they place far too much of their evaluation of a woman's value on her sexual history. How much sex a woman has had might play some role in her personality traits, but overall, what value a woman provides to your life in terms of her overall character rests on MUCH, MUCH more than just her sexual past.

Her character, her skills, her knowledge, and many other things come into play when you are considering which women are ideal for a relationship. While a "virgin" or "low-partner count" woman would seem desirable to a male looking for a long-term, faithful companion (even though we've just discussed that most women lie about their sexual pasts, so this is a facade measurement for compatibility at best), her sexual history doesn't determine her overall compatibility with you as a partner. If you are eliminating women as potential partners with a lot of sexual experience, you're more likely to eliminate potential partners with a large amount of compatibility with you as opposed to women who will be less faithful to you. Their faithfulness to you actually relies much more heavily on your ability to satisfy their needs rather than what their sexual past is like, anyway. It is more about you than it is about them.

So when you say that a woman who is giving away her sexuality "freely" is declining in value, you aren't backing it up with what that value is (other than the fact that she's had more partners than other girls). If you're a more experienced man and have been with women that have had both low and high partner counts, then you've easily come to realize that a woman's "value" is almost completely independent of her sexual history. It is only with very low self-esteem women that sexual history might actually matter, but you should be screening out women with low self-esteem as partners anyway.

- Franco

Anonymous's picture

You're distorting what I've said, avoiding responding to certain points and conveniently avoiding biology where it contradicts the theme and brand of girlschase.

If you've paid to attention to modern feminism you'd know that its about women wanting it all - being able to chase the hottest guys when young and then when their looks and beauty fade settle for a beta (this is what im talking about when women decline in value) and get security, comfort and emotional needs met.

Women's primary value is their youth feminimity and beauty - this is indisputable. It declines with age. You frequently also talk of men, being leaders, needing to bring more to the table, as women seek men of higher value than them.

There have also been several studies which have shown womens ability to bond reduces as her partner count increases (can't find offhand here). Women who have a habit of sleeping around are less likely to be interested in committment. you are what you do. The studies show they are also indicative of impulsivity, associated with extroversion and need for constant new stimulation - in short promiscuity.

IN an environment where women are not facing any social sanctions for promiscuity there is far less to stop her from being promiscuous, no matter what you do. Grrl power, you go girl etc. is a powerful force. Women today have the attention span of a fly and have no compunction dropping you the second you slip marginally? why? no consequences and plenty of options..

If the point of girlschase is to encourage men to be lovers to women - there primary value is their sexuality, so those other benefits you talk about (generally, but never specifically define) are irrelevant. unless you're now saying girlschase is also supporting relationships as its brand? so which is it?

Franco Lombardi's picture

"You're distorting what I've said, avoiding responding to certain points and conveniently avoiding biology where it contradicts the theme and brand of girlschase. "

Actually, I directly addressed the issues you brought up, and all you did was re-state the same issues that I already provided an answer for. Biology completely supports everything GirlsChase emphasizes, but it does not take into account the sociology of humans (which is where this website comes in to alleviate the differences).

I will address this:

"There have also been several studies which have shown womens ability to bond reduces as her partner count increases (can't find offhand here). Women who have a habit of sleeping around are less likely to be interested in committment. you are what you do. The studies show they are also indicative of impulsivity, associated with extroversion and need for constant new stimulation - in short promiscuity."

The problem with studies like these is that they don't provide a reason -- they just draw a correlation between two statistics. Yes, it is true that MOST women who sleep around tend to have less of a chance of forming a bond with a man that will last a long period of time. However, your misunderstanding here comes from the fact that you attribute this habit to women rather than real issue (which is what I pointed out in my last comment and am now re-iterating) is that most men don't know how to satisfy these women. A sexually promiscuous woman is a more experienced woman -- she's been with more men, she knows she has options, and she knows more about what she wants. Men fail to hang on to these women most of the time because most men don't know how to satisfy women in relationships, regardless of partner count.

And as far as this:

"If the point of girlschase is to encourage men to be lovers to women - there primary value is their sexuality, so those other benefits you talk about (generally, but never specifically define) are irrelevant. unless you're now saying girlschase is also supporting relationships as its brand? so which is it?"

You must have missed half of what this website is about. This website is about understanding what women want and living a life that you choose to live with women, whether that be one of a bachelor and many one-night stands or one of a monogamist who finds the girl of his dreams and lives the rest of his life with her. As a matter of fact, I'll go as far to say that the relationship material on this website is what is the MOST profound aspect of it (as you're unlikely to find any advice as nearly as pragmatic for running relationships as you are here) while the "pick-up" material (although extremely well-written) can also be found elsewhere.

Perhaps you missed all of this among the now 900 or so articles that have been written on this website. If that is the case, then here is a link to help you filter some material out:


- Franco

Anony's picture

Guys, remember this?


Anyhow, in the researches that were mentioned about infidelity and partner count it is important to note that, as with all empirical research, we don't know the exact cause of the results and so we shold at least theorize why.

Although women aren't losing anything directly, we can define something like "maintenance value" that is the time and effort needed to keep one's girlfriend and say that form the empirical evidence it declines with her sexual partner count, high "maintenance value" indicates low efforrt needed, low "maintenance value" indicates high effort needed to keep one's girlfriend. We're also assuming that with lower "maintenance value" there is a higher chance of infidelity.

Of course we can discuss how one's "maintenance value" depands one's "in return value" and how sexual partner count effects both, but since we're discussing this subject from a men's perspective it is important to note that the "in return value" of the same woman varies a lot depending on what we want in a woman.

Now depending on how much we value sex in women, Mr. Amante, made a distinction between those who prefer sexual experience and those who don't :
1) "(Sexualy experienced women are) For sex and fun, but not for relationships."
2) "(Sexualy experienced women are) For everything."

So it all comes down to what we percieve as high "in return value" (intellect, beauty, sexual experience, personality...) and how low "maintenance value" can we tolerate and what kind of "maintenance value" to we tolerate (giving her emotinal attention vs. keeping things exciting).

And to adress one point in the above comment:
"While a "virgin" or "low-partner count" woman would seem desirable to a male looking for a long-term, faithful companion (even though we've just discussed that most women lie about their sexual pasts, so this is a facade measurement for compatibility at best), her sexual history doesn't determine her overall compatibility with you as a partner. If you are eliminating women as potential partners with a lot of sexual experience, you're more likely to eliminate potential partners with a large amount of compatibility with you as opposed to women who will be less faithful to you."

Here you're assuming that women who have a lot of sexual experience are more compatible with you, which can be but doesn't have to be true, but it is true that:

"Their faithfulness to you actually relies much more heavily on your ability to satisfy their needs rather than what their sexual past is like, anyway. It is more about you than it is about them."

But as I said, it depends on what you want and how low "maintenance value" you can live with, anyhow you shold pick you're girlfriends wisely and you shold try dating both sides of the spectre and then judge (as in discriminate).

Jimbo's picture

The call against slut shaming by feminists these days is simply to try to allow women to have it all - sex up the alphas when she's young and guilt betas into manning up when she's about to hit the wall.

It's the traditionalists/conservatives that usually guilt "the betas" into manning up and marrying women. More so than feminists ever have.

Women need two things: security on the one hand, and excitement on the other. If they get one, they'll look for novelty elsewhere, from a man who's sexy, out-of-the-box, and smooth enough, but not necessarily that alpha. The wife of super-alphalpha Mike Tyson cheated on him with pretty boy Brad Pitt. More recently, it emerged that Dylann Roof's father, the big buff tattooed builder who used to yell at his wife and set her straight was cheated on as well with a dude named Scott McWhite. I don't know who Scott McWhite is, but I'm willing to bet he isn't half as alpha as mass killer's builder dad.

Nobody forces you to marry women. Or to spend considerable money on them if you do. If you allow yourself to be used as a cash cow and an emotional tampon, then you only have yourself to blame.


Yeah, they may take advantage of it, but don't want to be publicly associated with them in certain circustmances where their social standing could be calling into question.

I'm seeing quite a few men appearing publicly with their notoriously slutty wives, Simon Saran and Kanye West come to mind. And Trump's wife used to pose naked for magazines.

Same with women appearing with their beta boyfriends/husbands.

Nobody seems to be shaming these folks.


Regarding being fooled about children, you make it easy to assume its a simple brush off - how can you be sure that you weren't raising someone else kid for sometime? You'd brush off years lost emotion-free? Not so sure about that.

DNA tests cost like 15 bucks. Don't sign anything before you make sure a child is yours. Easy.


... why invest in a woman who has given away her sexuality so freely before?

Would it have been better if she had charged the guys for her sex?


The cost benefit analysis doesn't stack up.

What cost? A marriage only costs you as much as you spend on it. And again, if you allow yourself to be used as a cash cow or emotional tampon in a marriage, then you only have your beta ass to blame, not a woman's slutty past.

David Riley's picture

I'm with Chase not every man is meant to walk the path of the seducer. You can not be a warrior if you fear battle. It all comes down to research, practice, finding stronger opponents and honing your skills. It's a great reward when you accomplish something incredible. Just because become a great warrior doesn't mean you become invincible. Someone will always be bigger, stronger or better than you. You must learn to face to your fears. Once you vanquish your fear you can accomplish so many things in life.

Stay focused,

Just Dave

KeyOfLife's picture


I just want to point out, that the main difference making all the difference is being honest with yourself. The more honest with yourself you are, the better life for yourself (and others) you can create. All those dudes struggling with girls or skills are not honest with themselves somewhere inside themselves they know it. They hide their flaws even from themselves, they hide true intentions from girls and mostly don't admit to themselves that they just really feel excited and are eager to check out how does her pussy feels to be fucked because this is how the reproduction works, but sometimes they go to another end and scream for girls how they want to taste it and then comes of as jerks because of lack of a social calibration. Everything should begin with admitting everything at least for yourself. I believe it is core of everything one does in life. Then it comes to forming habits that make lives better for you and your surroundings, then it comes to being honest with yourself about whether you want to die in mediocrity or just not starve enough cause gratification seems far ahead and rejections are 'everywhere'. So this is the way to stop hiding your true self from yourself.

I think article on being honest (with yourself) would be appreciated and exciting to read, to see your thoughts. It may cause enough of cognitive dissonance for those dudes who are reading and expecting to 'start improving some day', when that day keeps being postponed for a whole lifetime and maybe you would get more asses rolling towards their goals instead of waiting (for what - they should ask themselves and see how silly that reason is).

And of course later we can add honesty with others, but this is the thing you need experience of your honesty with yourself to handle well in order to really tell what you wanna tell and be misunderstood less.

It would be sad to miss such a topic for me, but this is your site, you decide.

Keep writing!

Chase Amante's picture


Believe it or not, I started writing a piece on honesty underpinning everything you do immediately before this one, but scrapped it partway in because I didn't like how it was developing... then wrote this one instead.

Everything you have here is right on target. This is a difficult concept to communicate clearly, because it's sort of an unconscious one, and it's difficult to approach technically - how DO you become more honest, other than by just focusing on trying to be it? But it's absolutely an essential mentality to get down, and one I plan on writing more on soon (as soon as I find the right angle to tackle it from).


Anonymous's picture

I believe, cause I know it. Reading your articles from time to time affects me so much, that I have got the ability to see directly through your soul. -- Just kidding.

You could wrap it somehow with things that everyone has to admit, such as:
* Desicions must be timed. And the only one criteria showing that desicions WERE real and not a lie for oneself to keep running from your problems is that they were executed, not phoned in with clumsy affirmations.
* Mind is given to rule the emotions, not the otherwise.
* If you leave it to emotions - you leave your life and main its desicions to complete randomness (instead of beating odds with honest persistence)
* Habits can't be changed all at once, but once started not only the habit you consider to tackle, but others related will be improved. -- Let's say you started spending less time on useless chats - you get more done and conversations are run effectively.
* Problem with 'selfishness'. True reason with white knighting a lot of time is not to share happiness but to avoid personal problems and prove yourself that you are worth something, when in fact you know that you are acting like shit.
* You will come to this at one time or another in life, the earlier the better, but it can really be too late.
* Consciuos mind can direct emotions - as because of neuroplasticity brain is able to rewire itself. -- there is more hope for you than you could imagine, just stop kidding yourself
* Intuition is built upon past experiences, not by magical powers. It is subconsciuos way to give you the 'best' direction. But as all people with good intentions and with crappy experiences - it can be misleading.
* We should embrace our dark thoughts as version of ourselves. Well you want to get that girl naked and riding your awesome thing. So why don't admit that you have it? Now it is part of you, later when aging kicks in maybe it won't be.

I would see it somehow like this, but as you did with article about coolness - you can break this down on your own too. I don't know how one who always complaints can get serious about it without extreme life conditions pushing out of comfort zone... but you could try to help for souls who at least try to break through and maybe have first cold approach ever, or smth like that.

Thanks for quick answer.

Anonymous's picture

I think it is possible to make that article practical somehow by preparing questions one should give for oneself... Cause well, it is tough case mostly because it has to come from within. And this is where the meditation or recognizing your 'alone soul' is crucial.

One practical thing that helps me much is never looking back to failed relationships. When one side says 'It is over' then I will never under no circumstance come back to it. Of course I inform girls about this, but the ones who stay in life appreciate me more. What is more, I think that when relationships come to such a point there's no need to fix them, cause all issues need to be fixed calmly and with respect, when somebody says 'I do not need you anymore' this is the time to maybe talk it out, but once desicion is made - it is made. I don't believe in possibility to unkill relationships, not that because it is not possible at all - but it gives me much better life in general (you could go everywhere by crying and expecting for piece of rock from cosmos to hit you or you can just do what you love accepting that life is finite).

Another - as you discussed about victim mentality:
- Know that everything is a consequence of the past actions controlled by you.
- When in doubt - check out your progress you made. If not happy with it - strive to improve. And if you are happy with it - you're resting while others are going.

- Keep accountability. Journalise, analyze, but with purpose to get concrete plan to act in the future, so your mind won't be that much filled with mindless stuff.
- Let your autopilot run. Well, you cannot always be on 'improving' mode cause you'll run to ego depletion, but at least some ammount of time a day needs to be there, until collecting info will be something you do, not something you have to push yourself to do.
- Never downrate importance neither of quality, nor of quantity of experiences.
- No one gives a real damn about your life. Keep fixing your problems. If you let yourself die -- there won't be sympathy for you, but if you keep succeeding at the fastest pace you can - you will get many reactions of awe.
- Let yourself help you. Don't think that your brain is there to make you feel worse. It is there to help you. And you should point it the better way. You.
- Don't be so afraid of military discipline. Sometimes it is the only way to push yourself through initial doubts.
- If you have no 'drive to succeed' or no 'desire to live' just go outside and taste the life, talk with girls, do things and you'll see how excited you can be, then go back home and cry like a little baby if you want, but you have to admit - it is your responsibility to make it happen. Not this site, not your mum, everything you get done - you get done by doing in one way or another.
- Change yourself by changing your Habits. Habits itself is worth its own article, main idea is that your thinking patterns, your reactions, actions are determined by the habits.
- Keep filling your mind only with useful mindsets. There is no time in life for shit, you'll have enough of it when self improving -- trust me.
!!! - Accept uncertainty. Every fact you know is just an opinion you put your trust in. !!!
- Start hating excuses as such showing how you 'cannot enjoy the life'
- If you don't experience any cognitive dissonance in your current life you are not improving, and not honest with yourself somewhere deepdown.
- Don't overrate your 'willpower'. You must satisfy your biological needs at first. Then emotional. All other logical stuff comes after. Well, you are not a monk prepared for living without some biological needs met... Or are you?
- Accept your enormous capability to live exceptional life.

I have posted it some time ago, so that article fits there too:

I could say even more, and maybe put words in better shape, cause it's the topic I currently struggle A LOT with, obsessed even more than with cute girls that are around me and my all conversations lead to this topic every time... But I am having fun like this, I feel like all my self improvement from turtle speed came to airplane speed.

I hope soon we will see article on this... And in fact most of your articles seem to be on this with the template:
(circumstances I met this topic)->(what it is and how it is thought to be)->(how shitty that thougths is)->(MUCH better version of it)->(how to get to the better version of it)->(some additional notes),
where this 'better' is the thing that you better see, or your life will stay mundane, and I am starting to get the feel of all the common mindset lying under all those articles. Popular sites keep writing what is liked by masses, your site keeps writing what is causing plenty of healthy cognitive dissonance.

Keep going.

Anonymous's picture

Disclaimer: Those thoughts are not entirely mine but mixed with Chase article on life purpose (from practical point of view).

It all has to do with embracing uncertainty, which is emotionaly extremely difficult, cause you naturally always strive for certainty, which you must give girls too because they need to be led.

Once you embrace uncertainty you don't fall in love with it and say 'ok', your brain won't let you. It will want to revert it and you will run like hell to... Learning new things... in order to reduce that uncertainty...

And when you learn new things, not only books, but all social stuff learning through experience and every step is learning of some kind, but this time you will become active learner instead of passive one. You will achieve more than most folks, but hell yeah, you won't be happy with mediocrity stuff anymore and will understand stuff of life better than most folks, and will help you with avoiding bitterness and fulfilling emotional needs...
So learning new things (regardless the topic) in life leads to being included, liked, loved, respected, revered, understood, experiencing new things and exploring new stimulis and ... being Needed (list from Chase's article about Life Purpose from practical point of you).
Being Needed leads to you getting things from others to survive. Call it a salary from your job, call it a girlfriends gift to please you and cooking for you... Being needed leads to... - fulfilling your biological needs like not dying, eating food, drinking water, maintaining homeostasis, mating and reproducing. This way it increases your chances to avoid pain and get pleasure you naturally seek.

So what?

1. Learn the life - get knowledge regardless the topic, whether life expieriences, books -- everything...
2. As a result of learning fulfill all your emotional needs, mostly the one 'being needed' cause fear of ostracizm is real part of survival.
3. As a result of fulfilling emotional needs fulfill your biological much easier, cause other people simply need you so much that they won't let you just disappear, let 'em chase you, but don't kid yourself, you must always maintain balance at everything and if you do too much or start using people too much come back to first thing - learn the life again, cause you have missed something, and you will always miss something, but as you learn more and more that probability will decrease.
Just put two guys to perform a 3pt basketball throw. Proffesional and rookie. Which is more likely to shoot well? Proffesional. Which is guaranteed to shoot well? None. You can very well have proffesional to miss and rookie to perform it well. Let 'em do 1000 shots and then you have distinct probabilities, but there we come back to my first sentence - uncertainty is always there and we are naturally wired to run from it, but it always there.

I don't want you to overburn your brains, but I think it is possible with this knowledge to find the best strategie for living and just say 'Ok, I know that nothing is certain, nothing at all in fact... I have no entitlement for nothing, but there is survival which defines in life that the strongest have best chance to survive and to be strong you have to learn new things and use it as a tool for satisfying emotional needs, then with "being needed" need satisfied you should go using it for biological needs satisfying, and then... Then you can really pursue your logical stuff, which is nothing more than just a best guess efforts for emotional and biological needs fullfilling even more effectively, because nature made us live together, cause it needs us to live this way. There may be no purpose, but chance is that purpose is Real -- it leads us to having a purpose.'.

So Learn, Get needed, Get taken care of you and change the world for the better (not for the bitter), cause this is why nature made you like this.

Sorry for my texts being so long, I just felt I really needed to share it and I expect this to somehow run through Chase's mind and finally publish article on being honest with yourself, cause it's the mindset so many people lack of and this lack of honesty with themselves is core of most of our problems.

Too Deep's picture

Dude, you go too deep. You just recognized the fact that curiosity comes out of courage to embrace uncertainty and we all have boundaries of this courage, since we would become insane if we hadn't.
All you really need to do is:
1. Embrace uncertainty - you won't have too much courage cause you would overburn so you just find most efficient strategy to stay sane and stay improving
2. Hate excuses - you just say that not all circumstances are controllable, but you always could have done more, but you just choose your treshold.
3. Track progress - to keep your improving as as aligned with your chosen treshold as you can and to review things for the future.

I see meaning of life just as a huger plan of universe. And that plan seems to be kind of: 'I am universe and I consist of smaller alive parts working together just like my body of cells, cities of people, universe of stars and planets, and I myself want to know why I live at all, and what best can I be, and I let survive the best genes that are able to. I don't care of Tim, Jim, Jane, Amanda or that pig making you eat fat... I just care of being as good as I can, just like every my cell consisting of smaller cells cares too'.

So yeah, I see how you're trying to pick up uncertainty like a little shy girl and I just can say that those skills will help to pick up girls you can truly fuck in your bed and to create the most intriguing life you can imagine, for yourself, for her, for children and for the universe as a whole. Maybe you won't need her at all, but as long as you're reading there - I think that you will need her, why then learn about girls? But you there learn of people, and with people you will have to deal everywhere. Scientists who have no mates through whole lifes are servants of this too - they just find their way to invest themselves into universes ongoing survival in their most efficient way.

Why new article? Those things are already discussed everywhere on this site, who will care enough will find them and maybe combine it to better strategy, who knows.

Just go on :)

Jonas's picture

could you, please, untangle that 2 point part under the picture with hammer and marriage paper? Because to me, it soulds like it is in my best interest to go out and have as much experience with women as possible, because then I will stand a chance against a girl who is more experienced. And as I was reading Passion Trap that Ricardus mentioned in his articles, I found this fear emerging because of your site actually. I am not sure if I had this fear before, but now that I have been readin this site, I fear I could possibly end up marrying a girl that is far more experienced then me, then have kids with her and be cheated on by her later in life. Also that part about you knowing how to fight manipulators intrigued me since I am kind of a pushover.

Thank you, Jonas

Chase Amante's picture


Sure. Point number two was that there are two reasons a man will fear or avoid women like this:

  1. Because he's afraid he'll lose control of the relationship, or

  2. Because he knows there's an energy-level disconnect between him and a specific girl, and he doesn't want to deal with trying to always keep her super-interested and invested (and that's what the girl in question requires of him to give him the kind of relationship he wants)

I think every man who wants a healthy long-term relationship should go out and get some experience with various kinds of women first. I don't want to put a specific number on it because it's going to differ from region to region and whether you're in a big city or a small town, but generally you want to have sampled sleeping with and dating a variety of women, including conservative nice girls and ribald naughty girls.

Once you've experienced a range, you get a very good idea about a.) what you like and b.) how to run your relationships most effectively. Then you can identify women who match what you're looking for, screen out the ones who don't, and build a relationship with the one you pick for something serious that goes the way you want it to because you now know firmly what you're doing.

Think about it like playing a new sport; tennis, maybe. The first couple of times out on the court you get massacred and feel like a fool because you have no idea what you're doing, especially if the other players there are more experienced. After you've racked up some experience playing tennis and working on your serve and your backhand and your forehand and your overhead, you're able to play much more competently, and pick fellow players to play with whom you know are around your level and whom you will enjoy playing with and who won't be too bored with or, alternately, won't give you a royal reaming on the tennis courts because they're just so much more experienced than you.

Something to keep in mind about experience is that more is generally better, but if all your experience comes with a small niche of women there are limits to how valuable continuing to stack up more and more experience with the same kind of woman is. So if you want a certain kind of woman, and then go out and get a lot of experience with exactly those sorts of women, you will reach a point of diminishing returns where you've learned just about everything there is to learn about how that kind of woman operates and what's required of you in relationships with her to maximize your own relationship outcome, and at that point you're in ideal shape for something committed.

Of course, you can always drop out of the game if you find a girl you want something serious with before you reach that point, but delaying it to accumulate more experience generally assures you a higher likelihood of a smoother, less problematic relationship future.


DS's picture

...an incredible read! Right on point! Women are amazing and simply people much like us. Men. nix the negative program conscious labeling and learn to simply enjoy women and the experiences they bring. Men, you don't have to be stupid, but hey life is short and their are slut, non-slut, good, bad---whatever!!!! Get out there and enjoy the women you like. Chase you are an awesome writer!

David Riley's picture

Agreed DS,

Life without labels is such a more rewarding experience. It allows us to accept people for who they are. When we label someone who limit who they potentially could be and we sometimes end up writing them off. This is why I encourage people to really get to know women. When you don't judge women you can learn so much more about them. They become so interesting when they let their guard down and just open up to you.

Good points!

Just Dave

Dimes's picture

Hey Chase,

Great article man but going to off topic here. I'm 17 years old In highschool and I'm wondering if I should as fast you say in other articles. In a article you state I should ask out a girl within 4 days in my class... Is this too fast for HS?

Because I see some guys take months to fuck a girl.
Also is it ever ok to approach direct in HS or should I be indirect?

Sorry for being off topic, I just needed these questions to get throughout to you.


David Riley's picture

Hey Dimes,

Check out this forum post from one of our senior members dealing with this very topic.

Link text">High School Game

Just Dave

Woman K's picture

Thanks for the reply, Chase, and also for your comment on self-actualisation.

BTW, reading comments like the ones by Sloots and Simon always make me remind myself about the importance of honesty. Once again, I make a mental note to myself ALWAYS to be explicit about my high partner count right from the beginning. You know why? Well, because I would never EVER want to end up in bed with men with that attitude. :D And they obviously don't want to sleep with me either, so, screening out works both ways here. We're better off without each other, everybody's happy.

David Riley's picture


Indeed it's better to be upfront with your partner in the beginning than to find out months later than you're mismatch. You both up saving an extraordinary amount of time.

Just Dave

TZ's picture

Great article Chase. since I am new to the game I have been playing it safe by avoiding such girls but once I have a good time in I hope to give them a shot too. :)

I have one question that is a little off topic. Thanks to you I have been doing very well with meeting when they are alone. But lately I find it that girls I want to approach are with their friends and I want to know how to separate a girl from her friends to talk to her alone. If you have an article about it please link it. If not a little advice on the comments section will do :)

Note: the girls are not in my social circle, like complete strangers

Thanks in advance

Troy's picture

Hey TZ,

Strangely I have asked the same question before and I couldn't find an article on it until recently. I read two with advice on meeting girls with friends. Here they are:

Meeting Girls in Messy Situations or Friends Around


And if you have any problems with girls or their male friends then check out this one on cockblocking


Hope that helps

Anonymous's picture

Not sure if you have covered this in another article, but what about the link between promiscuous people and STDs? There is a link I'm assuming? Could this contribute to the disgust factor among men when a women has a high partner count?

David Riley's picture

Hey Anon,

Check out the following articles relating to your questions.

Avoiding STDs
Dodging Dangers of Sex
Having Safe Sex

Just Dave

jakd's picture

Hey Dave,
when a friend or relative tells you someone had died who was friend or family to them, how should you react that is not awkward, what words should be said?


David Riley's picture

Hey Jakd,

The best response is "Sorry for your loss." I wouldn't go anymore than that. People are confiding in you and looking for comfort from you. You can say, "I hope you're okay." I just leave it at.

Never say, "I know how you feel." This is the worse thing you could possibly say. Also, avoid asking the person how they feel directly. They will tell you how they feel.

Just Dave

Anony's picture


Mr. Amante, when you quoted the research “Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?” I see that you have just quoted the short summary of the research, which is problematic because there are some overlooked details.
Research Link.

I'll post all the relevant parts:

Hostility and discrimination against homosexual individuals are well-established facts (Berrill, 1990). On occasion, these negative attitudes lead to hostile verbal and physical acts against gay individuals with little apparent motivation except a strong dislike (Herek, 1989). In fact, more than 90% of gay men and lesbians report being targets of verbal abuse or threats, and more than one-third report being survivors of violence related to their homosexuality (Fassinger, 1991 ). Although negative attitudes and behaviors toward gay individuals have been assumed to be associated with rigid moralistic beliefs, sexual ignorance, and fear of homosexuality, the etiology of these attitudes and behaviors remains a puzzle (Marmor, 1980). Weinberg ( 1972 ) labeled these attitudes and behaviors homophobia, which he defined as the dread of being in close quarters with homosexual men and women as well as irrational fear, hatred, and intolerance
by heterosexual individuals of homosexual men and women.

Hudson and Ricketts ( 1980) have indicated that the meaning of the term homophobia has been diluted because of its expansion in the literature to include any negative attitude, belief, or action toward homosexuality. Fyfe (1983) has also argued that the broad definition of homophobia threatens to restrict our understanding of negative reactions to gay individuals. Furthermore, Hudson and Ricketts criticized studies for not making the distinction between intellectual attitudes toward homosexuality (homonegativism) and personal, affective responses to gay individuals (homophobia). They indicated that many researchers do not state the operational definition of what they term homophobic. To clarify this problem, Hudson and Ricketts defined homonegativism as a multidimensional construct that includes judgment regarding the morality of homosexuality, decisions Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr, Department
of Psychology, University of Georgia. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to concerning personal or social relationships, and any response concerning beliefs, preferences, legality, social desirability, or
similar cognitive responses. Homophobia, on the other hand, was defined as an emotional or affective response including fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort, and aversion that an individual experiences in interacting with gay individuals, which may or may not involve a cognitive component. For example, ego Mystonic homosexuality or marked distress about one's sexual orientation may be a type of homonegativism but does not necessarily imply homophobia. This clarification is consistent with Weinberg's (1972) definition of homophobia, as well as Haaga's (1992) suggestion that the term be restricted to deafly phobic reactions.

It has also been argued that the term homophobic may not be appropriate because there is no evidence that homophobic individuals exhibit avoidance of homosexual persons (Bernstein, 1994; Rowan, 1994). Nevertheless, the only necessary requirement for the label of phobia is that phobic stimuli produce anxiety. Whether the individual exhibits avoidance or endures the anxiety often depends on the nature of the stimuli and the environmental circumstances. MacDonald's (1976) suggestions are consistent with this analysis because he defined homophobia as anxiety or anticipatory anxiety elicited by homosexual individuals. O'Donahue and Caselles (1993) noted that Mc- Donald's definition parallels the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSMIV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) for simple phobia and captures the negative emotional reactions toward homosexuality that seem to have motivated use of the term. In a similar analysis, O'Donahue and Caselles described a tripartite model of homophobia consisting of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components that may interact differently with various situations associated with homosexuality.

As you can see the term homophobia is by itself problematic and the way of measuring is also.

Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale. A modified version of the Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale was used to assess sexual arousal and prior sexual experiences. This version of the Kinsey is a 7-point scale on which individuals separately rated their sexual arousal and experiences from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual. Only participants who reported exclusively heterosexual arousal and experiences (i.e., ls on both sections) were selected for participation.

IHP. The IHP is the most widely used measure of homophobia (O'Donahue & Caselles, 1993 ). The items of the IHP assess affective components of homophobia. The scale contains 25 items, and scores range from 0 to 100. Respondents were divided into four groups on the basis of their score: 0-25, high-grade nonhomophobic men; 26-50, lowgrade nonhomophobic men; 51-75, low-grade homophobic men; and 76-100, high-grade homophobic men. The score obtained is a measure of "dread" an individual experiences when placed in close quarters
with a homosexual; a low score equals low dread, and a high score equals high dread. Because most of the items contain the terms comfortable or uncomfortable, dread can be assumed to mean anticipatory anxiety about interacting with a homosexual person. For example, one item states "I would feel nervous being in a group of homosexuals." Positive and negative statements are used to control for response set biases. The authors reported .90 reliability coetficient on a sample of 300 respondents. O'Donahu¢ and Caselles ( 1993, p. 187 ) commented that the authors of the IHP used a "more empirical and psychometrically sophisticated approach than previous researchers who have produced instruments to measure homophobia.

The men were divided into two groups on the basis of their scores on the IHP: 0-50 = nonhomophobic men, n = 29, M = 30.48, SD = 14.70; 51-100 = homophobic men, n = 35, M = 80.40, SD = 13.2. This split was necessary because of an inability to find an adequate number of exclusively heterosexual men who scored in the high-grade nonhomophobic range (0-25).

This is how they measured homophibic response.
What they watched.

The stimuli were 4-min segments 0f explicit erotic videotapes depicting consensual adult heterosexual activity, consensual male homosexual activity, and consensual female homosexual activity. The sexual activity in the videos included sexual foreplay (e.g., kissing and undressing), oral-genital contact ( e.g., fellatio or cunnilingus), and intercourse (i.e., vaginal penetration, anal penetration, or tribadism in the lesbian film). The lesbian videotape was included because it has been shown to be highly sexually arousing to heterosexual men and is a better discriminator between heterosexual and homosexual men than other stimuli
(Mavissikalian, Blanchard, Abel, & Baflow, 1975 ).

And just one way of the data analysis, I'll skip the agression examination part of the experiment.

Another way of evaluating these data is to calculate the percentage of men who demonstrated no significant tumescence (i.e., 0-6 mm), modest tumescence (i.e., > 6-12 mm), and definite tumescence (i.e., > 12 mm) based on their mean tumescence score to the homosexual video. In the homophobic group, 20% showed no significant tumescence, 26% showed moderate tumescence, and 54% showed definite tumescence to the homosexual video; the corresponding percentages in the nonhomophobic group were 66%, 10%, and 24%, respectively.

Now comes the most important part of the research, The Discussion.

The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli. These individuals were selected on the basis of their report of having only heterosexual arousal and
experiences. Furthermore, their ratings of erection and arousal to homosexual stimuli were low and not significantly different from nonhomophobic men who demonstrated no significant increase in penile response to homosexual stimuli. These data are consistent with response discordance where verbal judgments are not consistent with physiological reactivity, as in the case of homophobic individuals viewing homosexual stimuli. Lang (1994) has noted that the most dramatic response discordance occurs with reports of feeling and physiologic responses. Another possible explanation is found in various psychoanalytic
theories, which have generally explained homophobia as a threat to an individual's own homosexual impulses causing repression, denial, or reaction formation (or all three; West, 1977). Generally, these varied explanations conceive of homophobia as one type of latent homosexuality where persons either are unaware of or deny their homosexual urges. These data are consistent with these notions.

Another explanation of these data is found in Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck's (1983) theory of the role of anxiety and attention in sexual responding. It is possible that viewing homosexual stimuli causes negative emotions such as anxiety in homophobic men but not in nonhomophobic men. Because anxietyhas been shown to enhance arousal and erection, this theory would predict increases in erection in homophobic men. Furthermore, it would indicate that a response to homosexual stimuli is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. Whereas difficulties of objectively evaluating psychoanalytic hypotheses are well-documented, these approaches would predict that sexual arousal is an intrinsic response to homosexual stimuli, whereas Barlow's (1986) theory would predict that sexual arousal to homosexual stimuli by homophobic individuals is a function of anxiety. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.

The hypothesis that homophobic men are merely aggressive individuals is not supported by the present data. There were no differences in aggression scores between groups as measured by the Aggression Questionnaire. However, this questionnaire is a general measure of aggression and does not address the possibility of situational aggression or hostility where the situation involves homosexuality or interacting with a homosexual person. It is possible that aggressiveness in homophobic individuals is specific to homosexual cues.

These data also indicate that subjective estimates of arousal and erection are largely consistent with physiological indices of penile erections, with correlation coefficients ranging from .53 to .66. Because the relationships between subjective measures of erection and arousal were quite high, ranging from .78 to .95, it is likely that these two estimates are measures of similar or identical events. Most of these latter correlations were in the .90 range with the exception ofnonhomophobic individuals' ratings of arousal and erection to homosexual stimuli, which was .78. As noted before, these results were probably due to the small penile responses to this stimulus, making subjective estimates more difficult and less consistent.

A major difficulty in this area of research is in defining and measuring homophobia. For example, with the scale used in the present study, we found it difficult to find heterosexual men who scored in the high-grade nonhomophobic range (0-25). Similarly, Hudson and Ricketts (1980) found that 56% of their sample scored in the homophobic range (i.e., > 51 ). This problem may be due not to a high prevalence of homophobia; rather, it may be the result of the nature of this and similar scales. As
O'Donahue and Caselles (1993) suggested, scales that assess homophobia measure only cognitive and affective components. The IHP and similar scales would be greatly strengthened by inclusion of a behavioral component that measures "fight or flight" reactions commonly found in phobia scales, such as the Fear Questionnaire (Marks & Mathews, 1978). Modification of these scales is needed and should include items that specifically assess actual or potentially aggressive or avoidant acts toward homosexual individuals or homosexual activities, as suggested by O'Donahue and Caselles (1993). In our opinion, negative attitudes and cognitions toward homosexuality are probably not sufficient to warrant the label of homophobia.

Future research should focus on several issues. First, more reliable scales for measuring homophobia should be devised that incorporate cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Second, the issue of whether homophobic individuals meet the definitional criteria for simple phobia should be investigated by determining whether these individuals experience anxiety or avoidance when confronted with homosexual cues. Third, the issue of whether homophobia is specific to men or may also occur in women has not been addressed systematically, nor is it clear whether homophobic women may show sexual arousal to erotic lesbian stimuli. Fourth, it has been claimed that homophobic individuals have poor heterosexual adjustment, and this issue should be documented. With answers to these and similar issues, a clearer understanding of the nature of homophobia will be possible.

As you can see the authors did their job professionaly, but the short summary can't explain the complexities of this topic and seems to impliy a correlation between homophobia and homosexual arousal without discussing how homophobia is defined and measured, the difference between homonegativism and homophobia and without discussing the cause of the arousal (is it anxiety-based or attraction-based).

This is all problematic because without this discussions we cound conclude that certain traditinally-valued and non-Western countries are homophobic (not homonegativistic) and that the majority of their population is homosexual (assuming an attraction-based explanation of the experiment) which is unreasonable. You can also imagine how the LGBT lobbyists can use such misinformation to call all political opposers latently homosexual ans so on.

Hope my insights were helpful,

Jimbo's picture

"At a society level, slut shaming helps keep women in line and checking their natural sexuality down to acceptable levels for the maintenance of civilization."

I'm interested to know the process whereby the prevalence of slutty behavior leads to the fall of civilization.

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com