One of the most confusing, controversial, and hotly debated topics for the red-pilled woman is when and how to engage in sex.

At puberty, every girl suddenly finds herself in possession of a very powerful and dangerous vagina; it is powerful because every post-puberty male wants in, and it is dangerous because it is powerful and doesn’t come with an instruction manual.

Not really surprising, then, that a lot of girls manage to blow themselves up with it. And equally unsurprising that the debate rages hot and vociferous over just how to handle this thing.

So, while tradcons browbeat women over availing themselves of its power at all, and feminists fuss at men over any negative consequences at all that attach to indiscriminate use of that power, the red pill has always started from the intent to devise a set of guidelines based on what works and doesn’t.

So why can’t girls just leave the volatile object alone?

• Because, like it or not, you’re in an arms race. Women who men are willing to have sex with outnumber men whose commitment is desirable. (Remember that 87%/34% statistic?) That means someone is going to win, and someone else is going to lose… and if you withhold too much, the loser is going to be you.
• Because you have needs and desires, too. The tradcon way of life was and is being destroyed by feminism and modernity for a reason. If it had really been the wonderful idealized version of the 1950s that its few remaining advocates pretend, women would not have been unhappy enough to kick over the traces and abandon it for feminism… nor would men have allowed them do so.

So why can’t girls just use this thing indiscriminately?

• Because women’s long term happiness requires something more than sexual pleasure… it requires men’s continued presence and emotional investment. If orgasms were all you needed, middle aged feminist spinsters with six vibrators and twelve cats would be happy instead of angry at the world.
• And men simply will not tolerate it. Men hate the idea of commitment to a promiscuous woman so much that they make up ridiculous myths about vaginal stretching in an effect to explain or understand their own instinctive distaste.

“Just close your legs” and “just open your legs” are both terrible strategies that lead to long term unhappiness.

So, if you can’t do whatever, and you can’t just do nothing, then you have to do some things, but not others. But what?

What the heck do men want, anyway? They seem to want sex as quick and easy as possible, but resent the hell out of any other man getting sex from you quick, easy, or indeed at all. What gives? It’s like they want you to be a slut, but only for them.

That’s almost right.

We don’t need to make a long list of sexual acts and circumstances that are abhorrent to men. We don’t need to construct a giant flowchart. We don’t need a long lecture.

Because there is only one sexual act you can perform that men object to. Everything else, absent that one act, is okay, and often more than okay. Which means you get to have your fun, indulge your kinks, do whatever, so long as you stay away from one thing…

Don’t switch partners.

That’s it. Everything else you thought men hated, they hated because you switched partners afterwards. Anything you did, however freaky, with a dude you stayed with, is just being a good and adventurous sexual partner. Doesn’t even matter if you did it a scandalously short time after meeting him, so long as you didn’t switch partners afterwards.

This is the big difference between the tradcon rules and values and the red pill.

Under various interpretations of the tradcon rules, if you have sex with a man before you have married him, had him declare to the world that you’re a couple, dated him for X amount of time, whatever… then you have failed, and you are a bad girl, and the only advice this system has for you is you shouldn’t have done that, hung your head in shame. Which obviously isn’t very useful.

The red pill, obviously, also advises sexual continence, but this is where the similarity ends. In its tactical doctrine, having sex with a man is not making a mistake, it is choosing a mate. Once you have gotten naked with someone, you have effectively thrown your hat in the ring, and are banking on your ability to keep him. (And we have a whole bunch of tactical advice about how to do that.)

This is very important because the men you most want, the men who are most desirable to you, are going to be the ones you have the least self-control in the presence of. You are not a logic robot, men are trying to get to sex as quick and easy as possible (even with girls they eventually decide to keep around), and the sexiest ones are by definition the ones who are best at doing that. So instead of having “beat an expert in his area of greatest strength” as your plan A, with no plan B, you have something to do next if you find yourself in a risky situation.

The girls with low N counts are not the ones who delay sex the most, but those who, first, know their interests lie in seeking to stay with a partner, and, second, know how to inspire partners to stay.

Tactically, what this means is that you operate with "Hell yes or hell no" mindset. That you are either all in or all out. That you never get naked with a man you not passionate about and wanting to keep, and that you give free rein to your drives when you find that "Hell, yes"... because then your task is getting him to "Hell, yes" as well. Whatever delay you impose is for you to be sure, not for him to be invested, because men don't work like that.

Keeping a partner is, of course, never completely under your control. This is simply the risk that goes with being the gatekeeper of sex, rather than relationships. But the first step to not switching partners is to know that it's not a good idea to do so, that you only want to do it for overriding, serious reasons, and that no other form of sexual continence matters all that much.

This in itself places you light years ahead of women who do not even know what they ought to be trying to do.

Amy Schumer, a fat and repugnant female alleged comedian, once remarked, in a manner intended to be funny, that her weight didn't matter because she can "still catch a dick".

But the truth is that any woman can "catch a dick". The trick is to get to the end zone without fumbling it.

If the red pill is really all about getting to sex, and is absolutely amoral, why are there certain strategies we don’t discuss?

Why not tips for finding and dealing with whores?

Why not how to make an indifferent wife compliant as an endless source of “starfish” sex?

Why not, if we are totally amoral, how to commit rape? (And how to get away with it?)

Does the lack of these discussions mean that we secretly have principles? That there are depths to which even we won’t stoop? Or does it mean that it’s time to talk about that one little thing that every man knows, but seldom thinks about and never speaks of?

Yeah. That.

The little fact that it’s not sex you want. It’s not sex you’re here for. It’s not sex you’re here to learn to get. Oh, early on you’ll settle for sex. But as you start to be able to get it, it wasn’t enough, was it?

You don’t just want sex. You want girls to lust after you. You want them to desire you with the same intensity you desire them. Or, if possible, more. When you came here, you wanted to stop doing favours for women to try to get to sex, to stop being nice to women to try to get to sex… and have them start doing that to you.

The third rule of Tomassi tells you:

[With] [a]ny woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.

If we reexamine this rule in the light of what we’ve just proposed, we can reword it to reflect a greater understanding

Any girl who declines sex for any other reason than logistics doesn’t desire you enough to give you the fulfillment you really want.

This is the real reason why you next girls for “making you wait”. If it were just about sex, hell, you could stand an extra three days, or a week… especially if you have one or two in reserve, like I keep tellin’ ya to do.

But if she can stand to make you wait, she will never fulfill your needs, she will never be able to scratch that inner psychological itch, she will never satisfy you… because she’s just not that into you.

But Professor Whisper, what if she’s a conservative? What if she’s a virgin? What if she’s a Christian with a capital “C”? What if she’s a “good girl”, and would make any man wait?

Go to the back of the class. AWALT. Every woman is both a prude and a slut, depending on how you make her feel. If she would make any man wait, then she’s just not that into any man. Virgins who are passionate about you will hop on your dick just as quickly and eagerly as party girls with double-digit counts… sometimes more so.

But Professor Whisper, isn’t getting to sex MY job? Isn’t it MY fault if she’s just not that into me? Why should I take it out on her?

Usually it is, unless she’s totally uninterested in sex. But… so what?

Who ever said nexting was a punishment? It’s not. It’s you taking the valuable time you would have wasted on someone who doesn’t really want it that much, and going looking for someone who wants it a whole lot.

You’re not taking revenge for anything, and whether she suffers or not is completely beside the point. You want to be desired, you’re not finding that with her, you’re gonna go dig somewhere else.

But Professor, won’t walking away mean that I have failed?

So? Everybody fails. If you don’t ever fail, you suck, because it means you aren’t trying hard enough shit. A girl is a hand of poker. If you have nothing but a pair of threes, fold. The next hand will be along shortly.

But Whisper, you’re wrong about me. I’m not looking to get lusted after or chased. I just want sex.

You’re new to this. Once you can scratch that itch regularly, you’re going to discover that not all sex is the same. Starving men are content with any kind of food. Once they are well-fed, they will figure out what they like the taste of.

Learning to be lusted after is about seduction technique, but it’s also about learning when to cut your losses. No matter how desirable a woman is, or how thirsty you are, you will never be satisfied with a girl who is reluctant to get naked with you.

If she says she’s saving it for marriage, then she wants to be married, not your dick.

If she says she only does it in a committed relationship, then she wants commitment, not your dick.

If she says she wants more time to get comfortable with you, then she wants attention and validation, not your dick.

So I should just avoid women who aren't already into me?

No, listen to me with your ears and not your autism spectrum disorder.

Seduce women. But next them if you fail.

All women need enough time to know who you are (a woman who doesn’t is someone who will fuck just anyone), but once that happens, then either you have either made her wet, or you haven’t.

Don’t waste your time… because while you still can get to sex, and often will get to sex… you will never get to passion.

And passion is what you truly want.