• Men want women with a low (ideally zero) partner count.

• Men want women to leap into bed with them as soon as possible.

We know both of these things to be true because we see them every day. And when we see both, we are confused. Surely men make no sense at all! Aren't these two things contradictory?

And our whole society is caught in a war between two cultures.

The tradcon side, which is slowly losing, says

• "Men, you must give up the desire for a woman to sexually surrender quickly... instead, you must invest time and resources in her, make her promises you cannot easily break, before she will give you what you desire."

• "Women, you must restrain your desires and be calculating. It is your job to test a man's commitment to you and make him jump through many hoops (ideally on fire) before he gets access to your precious lady parts."

The liberal side, which is slowly winning, says

• "Men, you must give up your desire not to marry the town bicycle. You must learn to cherish women who were ploughed bny the entire football team at the same drunken party, and that was just the begining. Women own their own sexuality... they also own your reaction to what they just did; make sure it's the approved one."

• "Women, do whatever you want. We'll make sure the men are docile and obedient."

The tiny, unnoticed redpill side rolls its eyes, and says:

• You cannot tell men to "give up" this or that desire. Desire is not a choice. Desire cannot be negotiated. If men want both these things, then the girl who achieves the most of both will have the most desireable men.

• And here's a long complicated explanation of why these things can coexist, which lots of people will read and not understand.

So the liberal and tradcon answers are just plain wrong.

And the red pill answer has too much boring math.

Time to simplify.

Why do men want low-count women? Why do men want sexually eager women?

Passion. Men want women who are passionate about them.

A woman who is passionate about a man does not consult her girlfriends about what an "acceptable" amount of time to "make him wait" is. A woman who is passionate about a man does not bargain the promise of her body for a wedding, like some jaded whore negotiating a "session". A woman who is passionate about a man will find a way to reach his bed. She will fly across the country, crawl under barbed wire, climb in through his second story window, do everything he desires, and wait patiently inside his closet if his wife comes home early from work.

Women do not withhold sex from men they are passionate about. A woman is not passionate about a man if she withholds sex from him. Unless she is seriously physically ill, or on fire at that very moment, she is ready when he is.

Similarly, a woman who has tasted a hundred men over her thirty years of life is not going to be enthralled by the hundred and first. Not only is the experience far from new or unique, he is unlikely to be the best or most attractive man she has had, since she was younger, more beautiful, and more innocent before, and could command the attention of a better variety of man.

Women are generally the most passionate about their first partner, and gradually less so with each new one. This is not their first rodeo.

Now we understand how these two male desires are NOT contradictory. They are actually the SAME desire... the desire to be both loved, and lusted after, passionately, utterly, and completely.

When a woman has a high partner count, a man asks himself "None of them kept her... why should I?".

When a woman delays, withholds, and asks for promises or time, a man says "She is cool-headed enough about me to negotiate. To enforce a policy. She regards sex with me as a price to pay for what she wants... not a joy she urgently desires."

In fact, if a woman delays sex to avoid risk to her partner count, because a low count makes her more attractive, just who is this low count making her more attractive to?

It makes her more attractive to other men. It does nothing for him. He of course expects to increase her count by one, because he wishes to be that one. If she hedges, then she is saying to him "I don't want to risk being less sexy, or less commitment-worthy, to the next guy."

She is already looking past him and the relationship hasn't even started yet. She is not "all in" with him, and he knows that.

Why would he be committed to her, when she is not committed to him?

But what is a woman to do about all this? How can she be passionate, and unrestrained, with men, without destroying her value from an accumulation of failures?

This, I will discuss in Part Two.