I would say the first one, the second one has a body count too high (assuming she slept with her boyfriends), drinks, and is a feminist. The first girl sounds like she would be a kinder partner.
Okay, welp it simply starts from the fact men from way long basically decided women who are not virgins are worthless. Since then such views of people must not have sex outside of marriage was encouraged. So that way women wouldn't become "Worthless" then they would also make sure to trade these women who are worth things for goats or better positions in society.
Women essentially were currency.
But they couldn't be spread around otherwise they would be worthless.
Now in our modern age we've done everything to our best to wipe out these views. So women can date, marry whom they like rather than be sold off. So women can also date many guys and eventually find someone good for them.
Because we are trying to make sure women aren't seen worthless just because they are not virgins or they've had previous relationships.
But there is still many guys who hope for the good old days of using women in such ways therefore when a woman say's that's a high body count you are reinforcing those ideals that are promoted by men from men who want women to be traded for goats and basically worthless if not a virgin.
@Kaneki05 you do realize that even when women had money attached to them or when they were traded as you said, the families still would usually make sure that they ended in better hands, money or food would be one way since that means the guy had the means to prove for them. They weren't simply being tossed around to be abused or something, although that did occasionally happened, most of the time husbands would still care for them.
As for the virgin thing, in cases of war where non virgins would be killed, i agree with what you're saying. In normal cases, I think it's more of a case of monogamy than virginity. If a woman slept with every guy in town, she's probably not looking for a relationship (I would apply the same to guys since that's one of the main things I disagree with the redpill on but I don't know if that's going off topic here).
No many wouldn't. Once in the man's hands back then they were literally seen as their property the familys therefore didn't have much say nor that they cared anyway otherwise they wouldn't of done that in the first place.
Most of the time the husband wouldn't and even if he did? What if she didn't love him? Then sure he's not been bad to her but then the point is she's forced to stay with someone she didn't love until he dies how's that good?
Oh no it was for sure a virgin thing and low body count. It wasn't just they shamed women for sleeping with a whole town it was they would shame just because she slept with 2 people. Because that's how crazy these backward views are.
So when you say 3 is a highbody count? It's just backing their view and we all know were you got your view influenced from whether you notice it or not but it comes from men like that.
You gotta think women weren't even real citizens until the suffragettes, they couldn't vote at all. Which is a right that should be given to all citizens.
The point is really at the end of the day we are trying to get away from these views that have been there to restrict women. So when someone say's 3 is high body count it's undermining that work and siding on the backwards views.
I am sure if someone came to defend your views here it would be as you say a Redpill man. Because that is what such views benefit.
@Kaneki05 I'm not going to try to defend something that is undefendable such as abuse, but it wasn't a common thing otherwise women would be so fragile to physical violence like men who had to literally die either fighting animals (cave men days and such) or in wars. At least women are free to choose now, but that comes with responsibility.
Also, virginity isn't a bad thing. It was previously enforced and preferred since we didn't have paternity tests in most of human history. If taken to an extreme, like I mentioned war, sure it is. But it isn't necessarily a bad thing to want a virgin. Plus, the more people a woman sleeps with, it usually undermines her ability to bond during sex with a new partner so even if the person doesn't want a virgin, you can't say a lower body count wouldn't be better.
I'm not trying to say that women should have no rights, I dont think that way, but that people (both men as well as women) should avoid racking a body count higher then necessary.
What your saying is strengthening backward views. But oh well looks like you are never gonna get that. Also what your saying is not even correct so it's false points that also trying to strength old views.
"But it wasn't a common thing otherwise women would be so fragile to physical violence like men who had to literally die either fighting animals (cave men days and such) or in wars." This don't make any sense, this would be implying the woman fought back with their abusers... which if you ever been abused yeah... you would know most don't that's how they get stuck in a toxic relationship in the first place.
I can point out how the other things you also said are wrong but eh you really need to figure this out by yourself.
@Kaneki05 I didn't say that women fought with their abusers, I'm saying it happened so little that it didn't make a major difference at all. (Again, not trying to say anything on abuse, that's obviously a bad thing).
I think I understand what you're trying to say by "strengthening backwards views" and I dont even agree with most of "those people" think, I don't know what you want to call them since I usually just call them redpill. I'm just starting that its understandable that those things, such as women having less rights, happened albeit morally wrong today and unjustifiable overall. As for virginity, it's the preference that I have for a partner. You may not which is fine either way.
It don't happen so little though. That just shows your ignorance on how many abusers are out there and there is a reason why more women are abused then men. And a reason why men mostly kill women. It's very common things. And it wouldn't make a difference physically so I don't know why you have that idea in your head that it would. People don't evolve towards abuse lol.
@Kaneki05 they dont evolve towards abuse but there's a reason why families have generations of it too. And it may very well start somewhere.
Also, the way women abuse men tend to be different, most abuse cases towards men aren't violent unlike men towards women. If violent abuse happened often, dont you think that we would still have backwards views on it instead of actually seeing it for what it is (horrible)? Dont you think most women want to be abused if that was the case? Since its "normalized" which it isn't. Women would also have to eventually become stronger due to all the physical abuses, even if they're not fighting back.
No they wouldn't become stronger lmao. You seriously don't understand much on evolution. by the way right now 1/4 women say they've experienced abuse in a relationship. Now back in the day when women were treat even worse and this was more acceptable than it is today how high do you think that was back then? 2/4 half of the women? Or more like 3/4 75% of woman. That's not little at all.
@Kaneki05 you're telling me that 1 in every 4 woman experience physical abuse?
Also, what kind of evolution are you talking about? If someone gets beat up, again, and again, and again, do they not get stronger? Its literally how it works, even with exercise where you're not in a fight. Your body gets used to the pain.
Yup as of today that is what statistics say with suspected more get emotionally abused aswell without realising it is. So if we were speaking abuse overall as psychically or emotionally it's probably 2/4.
I'll be here all day if I tried to explain how complex evolution is and it's really not that simple. There is a lot pray in this world that are still pray and easy to get by predators because evolution is not clean cut and dry it just wouldn't work like that. Your right in one way but it's wrong in a lot circumstances.
And I will say your not thinking about the social side. If something is socially been kept down not been allowed to grow it won't. A predator will always be a predator to it's pray unless if that predator stops and becomes the pray.
In simple terms if you are always put in a comer with no space to move, you aren't all sudden gonna start to be able to move outwards. Even after so much time.
Though in certain situations you might.
But there is way too many variables here. Evolution is not a certain thing in a sense and the way your viewing it. There is a bigger picture to it.
@Kaneki05 ok, there's a difference between emotional abuse and physical abuse. There's a difference between someone deeply messing with you mentally and leaving you beaten up as a pulp.
Most animals have their own way of surviving, even as prey, so they dont become extinct. It would be weird for women not have a way of surviving physical abuse if it was common (I'm assuming emotion abuse is FAR more common than physical abuse).
Never said they weren't different read what I said there. Women haven't got extinct because that did those exact things. It was called "knowing there place" as the type of men would say. There is many things one can do in abusive relationships to not be killed plus not all abusers kill.
Many women in abusive relationships back then would usually cope through it give birth and then the partner would make them raise the baby. While not giving a shit themselves.
Plus these women did house jobs to keep these abusive men happy.
Women adapted by mentality than physically is the easiest way to sum this up. There is a reason why women are submissive and can put up with a lot abuse when they are in fact abused.
And it's not just because female sex by nature is submissive because there is many creatures out there were the female sex is more dom.
@Kaneki05 why would you say that? Why would you make that argument? Bro,
You do understand most of the time it wasn't a case of abuse when women were housewives? The men worked crappy jobs and the women took care of the house, mostly since one person can't balance both. They were just regular roles. It wasn't because the women had husbands who would beat them for not popping out a son every year. That's the same dumb argument feminists make when they call all men abusive pigs or rapists or whatever. Yes, this was the case for some women but most women genuinely were not married to abusers. Please dont tell me you're trying to make the same case.
Also, yes evolution works in different ways. You've mentioned that before.
Women being submissive likely didn't start when they were housewives though. It probably started when pre- civilization when abuse was actually the norm.
This just shows more of your ignorance. There is a very good documentary can't remember it's name but it was about a woman been abused while been stay at home. Because what would happen is due to the man been the only one bringing in money they literally couldn't break up with the man because it would make them homeless.
So you had a choice between homeless or stay with an abuser and some of these women had kids so now it's a choice of leaving your child with an abuser by themselves or making them homeless too.
If you don't understand a simple fact that if you made 0 money and the only money that was coming in is from your partner that you are literally dependent on them 100% then I don't know how to explain that to you more clearly.
Neither. I'm straight.
I am a simple man, I see virgin I upvote, blue eyes don't compensate for being a feminist ho.
I only want you ❤️
You're so kind 💕
Opinion
19Opinion
B, no question. Not even close. I think you have the wrong idea of feminism. There are many feminists who enjoy being dominated in bed. Many very accomplished men too.
Any of the two. But my question, would they prefer me, who is shorter than them both? 5.2 here.
Many girls do not like guys shorter than them. So, would they?
"Is a feminist" kind of made the survey one-choice-only.
I wish a third option other than being submissive and being an unhappy bully or wannabe bully were provided.
A... I thought I was married to A for a time. I was wrong. But in this hypothetical if it's all true A would be my dream girl.
Could possibly have more choices, but I picked B. If the other one is submissive, how can she be a virgin? What's your view on the feminist part?
I would vote for A because i don't drink or smoke and she seems like my ideal woman
Is the feminist okay with me smoking weed? If so I pick her.
Incels will like Girl A because they think she will be easy to control. To me she sounds boring as fuck.
The 1st option. Don't want a woman that's been on the cock courasel and is a feminist. No thanks
Neither. Second option is preferable but I wouldn't chose either one.
Feminist of course.
I’d date both and see who fit in my life.
A sounds like perfect wifey material.
it's the practical choice
B) 2nd one
Neither honestly
Second one
Date 2, marry 1.
The second one.
A for sure
Is there a C?
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions