Why did my date look shocked at my body count being 18, when I’m 23 (he’s 22) ?

[Anonymous]

[Whitewulf]

I’m actually surprised that the women didn’t side with her more on this. I heard a group of girls around your age, state that 50 would be too high but 30 was ok. I’m like wtf. Anyways this conversation usually heads towards the why do guys have high numbers and are studs but women are called sluts. I’ll tell you my opinion. And I’m not putting down the author of this discussion. I don’t know your story or the reason behind your past. But let’s be honest here. Women in general can have sex with who ever whenever wherever for the majority of the time. And I can give many examples to prove that., but for us men we have to put in the work. I don’t care if he’s a 10 or a 2 it’s all relative or relevant either way we have to put in the time and at any given moment no matter how well he’s doing he’s says the wrong thing , bam she’s gone and on to the next. But what pisses a guy off about these hi or equivalent body counts is when the females are talking trash saying men don’t have game. Coming from someone that only needs to open her legs. You get it I don’t need to continue but I think I captured the labeling part of body count.
thinking about your girl with all these guys is is a whole different discussion. For this topic honesty is not the best policy. Always have a lower number than the guy.

[Sharkstealth]

Is stud and slut not the same thing? Stud means to impregnate females to produce many offspring. A slut accepts the impregnation from many studs.

[Anonymous]

If you're 23 and you've fucked 18 different guys I'm sure there's a name/title for that that's somehow fallen out of use: "Slut"

I'd use the same word to describe him if his number was the same by the way.

Studies have shown less than 5% of people with a history that high manage to have a successful long term relationship. And that's by the age of 30.

Assuming you waited until 18 to start that's 18 guys in five years. Sixty months. That's an average relationship length of 3.33333 months per relationship. I'm guessing actual length was much less.

That's why your date looked shocked. If you apply the three month rule every time, that means around one week of sex per "partner" (in the loosest sense of the word) then you moved on to the next guy.

For most quality men we don't expect a girl of 23 to have a history of partners longer than an average porn "actress", certainly not enough to warrant her using the term "body count" to describe it. We won't buy a used 5 year old car with that many previous owners because the implication is it's defective, but you tell us you're shocked he's shocked you've fucked 18 different guys in just 5 or maybe 6 years?

Really?

Really?

Geez...

[loveslongnails]

I responded to a question about this previously and I'm looking for the answer with the study that I cited because this statement here: "studies have shown less than 5% of people with a history that high manage to have a successful long term relationship", is totally incorrect.

The same study I cited ALSO showed that once you exceed 4 partners, there's no more than an additional 8% difference in having a successful long term relationship as someone who has had up 10 or more partners.

I'll be back when I find the question and the numbers.

[Opinion Owner]

Some reading for you...

Abma, C., Mosher, W., Peterson, L., & Piccinino, L. ((1997). Fertility, family planning, and women's health: New data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics, 23(19). Washington DC : National Center for Health Statistics.

Allison, P. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage.

Axinn, W., & Barber, J. (1997). Living arrangements and family formation attitudes in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 595–611.

Axinn, W., & Thornton, A. (1992). The relationship between cohabitation and divorce: Selectivity or causal influence? Demography, 29, 357–374.

Google Scholar
Becker, G. (1991). A treatise on the family. Cambridge , MA : Harvard University Press.

Bennett, N., Blanc, A., & Bloom, D. (1988). Commitment and the modern union: Assessing the link between premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital instability. American Sociological Review, 53, 127–138.

Blossfeld, H., Hamerle, A., & Mayer, K. (1989). Event history analysis: Statistical application in the social sciences. Hillsdale , NJ : Erlbaum.

Booth, A., & Johnson, D. (1988). Premarital cohabitation and marital success. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 255–272.

[Opinion Owner]

There's dozens more studies, peer reviewed out there

[loveslongnails]

The studies I looked at were much more recent, circa 2018 and 2019, and examined more current behaviors and lifestyles. Cohabitation habits from 50 to 55 years ago that published 35 years don't seem statistically relevant compared to a 2018/19 study of the previous 20 years, which takes us into today. I'll pick one or two and see.

My key takeaway from the studies I saw is that 0-3 previous partners had less than an 8-10% (overall) greater success rate than more than 3 but fewer than 10 partners. There was no category for those who had over 30 partners, however. LOL

[Opinion Owner]

The weight of evidence is more than studies in the last ten years.

Anecdotal evidence dating back over 2000 years backs it up. The survival of the human race to this point has been built on a stable marital life starting in the early 20s and lasting 50 or more years.

Every society that reached the point of Western civilization today collapsed withing 30-50 years. The only reason the British Empire didn't was it dismantled itself into the Commonwealth of Nations. America is just next in line

[loveslongnails]

Oh my goodness. Dude, EVERY civilization that has come and gone had marriages that lasted and didn't last. Anecdotal evidence of what? If anything, history is littered with as much infidelity, affairs, and "don't ask, don't tell" as it is with 20-50 year marriages. Historical facts easily confirm women had no other financial choice BUT to stay married and accept their husbands' behaviors for their own sake and that of the kids.

You and all these other people who think Western Civilization is collapsing primarily because marriages don't last as long or the "core family" isn't what it used to be, have forgotten that what it USED to be wasn't so wonderful either! When this world falls apart, it won't be simply due to marriages that don't last, but an entire HOST of other issues rooted in greed and evil. If promiscuity was the very WORST human problem and the others were negligible, we'd be doing great.

[Opinion Owner]

It's not sexual behaviour per se, it's the shift if morality in society away from "us" and "our" and towards "me" and "my" that signals the collapse of societies.

Sexuality is simply the most easily spotted historically.

If you visit Pompeii and Herculaneum and take the standard guided tours you'd be amazed at how many brothels such relatively small towns had. And that's in addition to the number of temples in the towns where temple prostitutes were given a high regard for receiving sexual offerings on behalf of the god of goddess that particular temple was dedicated to.

Go back to pre-Roman civilisations and you find cults like Moloch where babies were taken from the mother at birth or cut out of the mother and burned alive - a sort of "planned parenthood" of 1500-1000BC. I dare you not to see the similarities.

The only difference between then and now is we don't call it a "sacrifice" to have a daily holocaust of unborn children ripped from the uteruses of women and burned. We sanitise it by calling it a "medical procedure" and the killed children "medical waste". Don't kid yourself.

I don't think Western Civilisation is collapsing because marriages don't last. Any fool can see it's because for the last 130 years a few elite groups has systematically targeted families. Especially husbands.

In 1914 the suffragette movement suspended their campaign to get women the vote until the war was over specifically so they could support their husbands. They didn't want to usurp the traditional family values, they just wanted an equal voice in whether - among other actual important things - their husbands should be forced to go to war and possibly die. Not so they could initiate divorce 80% of the time, deny the men access to their own children and be the number one reason why homelessness and suicide rates are over 75% men who can't see any hope.

That's a unique issue in Western countries. The collapse of the nuclear family is simply a symptom

[loveslongnails]

You sure like to pontificate, don't you? Civilizations die, other than being conquered, for very simple reasons; there's always a small group who retains wealth and controls both the necessities and extravagances of life at the expense of the general population. Any and all examples you will come up will bear this out.

"The only difference between then and now is we don't call it a "sacrifice" to have a daily holocaust of unborn children ripped from the uteruses of women and burned. We sanitise it by calling it a "medical procedure" and the killed children "medical waste". Don't kid yourself."

ALL of that is nothing more than your opinion. A fertilized egg has the potential to become a life, and a lot has to go right for that to happen. You can call it any horrific sounding term you choose to try and inflict your view, and guilt, onto others, as you've chosen to do. But it doesn't change the science or lend itself to the spiritual questions in any way. It's simply your opinion.

Nor does it account in ANY way for real NECESSARY medical procedures when the fetus is guaranteed not live because it's lungs, liver, heart and brain didn't form properly, and carrying it to term SERIOUSLY endangers the mother's life. Dozens of cases like this have already taken place in states with restrictive abortion laws, and several states are being sued, as they SHOULD BE.

There are FAR greater daily holocausts taking place among the already living, and I don't have the bandwidth OR patience any longer to debate with "birthers" who think they have the right to govern a woman's womb based on THEIR belief system.

And with that, I bid you farewell.

[Opinion Owner]

It's funny how the "pro-choice" bunch suddenly run away when they face the discomfort that they are in fact pro-genocide of the unborn, healthy babies that are over 95% of pregnancy termination procedures every day.

[loveslongnails]

It's funny how the "pro-birthers, let's pretend we're protecting the unborn" make up their own facts like the one you just stated. Nor do they have ANY response to the actual DATA that both infant and maternal mortality goes down when safe and legal abortions are available. Nor do they respond to what happens to women like Kate Cox. Craggy old men sticking their little dicks in someone else's business, in the name of their "God", yet again. Pffft.

[Anonymous]

Because it’s high. It’s good that you were honest, but he’s probably doing some math.

Let’s say you’ve been sexually active since you were 16 (age of consent in a lot of states, and you dated all 18 men for an equal amount of time with no periods of singleness in between. In the 7 years between age 16 to 23, all of those relationships would have lasted less than 5 months.

[AmandaYVR]

Because that's considered a lot by many, at your age.

Do you even know all their names?

[Finchie40]

He was shocked because he didn’t realize that you were a slut

[Avicenna]

I'm shocked that this was even a topic of discussion on a date.

[Cice137]

Most guys 18-29 in new surveys aren't having any kind of sexual life. Most guys want a deep meaningful relationship, its not special to him the same way it was for your first. Just because there a guy at 22 doesn't mean he's fucked more than you. He probably thought more highly of you, but now is probably having his doubts. There are many, many, many older guys here and in real life who are just barely getting by we are pissed about this kind of shit. Most men probably have zero body count, they want something exclusive with a woman. Men feel like if if they date the women, sleep with her they are in effect dating and fucking all of the previous guys in her life.

[ZackBan]

I'm 26 now and the number doesn't shock me since my own body count is not far off.
But at 22 I was a virgin and someone with 18 bodies would've definitely been a shock to me.

Good on you for being honest but you need to understand: we all face consequences for our actions. There is no undoing what's been done in this case so you better be prepared to turn off a lot of guys

[Inbox]

It’s pretty high - the average body count for a woman in the USA is 7 - 9, whereas for a man it is 6 - 8. Women with high body counts in my experience are usually nothing but drama, mind games, attention whore seeking, unpredictable, etc. What the studies have shown is that women with high body counts are more likely to cheat, break up, and divorce.

[Whitewulf]

Multiply the number she gives you x3 and divide the number he says ~3 and you’ll have a more accurate number

[Anonymous]

Has no one had a problem with this before? I could be that this guy was shocked because he wanted a more serious relationship and the previous guys weren't shocked because they just wanted to hit it and quit it with you so they didn't care about your mileage.

[WindAtMyBack]

Because you are 18 and have like triple the lifetime average. So for any age it's a lot, but at your age it's super high. You might think "everyone is doing that" but they aren't.

[Sonorous]

I mean I'd be shocked too tbh. I think being shocked at that number for your age should be normalized.

[HawkPerception]

I've had sex with 2 girls and received oral from 5 and I'm 30 years old. A body count of 18 by 23 is nuts. You really got around. I would probably leave you if I was in his shoes

[DextroShade]

Those are high numbers, and he knows that all 18 of those guys didn't have to wine and dine you so the guy feels like this:

[Miristheiss]

18? What is wrong with you? Why can't you make it work and last with one guy. 18? it is like you trade in dicks every 4 months.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

Because you're actually an 18-24 year old male pretending to be a woman on GAG, that's why.

[Anonymous]

That's honestly a lot for your age. I'm 31 and have only been with two guys and I feel bad about that.

[genericname85]

2 typical reasons. 1 cause your body count is high. 2 cause he didn't think you could pull so many men XD

[DarkWinterNights]

I’m a 33 year old man and mine isn’t even a quarter of that.

[Anonymous]

Maybe he thinks that having a body count of 18 at age 23 makes you a whore or a slut, and he was misled by your innocent appearance.

[exitseven]

18 is a big body count and you are only 23 and that makes it worse.

[LiamJHayden]

If I were to judge from this site, I'd assume that 95%+ of people randomly talk about body counts on dates.

[Paul09]

More proof it's easier for a woman. But yeah that seems like a lot in a short period of time. Why do many? Was it a pump and dump situation?

[Joshydavid25]

He definitely didn't think you were to type to let go for the football team..