Does the Number of sexual partners really matter

[Aerissa_Jade]

Since joining a few days ago I've seen this question a lot. Seems people here on GAG are kind of obsessed about this. I thought I would give a shot at my first mytake on this subject.

*Disclaimer, just giving it a shot. I'm writing this from my point of view and experiences.

The Double Standard

For women there is stigma around it, the Double Standard that says it is okay for men to have a lot of partners but not women. This is rooted in sexism from the past.

https://cuchimes.com/02/2015/double-standards-womens-rigid-social-expression-of-sexuality/

Thankfully this slowly going away.

For health issues, women have a higher cancer risk by having more lifetime partners, thanks to STI's.

https://ewn.co.za/2020/02/14/high-lifetime-number-of-sexual-partners-linked-to-increased-cancer-risk-1

For relationships it's usually a good idea to talk about it. Not talking about it can make it feel like your partner is keeping secrets or just doesn't trust you. This can create distance and tension. If you don't want to talk about it, that is okay to so long as your partner is okay with that but they really have to be okay with it, not just say they are. Trust is extremely important in a relationship if you want it to last.

The 2018 Dr. Ed survey found some 29% of people said you should never have to tell your number to your partner, whereas 54% of people said you must tell your number to your partner. That's a lot of absolutes and differences of opinions with more than half thinking it has to be told.

Some people are judged for having too high of a number, others for too low.

https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/the-ideal-number-of-sexual-partners-for-men-women

There are studies on those with too many partners that can potentially reduce their dating pool and increase divorce rates. This shouldn't really be anything to worry about, as we get older dating pool goes up.

Other research shows that people with a lot of partners can still be happily married and loyal.

Someone who is saving themselves for marriage, can feel like they missed out on a lot of sexual fun when their potential life partner has more than they do. They saved themselves as a special gift, why didn't the other person? This can lead to resentment, especially if they really wanted to have sex and fun with others but either were unable to, due to religious beliefs or it simply wasn't able to actually hook up with anyone.

Some may feel that it is meant to be a sacred special act and having a higher number means you don't consider it special. Such as having been married several times makes many people think that person doesn't consider marriage to be anything special, some think of sexual partners the same way. Often thinking "I saved myself for marriage why didn't you?" Depends on personal values and what is considered special.

Some also wonder if someone who has a higher number than you will stay loyal or if they will go back to their old life style. While it showed higher rate of divorce, there doesn't seem to be a higher risk of being cheated on.

My personal experiences

Guys that just want to get some, don't care. Numbers ONLY matter if they want to get serious, want a family and life long relationship.

Everyone has their reasons why they have as many partners as they do or don't, your choice if you want to judge them or not.

Almost everyone has a unrealized limit that will bother them, even if they don't think they do. "Say what?! your Don Juan, no thanks."

I've been engaged a few times. The first time I was engaged, I absolutely adored and loved him and he treated me with respect and like a queen. I thought we were meant for each other.

Once we talked about numbers, it changed everything. I should of talked about this BEFORE we got engaged, it just never came up but I lost him, things changed.

He couldn't get over how many partners I had been with and he was unable to reconcile it. We even went through pre-marriage counselling together.

We never actually had sex, we were going to wait until we were married as a wedding night gift to each other.

He also started pressuring me, saying I must not love him as much as my Ex's that I had sex with. I loved them enough to give it to but not him.

This is a case of him having some issues, feeling self conscience about not being on par with me, and feeling like I would be unwilling to do certain things that he wanted to try because I already had.

Being engaged to him, something I never gave the others didn't seem to matter to him.

In the end I called it off I thought he'd be happier with someone else and he was no longer the man I used to love. He was just one of those guys who wanted to get some.

Some guys don't care, they love no matter what and are willing to wait. Others, I can see their expression as they just want to get away as fast as possible.

I have had other guys that stop loving over this, at one point it made me reluctant to talk about because I felt like it would end relationships every time I did, often it did. I continued to do so, wanting to make sure I was open and honest.

The worst case scenario for myself would be feeling the need to lie to my husband to avoid these problems later if he asked about it then or telling him the truth which could lead to divorce, adultery or worse.

The next guy I was engaged to, when we first discussed it, he was having a really hard time but then seemed okay with it later. He said he was fine and it wouldn't be an issue that he had come to terms with it.

I was thrilled he was okay with it, we could move beyond it to start our lives together.

He become secretive and withdrawn. I ended up by pure accident discovering that the way he was handling this was to find flings and keep upping his number count to try and catch mine. When caught he said he was doing this for us, otherwise he would be unable to get married. Translation "I am a cheating jerk and we really shouldn't get married"

I personally believe it is best for people to be as close together as possible in numbers but it really may not matter, totally depends on each person, being balanced, means neither one should have an issue with the others number. If someone does then your not meant to be together.

When I find Mr. Right, I have to accept him for who is and he has to accept me for who I am. Our past is what made us who we are. If neither can do that, it is best to move on. Given my history it is a miracle I'm even here today.

[t-8900]

Okay I'm going to try to share my views on this without hurting you or anyone else. First let me start with this: I appreciate that you remained honest when so many would just look at the pattern and choose to lie. I could not stand to be married to someone who lied about such a thing to me. I am not a virgin but tried to remain one all my life. I've been with 2 women in my life. The first was in the second grade when I was raped numerous times by a female teacher. Obviously I had no say in the matter whatsoever. This was not something that happened once but multiple times and started giving me incontrollable urges. I think this is why I high body counts maybe bother me as much as they do. Let me explain more as to why.

I grew up Christian and was taught that people who are not married must control their urges by not sleeping around. So I simply didn't. I had numerous girls throw themselves at me and I could have taken them to bed and my body count would be in the upper mid 20's right now. I had to suppress that SO MUCH. I had to go through so much mental and spiritual anguish. Once I had been raped I could NOT STOP TOUCHING MYSELF. I would have to masturbate 8-9 times a day to keep myself relatively functional. I would have to excuse myself during classroom hours to take care of it. I would have to do it once or twice in the morning everyday before school and once or twice before bed every night.

And I grew up believing that more of the world WAS Christian and followed these rules. And I wanted to find a Christian woman who was chaste or relatively close to me in body count because of the enormous strain I endured. I didn't and don't want it to be for naught. On top of that I visualize things a certain way that's very hard for me to get over. The idea of other guys having used the person I love and what they did leaves mental images in my head that are hard to reconcile with. They turn my stomach tbh. So I felt it healthier for me to be with somebody who's #'s I could digest. I'm not saying that the person with a high body count doesn't deserve love and happiness or is a bad person. I'm not saying that at all.

What I am saying is that I personally probably can't look past it in a sexual partner and can't get over it. I'm sure there are a few gaggers on here that will love to take shots at me for this and talk trash. Fair enough, go for it. But I simply cannot lie to myself about my feelings because I TRIED that before and the only thing I felt in the end was hatred at myself. I went out with one girl who was very promiscuous and I hated myself for it. I beat myself up about it constantly and it did affect me like your first ex. The difference is? I didn't cheat on her and never would have.

The irony of it all was that in fact she was cheating on me, as did other women who were in a similar boat. So I'm not sure if it was one thing or a culmination of bad life experiences and my own journey but for me it's where I draw a line between friend and more than a friend. And when I say "friend" I'm not talking about a F*ck buddy because I see lots of guys trying to call those people "friends". I would still be an ACTUAL friend. Someone you can confide in and a shoulder you can cry on. But I can't be there for you in a romantic sense, I simply cannot bring myself to do it even if I loved you and that's been the case before. I don't know if this makes me a horrible person or not. I'm sure some people will say that but I just need to be real with my own feelings. I'm sorry for all that's happened to you and I genuinely hope you find someone who treats you right and respects you.

[Aerissa_Jade]

Your not odd, in the real world you are like most guys I've known. Hence why I said at the bottom, best is to be close as possible to the same count. Just like you stated, those mental images in your head and you being just another number bothers a lot of guys.

Yet if you or anyone can handle it then it may not be a problem, some just can, others can't. I've even known women who can't reconcile it. Thinking how many other girls has he stuck it into.

Everyone can find someone who is just right for them, better to stay single than marry someone where every time you do it, that is all your going to think about.

I'm now okay with the fact that guys run from me, that's okay. Their loss, if they can't handle it, I won't hold it again them. I'd rather be honest up front than run into an EX somewhere and have my husband asking who that is and at that point, having to lie or tell him the truth.

Sad truth is a lot of rape victims, or children that were molested end up becoming promiscuous.

Thanks for the feedback, you did well and did not hurt my feelings... your awesome, hope you find who is out there for you, assume your not already married.

[t-8900]

No I'm not married, still looking and single atm. Fact of the matter is that I've dated a few women and they lied up front about it. slowly and surely it started to come forward... after bumping into exes at the malls, stores, and movies. Suffice it to say I not only felt like a meaningless flavor of the week but I also felt a bit dirty. And it was kind of like being used in my eyes, just like when I was raped. And yes I could have easily been promiscuous but delt with it as I did. And that took a lot of effort. Since you yourself know that feeling just imagine that repression. Now hold that repression from the time you are 7 years old until you just couldnt take it anymore and cracked in a moment of weakness when your parent was dying on a hospital bed and an ex came to you in that moment and things just happened. The details are in the mytakes on my page.

[t-8900]

You can read them at your leisure but this is your mytake and to link it here would just be very rude. If you want we can message. I sent you a follow request. I'm down to talk anytime and make new friends. People get the wrong idea about me. They think I'm a prude or judgmental. But they dont know what I've been through or dont care to understand my position. But at least you are willing to have an honest dialogue. Its true I dont approve of certain things. When people ask "would you date a sex worker" and I say no and give my reasons I get all kinds of attacks. Sorry but when was it a crime to have preferences in such things? Then they ASSume that I'm just a typical guy that screws around, I never have. That other girl I had sex with that one time? I ended up stopping, feeling horrible, told her to leave, and cried in the bathroom. I had made a mistake, I simply wasn't in love and thats really the only way I can have sex. My dad was dying, he was all I had, I was alone and he was in the hospital, my ex hit me up and when she saw what was going on on social media, she came over, I cried, she loosened the bra and kissed me, things just happened.

[Aerissa_Jade]

Some girls plan on letting the number out, after they've reeled in the guys. Get you madly in love then break the news. This way they are hoping he won't run. I try to always do it by the six dates or so, maybe the tenth. Keep in mind, I can and do date 4 or 5 nights a week sometimes so that is maybe the first two weeks usually.

They should just be honest, its mean to reel anyone in then break the news knowing full well it will hurt them but hoping to keep them.

[t-8900]

Its very selfish for sure. A lot of times thats why I just start as a friend or associate and work from there. I honestly can't just hop in bed anyways and after this one relationship I'm even hesitant to lock lips. Basically... one of the girls I made out with and almost had sex with broke it to me she had had 5 abortions and in the past had contracted chlamydia. I wanted to jump off a bridge for a while there. She was treated by then but well... first off I'm a Christian so yeah I'm pro life. abortion is wrong to me. But 5 abortions? and the way she was so casual about it like it was no big deal? I literally felt like I had locked lips with a legit demon. There is no way in hell a woman has that many abortions and feels NOTHING unless she is evil. And I ended up getting 2 labs done just to make sure I was clean and I was. I was 20 at the time anyways and 32 this week so yeah knock on wood I've been STD free.

[t-8900]

ty 4 mho!

[KlinkyCoder]

One issue that I got with the takes of people blaming males or whites for "oppression" is that they assume current modern social attitudes based on what may have been in the past.

[Inbox]

@t-8900

What were signs that these women had high #s?

What stopped you from reporting your female teacher?

[Vee_The_Fission]

Oh my god... I'm so sorry about what happened to you. What your teacher did was inhuman and you didn't deserve it, you deserve love and respect. I've never been particularly religious or spiritual, but I'm praying for you.

[Jhonrembo]

Our culture accepts and sometimes even adores men who go out with a lot of women. And the opposite about women who go out with a lot of men who look at them with a bad eye. In my opinion it all depends on the type of person and his character and in general it is better to be less judgmental towards people. We never know the causes and the full picture.

[Aerissa_Jade]

"We never know the causes and the full picture" I love this phrase, people often think I just liked hooking up and didn't care but there is always reason and others don't understand the full people can get very judgmental.

[Satyromaniac]

@Aerissa_Jade so true

[OlderAndWiser]

1. I met two girls and they had the same numer: 10. One of them was promiscuous when she was a teen and then settled into a long term marriage. She had not had any sexual partners since the divorce three years ago. The other girl married her first boyfriend and they got divorced a year ago. Since then, she has had nine more sexual partners.

Do you think these two grls have the same attitude about sex and its role in a relationship?

2. People who say that number doesn't matter are caught up in this crazy notion that you should be able to do whatever you want and not suffer any consequences. Hahaha. That is some leftist conception of "utopia" that they peddle to young people to get them on board with the left's agenda.

3. Well, you can do whatever you want, but I am free to form opinions and decide whether someone is or is not worthy of dating. If you want to fuck everybody who stands to pee, you can do that, but you won't be dating me.

[mistixs]

People have the right to do whatever they want but I personally don't think I would be compatible with someone who has had many sexual partners. Our lifestyles would be too different.

[ManOnFire]

This is a pretty talked about topic on here, yes. When I was a lot younger, a woman's number really didn't matter to me, because I was still young and hadn't really learned enough about sex, sexual partners, and how all that does have more of an affect on women than I think it does men. From reading your Take and your experiences, I gather you may be somewhat different from a lot of other women who have a high number.

If you've had several sexual partners just because you've had several relationships and of course had sex with each of those guys, that doesn't really bother me. But if it's a woman who's had a lot of sexual partners simply because she leads a life of looseness and cavalier sexual fun, then it's going to make me run the other way, yes.

The reason why is because women like that either have a trauma history of sexual abuse, are bipolar, have other issues, or simply because she just doesn't have any care or restrictions on her body. I've been in relationships with former rape victims and they were the types to give their bodies away, and I had a relationship with a woman who was a true whore, and who hated me for being able to know it no matter how much she thought she could hide it from me.

Women who are very sexually active with different men are not quite the same as a man-whore. Sex alters women in ways that is different for men, even if they don't realize it or acknowledge it. These kinds of women tend to develop what I call a knowledge of evil. Their sexual activity and experience teaches them how to look at men, or rather judge them, before ever having sex with them and even after. They learn how to use silence as either a way to manipulate or get rid of a man. They live a life of sexual secrecy that they believe cannot be seen in their countenance, but is apparent. They become paranoid and hesitant to answer simple casual questions about their lives or what they like to do while the rest of us have no issue with it, and make up stories that they're not interested in anybody and just want to spend the weekend at home doing nothing or just "wanting to sleep." I've known numerous women who tell these timeless lies and you will later find out they've been sleeping with someone or even bouncing guys around.

And they also tend to privately see themselves as sexually superior to most men based on how much sex they can have and how much ability they have to attract. All of this combined makes them more often than not become desensitized and cold to where they really do not ever care about a man. They see each man they sleep with as another momentary fun thing they can move on from when they're ready, and that men are expendable or unnecessary for every other thing, and can be gotten any time they want.

Are there men like this? Yes. And we do know that. But even a man-whore loves somebody, and his heart can be broken.

We often hear society arguing that men are praised for their sexploits while women are slut-shamed. I actually beg to differ. Although people do call a woman who sleeps around a slut, it actually contradicts their true viewpoint that they still see a woman as more sexually effective or powerful in being able to attain sex. Women who feel that it's a double standard to be shamed for sleeping around are simply angry because they want to do the same thing as a man, even though they look at those guys as garbage for doing it. Also a man who hits on women or pursues them sexually is often seen as annoying, lacking self-control, or a horny monster. A woman who would do the same is looked at as confident or even attractive.

But bottom line: in some sense, a person's number of partners does matter, yes.

[HellGeist]

Holy shit. Very well put! I agree with so much of this. I ended up writing a thesis, but you sumed it up quite perfectly in one go. Awesome. Great writing, too.

[ManOnFire]

@HellGeist Thanks. I wrote an old Take a few years ago on here titled A Man Call Tell If A Woman Has Slept With Several Men. It has a little more than what I put here.

[TruthBringer]

@ManOnFire You absolutely demolished this topic as well as the nay-sayers! Very well done! What I've noticed with those who claim body-count doesn't matter are never truly backing their statement with valid arguments, but often just use shaming tactics instead. While I've noticed those who do say it matters are ready to come with some solid arguments liek you did. I'm going to check out your Take for sure. I happen to also have written a Take in regards to this topic in case you're interested

Why The Number of Sexual Partners Matters ↗

[ManOnFire]

@TruthBringer Cool. I'll take a look.

[SomeGuyCalledTom]

It does and it doesn't; it's all about the perspective from which you analyse the trends. On one hand, past behavior is overwhelmingly accurate at predicting future behavior, this is a consistent finding of the behavioral psychologists of the last century or so. Even neuroscience seems to support this, as 'deeper grooves' in the neurocircuitry are more likely to fire off again and again when presented with a similar situation. In that regard, the beginnings of promiscuous sexual behavior -- as with ANY kind of change in behavior -- could be the beginnings of a new set of neural pathways that, over time, become the "crossed wires [that] fire together". The more you do a particular behavior in a particular situation, the more likely you will do that same behavior in future situations. So through that lens, "once promiscuous, always promiscuous" seems like a fairly logical outcome.

However, within that same model of behavioural change, is the overlapping model that behavioral pathways are written, and rewritten, and rewritten again throughout a lifetime. And while some behaviors become more engrained with repetition (thus becoming reliable predictor of future incidences of the same behavior), those behaviors were necessarily preceded by some other set of behaviors, and can be just as readily replaced by some entirely new set of neural pathways. In simpler terms, just because the well-travelled road is likely to be walked again, new roads are nonetheless being laid down all the time, and the intentionality of the 'walker' is ultimately what determines whether they choose to lay down new pathways, or regress to the old worn paths. So a formerly promiscuous person may have some life-changing or intention-altering event or "change of heart" that sets them on a new behavioral pathway, in spite of the "promiscuity pathway" already being well-trodden. Meeting the love of their life might trigger such a change in intention. Or they might just get fed up of treading the same pathway, and discover that monogamy will actually provide the ultimate source of "variety" they crave (as you can go "deeper" with one partner, in theory at least, than you could ever go with a revolving door of casual dalliances).

So on one hand, past "track record" should be looked at as a general "first reading" of where a potential partner's neural pathways may lie. But it should be constantly updated as new information is gathered about their changing intentions, priorities, and attitudes as pertaining to promiscuity and monogamy themselves. Maybe they just "had a phase" and then "got it out their system", or maybe their need for multiple partners is embedded too deep to be compatible with any monogamous arrangement. It really changes case by case, hence why it's important to develop a 3-dimensional 'picture' of that persons values, priorities, and intentions, rather than a 2-dimensional caricature that ONLY looks at sexual track record as a singular, all-encompassing determinant of compatability.

[Lliam]

Asking about body count is a huge red flag for me. I'd leave someone who asked because they don't have the kind of character that I'm attracted to.

I never asked a girlfriend about her body count. None ever asked mine. I think that's just plain rude. Plus it's immature and indicates insecurity.

I assess a lady's character and personality myself. I don't need a resume about her entire life before we met.

"They saved themselves as a special gift." "Some may feel that it is meant to be a sacred special act and having a higher number means you don't consider it special."
Barf, barf, barf. l would run from someone with those kind of beliefs. I prefer someone who is heterosexual, loves sex and doesn't have hang ups, but also has good character, common sense, and self respect.

I was 16 when I got in my first relationship. Never cheated on any girlfriend. But I did move on to a new relationship eventually. I didn't do one night stands or fuck anything with legs. I wasn't a player or a liar. I respect women too much as human beings for that. I like women and liked having girlfriends, being with them, going places, doing things, talking, having fun together.

I would move on because I was young and knew I was too immature to get married and start a family. I didn't want to ruin their life or mine. I didn't want to get married OR have kids. I wanted to gain experience and learn about life. So if we were together for several months and I realized that she wasn't the girl I wanted to spend the rest of my life with, I moved on and set her free to find someone who did want to marry her.

It wasn't until I was in my mid-30s that I started thinking that I should find a partner that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with. I felt that I was finally mature enough to settle down. Marriage was a serious thing for me. I considered it to be not just a legal contract but a pledge of honor, a sacred vow. I didn't want to jump into it or make a mistake.

During my search, I had a couple more girlfriends and finally met my future wife when I was 40 and she was 38. Neither of us had ever been married or had kids. Did I want to hear about her "body count"? Hell no! I know that she had previous partners in her life. Obviously. She would be a sicko if she hadn't. Was I interested in hearing the list? Hell no! She obviously knew that I had lived a good life before we met, too. But when we met, we clicked. It was amazing. We dated exclusively for a year before I asked her to marry me. I was sure. And she took marriage as seriously as did I. She was very cautious and even asked me to attend couples counseling for a while to see if we were truly right for each other. We got married a year later.

We've both mentioned previous partners here and there. She might reflect that she went someplace or another with a boyfriend. She only mentions him in passing as part of the story, she doesn't reminisce about him. I tell her similar stories. It's no secret. We're not jealous. We're grown ups.

We've been happily married now for 25 years. I trust her completely and she trusts me. I would never do anything to hurt her.

I realize that this comment rambled. It was late when I wrote it and I wanted to go to bed.

[HellGeist]

A lady a body count says a TON about her character.

Past actions often predict future results.

[HellGeist]

*A lady's

[Lliam]

@HellGeist. Yeah, it you have a patriarchal world view and prefer dependent, submissive women.

[HellGeist]

@Lliam You mean if I'm attracted to feminine, clean women, I'm patriarchal?

Are you a male feminist?

Patriarchy no longer exists in the West. This is not Saudi Arabia.

[Lliam]

@HellGeist. Yeah right. As long as women are "pure". 🤣🤣🤣

[HellGeist]

Didn't say pure. I said clean. Significant difference.

A clean women may have had several relationships and partners that were in committed relationships, but things just didn't work out.

A clean woman is not an slut or whore.

Purity is more of a virginal thing, and most women in the West stop being virgins by 18.

I'm not fixated on purity or virginity, but you keep building that man of straw if it helps you to sleep at night.

[Lliam]

@HellGeist. I agree with that, but it's not what you originally said.

I also prefer women who want committed relationships as opposed to one night stands, etc.
But sometimes relationships can be very brief. And women who started having relationships early in life and have been around for a few years might have been in quite a few relationships. Aside from that, people might do all kinds of things when they are young. We learn through experience as we live life and grow up. Those who are inhibited and always play things safe are boring. Also, fuck religion and traditional social standards.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter how many relationships she has been in or how many times she has been fucked as long as my assessment of her character when we meet is good. I can quickly tell what kind of person she is. I would never ask about a body count. The idea of asking for a resume is repulsive.

[JCrockett]

Here are my thoughts.

Yes, it matters. Sex is rightfully associated with intimacy, commitment, and pair bonding. To dilute those things with multiple partners, particularly "casual" partners, is a bad thing. It's fair to care.

Men aren't into girls with high body counts, but girls generally don't mind as much. Disapprove all you want, but thems facts and you just have to deal with them. It's not like there are no reasons for them, either.

Women want their partners to be high value. Being pursued or accepted by others signals that value. It means he's already passed someone else's filters. It's a positive. Just like nice clothes, nice car, nice house, nice jobs all signal success and value. They're achievements on the guy's resume.

Men want their partners to be high value as well, but they see women's value as purity and commitment. (Or alternatively, pure sex. They'll happily have sex with a slut, but they won't want anything more. For more, they want something pure.) Women are born with their value, and they depreciate as soon as they're driven off the lot, so to speak.

Men also feel inadequate when they imagine their girl has been with many others. It's too much competition, and it affects their confidence and performance. That's bad for both parties. Do women have that problem?

Furthermore, men are more capable of having sex without attachment. Women grow emotional bonds from sex more easily. So when they have many partners, it's not just a bodily function they're loose with, it's their own natural pair bonding. That makes any prospective long term mate much less attractive, because it indicates that *this* relationship can't be special.

And there's even more asymmetry. Any reasonably skinny girl can be a slut. But very few guys can do the same. A girl slut lacks self control. Most guys lack that kind of self control as well, but a male slut at least is doing something impressive.

All in all, the double standard makes a whole lot of sense. I can't say I disagree with it.

That said, I don't think it's good for men to sleep around either. I think it is bad for men psychologically, and bad for everyone societally, when men satisfy their sexual urges casually. Women should use sex to tame men, but they can't do that if sex is free. Men who aren't building a future through commitment to a family are depriving society of its most important building block.

And then the fact returns that only some men can manage to have all that sex, which just leaves a greater disparity for the men who are left behind with partners, because all the women are going after the same dominant cohort of top men. That inequality also destabilizes male fulfillment, and therefore society.

So yeah, slutting is bad no matter who does it, but it's even worse for women, because it damages their future relationship prospects. Society suffers when men are sluts, but the slutty men are mostly unscathed. Society suffers when women are sluts, too, but the slutty women suffer even more.

[Anonymous]

Nice take! Here are a few of my thoughts on what you wrote:

1) "For women there is stigma around it, the Double Standard that says it is okay for men to have a lot of partners but not women. This is rooted in sexism from the past."

No. It's neither a Double Standard, nor is it rooted in sexism. Let's start with the latter--it's rooted in biology. Women have NO doubt about their maternity. The immense hassle of carrying a child for 9 months not to mention the pain of child birth itself makes it ABUNDANTLY clear who the mother is of any offspring. Not so for dad. Anyone could have knocked up his partner. His chances of being the father turn out to be much greater the less inclined she is to have sex with any dude. You can try to make an argument like "sure, but she could've been getting gangbanged by dudes in the PAST but now that she's in a committed relationship, he should be all good, no?" And there is SOME sense in that argument. The problem here is, biologically genes don't see it that way and the innate preference that MOST men will have for their long term partners will be--to put it crudely--"not a ho."

But wait, it's still a Double Standard, right? After all, if guys see girls having lots of partners as disqualifying for a long term relationship and girls don't disqualify guys NEARLY so much for having banged a ton of chicks, that's the very DEFINITION of a Double Standard, isn't it? Well, turns out no--it isn't. It WOULD be a double standard if men and women were exactly the same and interchangable. That is, if the role "female partner to a man" and "male partner to a woman" were swapable. But despite what our non-binary, pro-trans, pansexual woke overlords would have us believe, this is indeed NOT the case for a good 98%+ of society. Different roles can require different standards--that's not what a double standard is. A double standard would be two different standards for assessing people of different groups for the SAME role.

Let's illustrate with an example. If I tell you Pat is 5'2" weighs 105lbs. has long blonde hair, fine facial features, a 21-inch waist, 32-inch hips and a 26GG bra size, you can conclude that Pat will be very highly desired and have a LOT of dating options IF (and this is a BIG if. . .) Pat is a girl. On the other hand if you keep that exact same description and it turns out that Pat is a dude with a pretty nasty case of man-tits on his tiny-ass frame, he's going to find himself at the bottom of the dating pool as far as straight girls go. Double standard? Absolutely not. They're looking for different roles, hence different standards apply.

[Opinion Owner]

2) "Thankfully this slowly going away. For health issues, women have a higher cancer risk by having more lifetime partners, thanks to STI's."

I'm not sure how this supports what I believe is your main point--that men and women should have a similar approach to sex. This is yet ANOTHER biological reason for women to care more about having a lower number of sexual partners than men. Not only does it improve their value on the "long term relationship market" but fewer partners also has a greater impact on their cancer risk. Incidentally, from an evolutionary biology perspective, this one is a much weaker disincentive to get it on than pregnancy, but if anything it's going to further support the differential impact of more sex partners for women compared to men.

3) "This shouldn't really be anything to worry about, as we get older dating pool goes up."

Well, it turns out that the veracity of this statement REALLY depends on who you are. For most guys--particularly college educated professionals--this is true. As it turns out women generally tend to date their own age or older, a man's dating pool actually CAN improve up to middle age. But the same is generally NOT true of women. The dating pool of men they'd like to partner with long term will drop off MARKEDLY. Can they still find younger dudes to bang them? Absolutely--particularly if they maintain physical attractiveness. But casual sex and long-term relationships being different things are subject to different standards (again--not a double standard) and therefore different market dynamics.

[Opinion Owner]

4) "Guys that just want to get some, don't care. Numbers ONLY matter if they want to get serious, want a family and life long relationship."

Yes--exactly! The reason is that casual sex and long distance relationships are different things. So we look for different criteria for each. If I want to win an NBA championship, hiring LeBron is probably a good idea. If I want someone to jockey my horse to victory at the Kentucky Derby, LeBron is probably a terrible idea. Same thing when sorting out casual sex partners versus long-term partners.

Anyway, thanks for the take! It was a fun read. Hopefully you found this similarly enjoyable.

[kambo_trick3y]

You ever find it funny that for a society that revolves SO MUCH around money and sex, we're always told to never discuss it with each other?

Personally I think it's foolish to think that in a world where we look for a romantic partners we'll look for emotional compatibility, we look for compatibility in our hobbies, but we throw sexual compatibility out the window, and I'm not just talking how good you are in the sheets, I'm talking about what your stance is on it. For a society that is so damn horny it's kind of negligent to think it won't matter.

Since the dawn of humanity sex has been tied into our beliefs, be it religious or even non-religious (some people believe God is gonna smite you if you get it on, some people don't believe in God at all, some people just tie strong emotional connection with sex, maybe they saw one too many Disney movies who the hell knows).

Whatever your belief is, I think it's important to not insult someone based on their body count. We all have our beliefs, but for someone to say "X number of sexual partners should / shouldn't matter" is wrong. Literally the statement itself is wrong. You don't get to dictate someone's beliefs on that. Some people spend their whole lives holding out for the right person to have sex with and that requires a respectable amount of discipline and when you arrive at the table to establish a partnership with someone, you have every right to put that on the table as one of the things you would like to have compatible with in your partner (keyword is would LIKE to have compatible, sure you can set the standards you can ask for, but your partner can always deny the terms).

TL:DR:

We live in a society with people who come from many different backgrounds and beliefs, and with those beliefs comes the fact that sex is often woven into the very fabric of their morals. It may sound stupid to you, but too bad, we live in a world where not everyone is like you. Live your morals, don't be a hypocrite, don't be afraid to come to the table and state who you are, and if the person holds a different sexual belief then you, accept it and move on and find someone who holds similar values to you.

[bamesjond0069]

1. "The Double Standard" its not going away at all. If it were marriage rates wouldn't be in sharp decline. But you gloss over this while it is just as much womens fault. Men prefer virgin and low count women. But the other half of the equation is women prefer players, ladies men etc. Maybe we should be up womens asses shaming them for not valuing a mans virginity. Oh you dont want to be encouraged to date male virgins? The guy living in his moms basement with an action figure collection. Surprise! Maybe we dont want to be encouraged to date sluts. Just saying. If you dont like double standards why dont you change your standards? Complain about double standards and then refuse to do anything about it except complain and expect others to do something about it. Smh.

2. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Nothing else needs to be said.

3. "Guys that just want to get some, don't care. Numbers ONLY matter if they want to get serious, want a family and life long relationship." True. So for women by sleeping around they are limiting their dating pool to desperate men and men who aren't into serious relationships. Knowing that they they sleep with a bunch of men and complain and whine about it. These are the ones saying "why are all men fuckboys?" Answer is because they are a slut. All men are fuckboys to a slut. The same men will marry a different girl. Its not the man.

4. I disagree with numbers being close. Its irrelevant. Men in general want a girl with the lowest number possible they can find. Women want a man who is attractive enough to have a high number but ideally doesn't have that number. But they dont really care much if he did. Personally i slept with about 250 girls my girlfriend who was a virgin didn't like how high it was but said fuck that i can see why you had so many women and went goo goo eyed for me head over heels anyways. My prior 2 exgfs was exactly the same except one had a count of 3 and the other was a virgin. Numbers being close means neither person gets what they want. The girl is sluttier than the man wanted and the man isn't as attractive as the woman wanted. Seems mediocre to me.

[TruthBringer]

Absolutely well said! Even though I support the idea that men should not fuck everything that moves when given the chance and seek out meaningful relationships with quality women, I find it laughable that people (mainly women) cry "DOUBLE STANDARDS!".

When in reality, a double standard cannot take place since men and women are NOT the same in body and mind. Both men and women life although side by side, very different dynamics within life and what both find attractive or of value differ very much. And you've proved this when you mentioned that woemn look down on a virginal man while wanting a stud while it is the complete opposite for what men seek in women.

Keep spreading that ugly truth, mate!

[Datboi65]

I'm gonna be brutally honest on this answer.

DISCLAIMER: I don't know you personally, and I have no vendetta against you of any sorts. Having said that, I will not give you any sugar-coated bs. Get ready for some heat.

You said you were engaged multiple times, and they all resulted in failure, but the men were the problem? See, I look at it different. Since you are the common denominator between all if those different guys, YOU are the problem. The first man was loyal and faithful, but he wasn't getting a fair deal. He learned about your sexual history with a lot of men, and it completely crushed him and he couldn't see you the same way anymore. If you were serious about him, you would tell him about it, and he most likely would've cut you off from the jump, but you waited for him to propose and be emotionally invested, and then you dropped the bomb. I'm gonna assume he was a virgin and saving himself for marriage, since not a lot of dudes do that nowadays. You say that that was the first time you "gave" that to someone (the engagement), but the fact of the matter is HE gave that to YOU. He hot on one knee and proposed to you. All those other men you have been with before him haven't done that. That tells me he's serious about it, but you weren't serious enough about him to tell him the truth. Second guy was probably desperate to be with you, but felt some type if way about your previous affairs. I say that if you don't like a girl, break up with her, it's that easy. He was probably a simp who wanted you, but also wanted to have a higher body count than yours, but what he should've done is he should've cut you off from the early stages. Cheating isn't fine.

Now that we got this out of the way, let's talk about YOU. You having a promiscuous past basically means most men will not take you seriously, whether you like it or you don't. It's just how it is, and no it doesn't boil down to "insecurity". A promiscuous woman is rebellious, and a rebellious woman doesn't take direction from a man, so she doesn't make a great wife. Also, there's the likelihood if cheating, so let's not pretend that it's only men that cheat. See, before second wave feminism, there was a stigma around casual hookups, so people were encouraged to abstain from sex until they get married, and that was why the marriage rate was high, and the divorce rate was low. Once women started pushing for sexual liberation, everything changed. What you don't realize is that the double standard exists for a good reason, because WOMEN ARE THE GATEKEEPERS. If women don't sleep around, men wouldn't be getting any. It's that simple. More sexual activity increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and it makes you compare your man to other men you have had in the past. What you're not gonna do is shame men for feeling some type of way about this, when YOU should've had less sexual partners and had more of a traditional marriage mindset rather than the "free spirit" Jezabel spirit. You didn't give that man anything special, anything that you haven't given the 30 dudes you were with before him, and it absolutely crushed him. I don't feel bad for him either, because he should've asked beforehand, but you are not the victim here.

[Datboi65]

Finally, some solutions. "Mr. Right" doesn't exist. I don't believe in soulmates, I believe in communication. When I tell you majority of men wouldn't be OK with your past, I mean it. If you want a quality man, you need therapy, and you need to put an effort into becoming a better person and actually offering your man something you haven't given someone else. Learn how to vet people, so they don't cheat on you, and that's through spotting early red flags. Understand that you might have to settle. Since most men you want aren't in terms with your past, the guys you may or may not have in the friendzone that don't have an issue with that are probably your best bet. Try to make an honest effort into addressing your problems, and not masking them. You cannot address a deep wound with a band-aid, that just doesn't work, and if you have to take some time off from dating, then do that until you are in a better spot. You are probably lucky that you're not a single mother, or that would've been an entirely different conversation.

[Aerissa_Jade]

You can try reading my other mytake, that is why I did it. Had nothing to do with just wanting a lot of sex and partners.

I know I am the common denominator, but if that had not happened to me from our wonderful rape culture, I would of been married by 22 and had kids by now and likely only had a few guys I had been with.

I try not to use that as a excuse, just a reason... in trying to take back control of my life and use me how I was used.

Even so I am okay, I will continue to survive and I'll be fine no matter what.

Thanks

[Datboi65]

First of all, I would like to say what you have been through is absolutely wrong and messed up. I'm sorry you had to endure that.

In my disclaimer, I stated that I don't know you personally, or your situation, so I gave a general answer that is true for the most part, and I stand by my answer.

See, my case is different. I was sexually molested when I was 5 years old by our maid at the time, and it continued for 2 years. I have a rather foggy memory of what happened before I was 5, but what I do know is that she used to work for my family since before I was born. I never told anyone about it until I was 15, 10 years after the first incident I remember, and that person I talked to about it was my mother, and to this day she's the only one in real life who knows about it. I would be totally lying if I said that I overcame the incident, but it never affected my view on women, because I know that that person was evil, but she is who she is and people aren't all the same. My plan is to wait until marriage before I get it on, because I do believe in saving myself until marriage, and I do not let what happened affect me. I think trauma can affect one's behavior, but ultimately it's up to them to take a choice to change the projection of their life.

[Diodoro]

To be fair, with respect to your first engagement, it sounds like you didn't respect your man and that was the biggest issue.

Why wouldn't he feel as if you didn't love him as much? He's supposed to believe you'll fuck men you don't love but not the man you do love UNLESS he marries you first?

You were giving him more barriers to sex, than other men. You need to realize a certain base competitive nature men have. Instinctually, no man wants to "pay" so to speak more than another man for anything.

By you requiring him to wait until marriage, you were effectively telling him he wasn't as good as the other guys you didn't give that requirement.

Of course he'd feel that way. But you turned it around on him to say he's just another one of "those guy" when really you weren't respecting him. You're setting yourself up for a vicious cycle miss.

Because no man is going to want to be celibate for you, until marriage when you've had sex with guys before marriage. No man with his head on straight would ever agree to that.

Like sincerely ask yourself. What motivation would a man have to wait until marriage to sleep with his wife, whom has already slept with men before marriage?

Second question to ask yourself. Why would a man who has had sex now make himself celibate on your behalf, knowing you're not a virgin either?

[Aerissa_Jade]

Understood, I've learned from the past and see what you saying.

I didn't try to do that to him. We had talked about waiting, it was actually his idea when we got a little close. This wasn't going to be a long engagement either, six months.

I do understand how he felt, but also felt if I gave it to him (I almost nearly did) that it would not of helped, he had changed too much. I just felt he would eventually end things after we did it for awhile.

Thank you for your polite input.

[Diodoro]

I see what you're saying too. Just don't want you drawing an unhelpful conclusion from your past that's likely to cause repeats. Wish you the best

[Hellothere543212]

This is a very interesting stance.

I do believe the gap between the level of acceptance around female and male sexuality is slowly narrowing. In general, women do seem be somewhat less stigmatised by their sexual relationships on a social level, less so on an intimate level. For example, in a place of business or a general social situation, a woman’s number of sexual partners often doesn’t impact how she succeeds in that environment or how capable she is deemed. But on an intimate level, males are more likely to not want to pursue a serious relationship with someone with a lot of sexual partners, than a woman would be with a man with a lot of sexual partners. Therefore in terms of intimate relationships, I do think it impacts a woman. But less so in terms of how she is perceived in that society. I don’t think women are labelled to the extent they used to be in social environments. I also think that men are less likely to see a high number of sexual partners as something to brag about. Not necessarily because it isn’t approved of, but simply because, possibly because of dating apps, casual sex is more common.

I think the double standard also exists within females in general depending on the individual. A woman that has a high amount of sexual partners from a middle/upper class background is often labelled as sexually liberated; a woman with a high number of sexual partners from a working class background is more likely to be labelled as trashy…

[hi_it_is_me123]

In my opinion any hypocritical boy -not man- is a hoe. If you want a virgin, then be virgin yourself. It is also ridiculous how manwhores try to justify douple standards. Just admit you are an entitled irresponsible manhoe. I prefere virgin or men with low bodycount. I experienced it myself how my ex could not "pair bond" with me after whoring around and kissing a lot of girls. When i first met him, he was virgin but still had some sexual experience and he was kinda loyal, "attached" etc. When we broke up and later became together again, i saw the change in him. It was difficult for him to be loyal. I also care about bodycount because of sexual transmitted diseases such as Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS, HPV, Syphilis etc. Some of them can be even transmitted through oral sex or even kissing. HIV ain't the only sexual transmitted disease. It is shocking to me how many people are so careless. These sexual transmitted diseases affect women worse than men. So women should care about their partners bodycount. I recommend women choosing men with low or zero bodycount.

[hi_it_is_me123]

I also dont understand American men. They dont want to wait till marriage but also want virgin or women with low bodycount. If you want a serious relationship, dont increase any girl's bodycount, otherwise it is stupid to complain about not finding virgins or women with low bodycount. Guys should not increase any girl's bodycount if he ain't serious with her or he should not complain about not finding virgins or women with low bodycount as I said

[Rob17792]

that's fucked up how your ex changed. in all the years i been with my significant other i never once kissed another girl and never whored myself around never had sex hooked up with anybody. i'm sorry he did that to you. i been with mine for 4 years and never did any of those things.

[Rob17792]

and you're right about what you said about men whoring around and with the std's but same can be said about women and transmitting std's to their partner. it's a fucked up world and a really fucked up society

[hi_it_is_me123]

The reason why we broke up is because he was very disrespectful to me and always insulted me. It was stupid of me to take him bsck. But i learned my lesson

[hi_it_is_me123]

You are right. You sound like a great guy

[Rob17792]

if you don't mind me asking how did he insult you and disrespect you what did he say?

[hi_it_is_me123]

He was kinda rude for no reason. He has anger issues. He often use swear words or bad words. I think it was a bad a habit but i still could not stand it

[Rob17792]

sorry you went through that

[hahahmm]

In my observation, when a man is a 'good catch' he's not the 1st one to think of marriage. It's always the woman because she needs him more than he needs her. Of course she's not going to tell her friends that she begged him to marry her for 1-2 years before he decided she was worthy. That's just not the kind of story women like to tell. The point is that there's a reason why men don't have to be what they want a woman to be. Because men & women aren't the same. And yeah, I also know of cases where the guy was begging to marry her. And those women that married that kind of guy secretly complain about him being weak and don't even respect him. That's life.

[hi_it_is_me123]

I can't see posts. Lol weird

[hi_it_is_me123]

I just dont understand men who complain about western women's bodycount but also is the part of the problem. If you increase her bodycount instead of marrying in the first place you should not be suprised when women have a "high" bodycount. If i was a western woman i would be paranoid. There is no way to know whether the guy is using you for sex or not if you have sex before marriage.. so waiting till marriage is the best way to know that you ain't get used. Men also can get used for sex. Majority of western guys dont want to wait till marriage. You dont have to traditional or religious to wait till marriage. This would not be a problem when guys marry their first girlfriend instead of increasing her bodycount. In the most of the cases your first boyfriend/girlfriend has low bodycount or is virgin since she/he is young like you since majority of young people ain't promiscuos.

[hi_it_is_me123]

Man i still can't see the posts. Wtf

[hi_it_is_me123]

It is also does not make sense to me to use "biology" to say that men have sex with many women to spread his seed while women pick the best guy to get pregnant. This is no excuse for the manwhorish behaviour. This is also a kinda stupid point since this means that majority of men are trash since only few men can have sex with many women since these few men are the best choice for many women. Anyway we dont live in stone age. People who make such arguments should not complain then when majority of women only choose/want the "best" aka rich/handsome guys which are the minority. Yes females chose the strongest, tallest, most handsome men in order to have a healthy strong offspring while the best men have multiple women and as a result majority of men could not reproduce.
but as i said we dont live in stone age. I also would not understand why a man would want it like in the past since this means he may die alone lol since the so called best men are the minority.

[Anonymous]

People who sleep around are inferior. Always has been the case. People get it WRONG that society approves of men sleeping around... doesn't sweetheart guys like that aren't worth shit for a decent husband & everyone with a brain knows that.

People who sleep around are inferior. Outcasts. Rejects. Other people's left overs, like pizza forgotten about in the fridge.

They lack self esteem. They lack self respect. Either when they were growing up & the household had a revolving door of men (or women) like any good brothel house. They grew up with parents that were abusive, ignorant, disrespectful & all in all didn't give a shit about their spouse or their (who knows maybe someone else's bastard) kids.

And because of this... they're desperate. Anyone who smiles at them. Or gives them a little attention. Etc. They're like a flipping dog that's been left out in the cold. Woof woof, wage the tail like a good dimbo. That person's magically the desperate one's long lost love of their life. Pathetic.

[TruthBringer]

So far one of the best responses on this post. Too bad you've gone anonymous just to give a piece of your mind just to avoid backlash. Keep spreading the truth!

[Kaytiee]

For me it does, and not because I'm saving myself for marriage or heavily Christian, (that ship sailed a long time ago) but because if the number is very high, then change is hard to complete, never impossible of course, I've gone through changes with my personality, but I was younger like 14-16 and not so deadset on this abusive mindset I used to have, when you're getting into your 20s and 30s key habits are formed, and to break them becomes harder and harder, compare it to a smoker, for example, people who smoke a cigarette a day have an easier time quitting than people who smoke 40 a day.

And I personally would not have the mental restrain to help someone as they slowly completed this change, as with sexual partners the risk is = cheating, if like my current boyfriend he has issues with mood, the risk is = an argument, not such a consequence as cheating. So yes, change can happen but it doesn't mean you're entitled to a partner because of it.

As for physical, don't listen to incels who talk about being 'stretched' out. That's false, the only thing that changes the vagina is childbirth, and aging, no matter how much you sleep around your vagina because it's a muscle, goes back. I guess a pro of this situation is, the partner will be good in bed for sure, for my boyfriends I prefer them to have just a few sexual partners so the experience is there. As for your engagement, I must say not stating your sexual partners beforehand is where you messed up, I personally believe people have a right to know.

[Anonymous]

‘’ Seems people here on GAG are kind of obsessed about this‘’ i do not agree more. There are some misogynist here who systemically post everyday and every question about women who had sex and have high body count. I do not know what they experienced in their life but i think they are so butthurt. They just signed up here to shame the other gender. How can one everyday talk about this? Someone must obsession about this to talk about this topic everyday. I am so sorry for this men because like men of course women can sleep around when they are young to explore themselves and the others. Women and men are not different everyone is different so everyone can decide what they can do or not. ‘’ men do not want to marry with promiscuous girls’’ no not all the ‘’men’’ you are the one who obsess about this. Of course everyone can decide their mate with their standards but you can not insult the other because they are not suitable for your standards. In this age nobody cares about anyone. So, if they do not want to be with someone they can be lonely All their life and spread their ‘’hate’’ here until they die. If i speak for myself it is important for me because i do not have experience much so i want someone like me. It is my life if i can find him it will be good for me if i can not this is not the problem. I understand that everyone can have standards but not ‘’double standards’’

[Anonymous]

First, I must state that I did not not read your entire book. However, I most certainly got the gist. God, I wish more women thought like you... it would save so many marriages that I have seen deteriorate due to these most ominous words spoken by some wives... "You have been with so many other women and I have only ever been with you..." There is nothing good that will follow after those words are spoken.

I don't get why it is okay to encourage us guys to get out there and get it out of our system before we get married. Yet, for women it is so highly frowned upon and made to be shameful for them to do the same thing! Like, Hell, they need to get it out of their system as well before they get married!

Case in point, I was awakened by a very good friend of mine that I shared an apartment with him and his wife and son... He wanted me to go and be with his wife... since she had just said those very words to him! Hell, no I did not... but damn is that not desperation or what?

[Xoxocutekitty]

In my honest opinion, it should not.

If you are a virgin and take the time to know yourself and your standards, you do the right thing and be upfront about it. If you are very willing to break up with 'someone damaged' and wait until after an engagement to ask these questions - you're either extremely naive or a jerk.

This person thinks that your love is unconditional, that everything is OK. Fact: it's harmful to rip a good relationship away from someone because one day, you learned a truth and care more about your new perception of them, rather than than your entire experience dating and investing in them/ their social circle.

If I've never seen someone take or glorify drugs in 2 years, I'm not going to assume that since they took cocaine in college, theyre always a crackhead. I'm not going to break up with someone just because 'I found out what they did' if it does nothing to reflect who they are and where they are going with their life.

From personal experience, some guys will continue to hold this double standard. You can't fix toxic, you can't fix insecure. Either they can accept it or they can't- because no matter how much you argue about it, it happened and there's nothing anyone can do to change it.

A true traditional gentleman who acknowledges he cannot handle it, doesn't act out in crazy ways 'trying to catch up' or 'punish you for a bad past', he'd politely break things off because he learned something about himself and what he cannot accept despite you being just as valuable as before 'he knew'. Good for you for cutting your losses.

[Screenwriter]

I understand your conclusions from your personal experience.

However, there is no reason for complete honesty about sexual partner numbers. Men will usually judge women who have been with more partners than they have. I was married to a man who kept asking me about what sex was like with other men AFTER we were married. I told him I was not discussing that and eventually ignored his asking and wouldn't talk about it. He finally stopped.

Those kinds of talks are not about honesty; they're about one upsmanship, twisted morality, judgment, et al. They add nothing to a relationship and will, more than likely, damage it.

It's fine to talk about PEOPLE relationships: he was selfish, was a great carpenter, a terrible conversationalist, oddball dancer. But your sex life with anyone other than your current parnter is PRIVATE. Sure, you can tell a few funny tales about bad sex with someone, but a body count? Should be advertised as much as your bank balance or medical status.

And though your past experiences help make you the person you are, there is absolutely no need to tell anyone who is not a longterm partner, meaning a LIFE partner, about your sexual past. Sex is a loaded topic tied erroneously to religion, morality, sexism. And there is no need to tell ALL. Choose what is important.

You don't tell people about every vacation you've ever had because they aren't all significant OR interesting. You might mention the best or worst. Then again, you might not mention ANY. Privacy is just as important in a relationship as it is online, on the job or a dozen other instances.

Honesty is never the best policy when it's damaging to you or the other person. Here is where YOU have to exercise wise judgment.

[HellGeist]

Oh boy... [DISCLAIMER]

Well, this will be a long one. I'm going to be blunt, so seriously - Trigger warning to feminists and the like.

Seriously. Please stop reading now if you're going to complain or be offended. I just finished posting about this elsewhere and I'm going to largely copy and paste what I wrote before onto here.

It's a lot. No TL;DR. I go into detail because I was going back and forth with another poster and explaining my position.

Do not read if you do not want to. This will be split into multiple parts.

Disclaimer over!

So, to begin - yes body count matters. A lot.

Men and women are VERY different. There is no real double standard, and I will explain why down the line.

I'm all for women sleeping around if that's what they truly want, but the problem arises when said women try to get married or whatever and then it's almost always a trainwreck and she divorces the dude.

You're ruining your ability to pair-bond with a man if you sleep around, and it will be hard for you to get into and stay in a long-term committed relationship if "Mr. Right" comes along.

Honestly, women who have very high body counts should just continue to... Do their thing. If they try to then lock down a man, statistically it doesn't end well and the dude ends up suffering a lot, so you're better off leaving the dude be and just sticking to casual sex.

[HellGeist]

Why do you think divorce was so high and why marriage rates went down? Because men don't want to commit to Western women anymore because they don't make good wives.

Part of the reason why is precisely because a ton of Western women have lots of casual sex, and they've developed a reputation.

Most guys can't sleep around like women can unless they're above average in looks and/or wealthy.

There's also a reason why a lot of guys are pining for traditional conservative women these days, both foreign and domestic.

They don't want LTR's or marriages with loose Western women with high body counts who are known for initiating divorces at least 70% of the time or more.

Also, even though most Western women do hookups and casual sex, there is a difference between being with a woman with a body count of 5, 10 and above.

The higher it goes, the less men will want to commit to them.

That's why you often see posts on the internet just like this one (surprise, surprise) about guys who ghost girls or leave if they find out the girl they're with has a past of like 20, 30, 40, 50+ men.

For a lot of guys that's too much.

Yeah, there will always be beta-type and feminist dudes who will willingly be committed to a woman with a high body count, but they usually pay the price for it by being divorced by her or cucked multiple times.

And a lot of women aren't really attracted to desperate beta men.

Most guys don't and can't sleep around as much as women do. Men actually have to put some effort into getting sex most of the time. It takes skill and some luck too.

Historically more women have reproduced than men have.

Face it. Guys don't want to commit to women who sleep around a lot. Especially if they have really high body counts. They'll fuck you, but then move on to another girl with less partners if they have the ability to be with her.

[HellGeist]

Furthermore, guys don't want to get an STD or get cucked by a woman who will trick them into raising a kid that isn't theirs, so that is why they want to ideally be with women who don't have a ton of partners because they are more trustworthy.

And so many people have herpes these days, it's really gross lol. No thanks! Nothing will ruin your sex life like HERPES.

It's also a matter of degrees.

For example, Men would rather be with a non-western woman that has had only 5 casual sex partners, than a Western woman who probably has a WAY higher body count than that.

Also, all else being equal, dudes would rather be with a Western woman from a more traditional/chaste/conservative background that has only had, let's say 7 sexual partners vs a loose western woman that has 37!!!

It's really, really simple.

And women from traditional families/upbringings stay virgins or at low body counts for longer than the average Tinderella.

Which means that they have a higher chance of getting into a successful LTR or marriage with then man or men they want.

Also, just because something is normal/common/more accepted now doesn't mean it's healthy and not degenerate.

Women with lower body counts are the ones most men want to be with long term.

Period. End of story. It's biology.

[HellGeist]

I wanted to add something I noticed after reading your post. Again, I am going to be blunt, here.

You wrote: "Being engaged to him, something I never gave the others didn't seem to matter to him.

In the end I called it off I thought he'd be happier with someone else and he was no longer the man I used to love. He was just one of those guys who wanted to get some."

Sorry, but this sounds like a cop-out and a lack of accountability.

Even though he was the first man you were engaged to, he clearly doubted the validity/seriousness of your commitment to your engagement.

And he had good reason: you kind of proved his doubts to be warranted.

I say this because clearly your number of sexual partners made him doubt your sincerity in staying committed to him and the marriage-to-be.

Yet STILL he was willing to go to pre-marital counseling to try to make it work, but in the end YOU called it off, regardless of the reason why.

He wasn't "just one of those guys that wanted to get some."

His actions in going to pre-counseling with you prove that he was invested and wanted to make things work!

I mean, how many couples do pre-marital counseling if they not serious? So clearly he tried to get past your body count.

But in the end you proved his doubts completely valid by canceling the engagement (which I'm sure wasn't easy for him), which shows that you would not have been marriage material.

After all, a woman who calls of an engagement would also likely be willing and capable of calling off a marriage if things got tough.

[HellGeist]

Additionally, the fact that you've already been engaged three times means that even if the next dude is Mr. Right, that will have been at least FOUR engagements under your belt.

This further proves the doubts of your first engagement partner correct, because at least three times now you've gotten to the quite serious point of engagement, the precursor to marriage, and it didn't work out all three times.

The way I see it, that is like having three "mini" divorces under your belt, ON TOP of all the past sexual partners you had.

Did you call off ALL your engagements? (I don't blame you for canceling on the cheater.) But if you canceled the other two, that is the start of a pattern right there.

Let's say dude #4 is the one. Don't you think that even if he gets past your body count, he may have doubts about marrying you, because not only is he sexual partner number XX, he will be engagement candidate #4.

Why on Earth would he feel at all special, valued and confident about your commitment to him if you bailed on all your previous engagements? I mean, at the very least (if he has any sense at all) he's probably going to want a prenup. And I wouldn't blame him.

And I don't know your age or body count, but the more you rack up additional body counts and God forbid engagements on your way to Mr. Right, the more this problem you're having is going to compound.

It's a snowball turning into an avalanche.

[HellGeist]

The fact that your body count caused such a large, detrimental effect in your relationships even in this day and age when high body counts especially in Western women are expected makes me believe that your body count is quite significant indeed. This calls your ability to pair-bond into question, especially if you canceled your other engagement as well.

I'm sorry, but clearly you must see that this is why many men would struggle to overcome this intimate hurdle.

Finally, there is no justification for that one other fiance to cheat on you, but obviously he felt that he could not take commitment to you seriously.

Frankly, I think a lot of men would have a hard time staying committed to and feeling/staying securely attached to and in love with a promiscuous woman.

Finally, to top it off, if children ever enter the picture, so may doubt from the father as to his paternity.

Like I think I mentioned, this is why most men prefer a more chaste woman to enter into a committed relationship with. Biologically, it is about paternal security for the father. I'm sure you could get a DNA test if he asked you, but that would lead to it's own drama, because you would perhaps feel deeply disappointed that he didn't trust you, and if I were the man married to you, I would be stuck between a rock and a hard place because depending on how you and he look like, he would wonder at the back of his head if the kid is really his, but there would exist trepidation over the fallout of asking for a paternity test.

This is why I say that women who engage in lot of casual sex do so at their own peril if they want to bag a good man.

Once you've opened Pandora's box, you can never close it.

I hope you find what you're looking for. Take good care.

[t-8900]

"Once you've opened Pandora's box, you can never close it"

omg... these were among my last words to my ex... wow. You and I think a lot a like, geez. I feel for poster I GENUINELY do. I know what its like being raped as a child and i know what it does to the mind. It's not an easy thing. What I see though in a lot of girls exposed to rape, sexual assault, and the first or second bad boyfriend is today they cannot stop! it's so hard for them to stop! Men are hornier they claim but I know myself and SO MANY DUDES who can go years without sex. Sometimes it can get frustrating but its not THAT bad. What's bad is the loneliness of not feeling loved and cherished the way you want to love and cherish SOMEONE. You dont know that girl that might be out there but you know you want to pour your heart out to her and have the best love in the universe.

But with so many girls turning to regular and casual sex it's hurting the serious guys BADLY. All the manwhores are just having their fun with all these girls, not at all serious about them. And by the way they dont even respect them! They feed them the same BS they feed every girl then get in their pants. They are professional conmen, literally like devils a lot of them. They dont care about being home wreckers, they dont care about ruining the lives of the children or husbands or boyfriends or other family. They are horrible, wicked people! And yeah its mostly men who corrupt these girls because lets be honest most girls feel some level of pressure their first time or first few times.

So its not right, OBVIOUSLY. But as long as these clowns are getting their d*cks wet the cycle continues. I hope the guy that raped her gets hung on a tree with his own entrails for the rope. I blame that act for even giving her the idea to do all this after. Yes she makes her own decisions now but I think the thought process changed drastically after that fateful even. smh this world man... this f*cking world.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Let's address this.

They don't lose their ability to bond with anyone just for having sex. Not how it works.

Marriage is down, but divorce is actually also down. Why? Because women don't have to marry anymore. They had to before if they wanted to own property, open a bank account, etc. Now marriages happen not out of necessity so they happen less and last longer.

Women start divorce 70% of the time. But divorce happens around 40% today. So if you marry chances that she will divorce you are 70x40%. It's 28%. Very low no reason for fear.

Actually times are changing. More and more men don't care of a women had 10 or 20 partners. You saying those will cuck, cheat or divorce their partners is just wishful thinking.

It was never easier than today for men to sleep around. Also the average guy still is higher than the average girl. So we actually sleep around more.

Chances of you being tricked into raising a kid that is not yours in less than 5%. No really this is an EU average from multiple countries.

Did you know that girls raised in super conservative households are more prone to teen pregnancy? They are and is not surprising. No freedom and no education regarding sex and that is the result.

About it being biology, monogamy is relatively recent. On our primal years it was literally love for everyone with everyone.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 part 1 of 2: the thing with teen pregnancy has less to do with conservatism and more to do with zealotry. I learned sex ed in middle school. And there are plenty blue areas of the country where teen and out of wedlock pregnancies are still out of control. I was raised in DE and PA and spent a lot of time in MD as well. Go to the inner cities, totally blue but still and issue. Its not education or ideology so much as overall lifestyle of individuals. Yes its never been easier for men to get laid... well in recent history. It was easy as hell in Ancient Rome for Example. But not everyone wants or likes sleeping with a random fly by night person. Nor does everyone want to commit to someone who can compete with street girls. If you are into marriage and you want one of them you do you. If you dont like marriage and dont believe in it then again you do you. They did surveys on public opinion and the country that accepted the most sex partners was France and they said no more than 16. In America they said they preferred no more than 7 or 8. Roughly 37% of people also seemed to lie about their sexual history... curious.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8
If it was so widely accepted then surely that number would be less than 5%. As the poster said above she believes that it's better for people with high body counts to stick to people with high body counts unless they can digest it and low body count folks with low body count folks. I agree whole heartedly as it reflects a different moral compass on the individuals and as such will affect compatibility. And about the passing off of illegit kids, I personally know of 3 cases and heard of 5 others in my locale. Not to mention all the crap on Steve Wilkos and Maury. So for me, it happens enough to warrant a fear. Also no one should be pressuring people who chose to wait or chose God to have to be in relationships with people they dont agree with in this regard. And they shouldn't be shamed for it either. OP asked a question and HellGeist answered his POV. Nothing to get offended about, especially after he gave numerous warnings before those proceeding to read.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 since countries with actual sexual education in schools, with much more liberal views on sex don't have half the problems in teen pregnancy that the US have.

About me. I know that my wife was not a virgin when I meet her. That's all I asked and was happy with that. Virgins make the worst lovers. No idea her number and don't care.
People say a lot of things. Everyone, literally everyone who is married will tell you that their partner is not perfect. People in the USA say 7 or 8? Then they love someone who had 15 and they find out they don't really care.

That number of liar could be of people who inflated their numbers. Also yes women lie afraid the guy they are with will be insecure about it. Because today that stigma still exists. But you and no one can deny that is less and less an issue.
You could even know 50 cases. The EU study gave a very very low percentage. So...

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 here is a funny story.
My wife's grandmother, a lady with 89 at the time, said something to her when she found out we were dating. And I quote...
"You can't do like it was in my time! Before we had to go into marriage without knowing better. Don't do that! You must try to see if it's good before you marry!"
A women born and lived in such a time says this... That her granddaughter should fuck me to see if I was good before marrying me. Times are definitely changing. Even encouraged by the women who saw both generations.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 so basically your best advice would be for people to screw around like jack rabbits till they stumble onto someone compatible then? Is that what I'm hearing? And also so what if your girlfriend's grandmother said that. Not all of our grandmothers thought like that at all. And just like everyone we all started out virgins and learned over time. Some I'm unsure what the issue is with "virgins being terrible lovers". I guess to you a lover only a lover if they f*ck? I'm confused by that. And even if less and less people care that doesn't take away a few key things. For one thing, I'm religious. And two my religion has in Revelations how this would come to pass. And yeah you COULD mock me for that and w/e I get that from the more progressive types.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 But I see a few things a certain way: #1 why dont you want to know her body count? Probably because it DOES deep down bother you. Otherwise you would just ask and not care and be like w/e and just know for the sake of knowing. #2 for me I would feel dirty, just would. I ask people today if they would be cool with their child being married to a prostitute or former prostitute that chose that lifestyle. For me I would say hell no. Maybe you are different but that idea is revolting to say the least. #3 to me when you are sharing that girl its like sharing with other guys in a way. It's kinda disgusting but some people are cool with it. I'm just not. I dont like the idea of my wife potentially being passed around in a frat party gangbang getting raw dogged by a bunch of dudes. I dont like the idea that maybe she had abortions. i dont like the idea that maybe she had harbored or still harbors an STD. Sometimes they dont show up right away. I also dont want to be married to the talk of the town. I'm the guy that settled down with a person passed around like a meaningless object? Who's the fool? Not gonna be me. I showed discipline and I need a girl who showed discipline too. Its not hard to understand. That's why I'm eyeballing the Orthodox Christian girls predominantly. Most are pretty strict by the books if they are practicing.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 and maybe I'm a relic of the past. I'd love to find someone but not if it's going to cause me nothing but regrets and emotional anguish. I feel that its more than fair to want to date people on my level and that shouldn't be an issue. As far as what society normalizes if they normalized pedophilia tomorrow that won't stop me from kicking a pedophiles ass. If it become legal to burn down the homes of people i disagree with I still wouldn't burn down their homes. If prostitution became normalized I still wouldn't partake in it or pay for it. Society has no sway on my opinion and public pressures won't change me.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 I am not going to mock you. Why would I?
I do advice people to have sex with their partner before things get to serious. Sexual incompatibility is a thing.
Experience always makes you better at something. Not saying that they can't learn, but of course your first times will not be as good.

I was hoping that she wasn't a virgin. That was all. She can tell me 500 that I am not going to give a fuck. I love her. I married her. I didn't asked because makes no difference to me. Not now and not even when we began to date. I don't judge girls by that.
Many pornstars are married. So clearly the fact they were fucked by many guys doesn't seem to matter.
Sharing? Who is sharing? She is just mine. Others had her while I wasn't in a relationship with her. Just like I had other girls before she was with me. People we fucked before don't matter.
My friend if she was kids, if she has an STD I get it. But if just because if what others might say you refuse to be with the women you live, yes you are the fool.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 love*

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 Sex is normal. More than that sex is natural. Is literally the most natural thing there is!

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I would say breathing, eating, and sleeping rank above it in what's natural. And besides I'm not a based animal. Otherwise we should just apply the laws of nature to all things.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 sex is natural. You body is literally made to do it. You are right we are logical animals. That is why based thing on your sexual partners makes no sense.

Unless for ego. Let me put it like this...
Someone wakes up. Has a normal day. At night goes out, meets a stranger and has sex. Goes to bed. Wakes up on the next morning.
What changed in that person from one morning to another?
What part of his/her character changed? What piece of themselves did they lost?

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 you do you I could never be with anyone with body counts in the hundreds. I wouldn't even be able to look at myself in the morning, Dear Lord! At that point it wouldn't really much matter if she did cheat because I mean who's keep score anymore? And let guys marry pornstars. Mia Kalifa broke up with the guy to go back to riding around. I could never get past how nasty this all is to me. To even do this sort of thing first off you'd need to absolutely reject God so therefore we already won't be compatible. So that's already a huge fundamental difference. Besides that I think it's highly immoral. Also sexual incompatibility? as in what? Dick size? because you can get better at sex dude. You gain experience with the partner. You basically just go over boundaries and figure out where you are and aren't willing to go. Had an ex tell me she wanted ass to mouth and I said yep we aren't compatible! And the more they have had the more they want, the more they expect, the less respect seems to go into it all. It's not for me. I still know girls who are/have waited. Some are more compatible with me, some are not. Everyone is very different and we now live in a time where everything is in all kinds of different shades of gray with no clear approach on how to really know what to expect. I'm trying to find order in the chaos, not become apart of said chaos.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 my dude if that person was willing to go out and have sex like that then they aren't for me period. It shows lack of self discipline which for me is a measure of mental strength. But beyond the morality of it it's disgusting. You might be okay to lock lips with girls who had all kinds of guys finish in their mouth. More power to you. For me that boarders homosexuality.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 So if she has a high body count you don't mind if she cheats? How does that makes sense?
If you can't do it then don't. No one is making you. But don't go around thinking you are better than anyone for it.
God? What God has to do with any of this?
No not dick size. You can both be amazing at sex and not enjoy it with each other. Kinks, dominance, if one likes anal and the other doesn't even rhythm plays a part. But just because she is more experienced and done more things doesn't means she is not sexually compatible with you. Otherwise no one would ever do it with virgins.
Lack of discipline? I love this! You need discipline when doing something that's good for you. Sex is good for you! They don't lack discipline, self control, morals whatever you want to say because sex doesn't take away any of those things.

Tell me this, when you eat a nugget, do you think about the little cute chicks that were killed to make it? Do you think of the blood? Of their bones crushed? No? Good. Neither does anyone think if the pert they are fucking with their previous partners. No matter if one or 100, no one thinks about that. Also showers exist. No trace of those previous men now.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 if she has a high body count we won't be an item so what difference would it make?
"But don't go around thinking you are better than anyone for it."

I didn't I said we are morally incompatible. The idea of being on the same level can mean many things and it could be up, down, or in between. If someone thinks having sex with a minor for instance is okay, obviously they won't be compatible with me. If they think having 100 sex partners is normal and healthy, obviously not either.

Yes God plays a role in sex for me. Do you even know what the white dress symbolizes? Did you even read about the story of Jesus when He confronted the woman at the well? What did He say to her? That she had multiple husbands. That's because in a way when you sleep with someone in His eyes you are married to them.

"Kinks and Dominance" can be talked about before having sex. What's wrong with established boundaries before sex? And even if you have sex with lots of partners everyone accepts that there are people who dont want to have sex on first dates or even the first few weeks. In that time frame weather its 24 hours or 240 hours into the relationship it can be discussed well before. That's what I've done. I told girls I won't be doing anal, period. So if thats what they like they could sacrifice that or find someone else. Tell me where in this was there a problem?

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8
Sex is good for you, so is masturbation. But they have proven a few times a week would be more ideal then daily. Plus thats general rule, not final rule. Some people's bodies are different and dont require as much sex to be pleased. Also there are ways to gratify yourself without intercourse, just saying. Yes discipline plays a huge role. There was a reason harlots were not allowed in the Legionary camps while Rome campaigned away from home. Men have more focus without sex.

That's pretty much common knowledge. Men work harder for things they have to earn, not what is easily within reach. Sex should be with someone you love, not casual hook ups. You might say it's natural, but no its not. Even if you went back to when were were animals or primitives we lived in troops and later tribes so everyone knew everyone and was still bonded. Many bonded by close ethnic and family blood ties. Obviously that's different from girls you just meet on the street or tinder. Don't compare the two, it's simply not the same thing.

I dont eat nuggets. Next question?

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 No trace of those previous men now.

you dont know what goes through her head while you bang her either, just saying. Girls have admitted they close their eyes and think about previous men while in bed WITH THEIR HUSBANDS! so please, it leaves emotional scars or memories too. "she's not your's it's just your turn" does hold some water

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 You are right you won't be an item... You will be her freaking boyfriend. Who she is loyal to.

Again I have nothing against people not wanting a partner with a high value. Men or women. To each their own.

I couldn't give less of a fuck about what religion has to say about MY relationship. Do you have any idea what major mother fuckers christians were all across history? Do you have any idea how many contradictions the bible has? Screw that.

You can talk before sex. You can totally find out that you are not compatible before you fuck. But you can also think you are not, fuck and actually be. You never really know until you try.

I did not said that we need sex to life. Or even to be happy. Doesn't change the fact that it is a healthy and natural thing.

Why not casual hookups? I did it when I was not in a relationship. As long as you are single why not?
It is natural and again the concept of monogamy is recent compared to how long humans exist.

You understood very well what I meant with the nuggets.

Thinking about someone else while you have sex with your partner is not uncommon. I do that still today. What? It happens. Somethings you do you will have done before and get reminded of it. So what? Doesn't mean I wish to be with the girl she just reminder me off instead of her. Not at all.

[t-8900]

Let me apologize in advance in thes next responses not currently at keyboard and on phone and I suck with the auto correct shit. But let me address these okay? So an item means a couple. That's what it means so yeah. Next not everyone who claims to be Christian vis Christian in the he was yes of God. There are so many passages about this dude. Look up "lukewarm Christians bible verses" and just give them an honest read? Please? Before you try to include us all. Next hook ups lead to STDs, herpes, and abortions so yeah that's why. Also could be having sex with a married woman or a girlfriend and not know. I don't want to be apart of such things which are wicked and evil. Next it is sad you are not focused on your wife instead thinking about it j past which you yourself claimed was no longer relevant. If it is want then why cling on?

[t-8900]

*not a everyone who claims to be Christian is Christian in the eyes of God is what I meant to say. Stupid touch pad is too small

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 Don't worry I married in a church. I don't think all christians are bad. But I don't follow their traditional values to a fault.
STDs are easy to avoid as long as you use a condom. Same with abortions. But I am pro choice so...
To have sex with a girl in a relationship... That can happen and is bad. But honestly if I ever did it, I did it without knowing so my conscious is clear.

You have memories? When you are doing anything sometimes you don't recall a similar moment? Like a flash? That is all. Doesn't mean you are not on the moment or that you miss what happened.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 I really don't judge anyone for the choices they make when picking a partner. Unless their choice is an actual serial killer or something drastic. So you do you. And let everyone else do the same.

[t-8900]

Ya see I believe different. You account for your sins before God. So you can be ignorant to the abortion but you still broke the rules and were a chaise for that happening. Also condoms don't protect against herpes and other STDs transferred orally. Also even though it's rare if broken skin meets broken skin you can contract aids and HIV, just saying. If you go to my profile and see list of quotes on it go to them and just read the first one that's how I live my life or try to. I never said anything contrary to people dating who they want. I said they should date who they are okay dating. Had one guy try to strong arm me into dating someone I didn't want to once she revealed her body count. Omg this dude. Because I hey were beautiful friends he was throwing a tantrum as if that's going to help anything. He kept saying for me to stop worrying about God and all that. Does that sound fair to you? I think most would find his behavior abhorrent I'd they had any sense.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 Again I don't blindly follow religion.
Condoms will protect you against most of them. And herpes only gets passed when it's active, which it can be seen.
What are the odds of me getting HIV that way?
No that doesn't sound fair. If you didn't want her you didn't want her and he should respect that.

[t-8900]

Dear Lord you are so wrong on that my dude. Go look it up you can contract without outbreaks. Why do you think so many have it? Time to read up again. Just be thankful you didn't get it. But rates are going up drastically!

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 I did google it. First thing that came up? Up to 90% of the world population already has it! But only between 10-15% actually manifest symptoms. You are correct I was wrong on that one. I am even less worried now.

[t-8900]

That's no what it says it says 67 percent of the world. 1 in 6 has it here in USA... so... yeah I'm worried enough tyvm.

[t-8900]

It has been known to cause sterility. So yeah, not thank you!

[TruthBringer]

@HellGeist @t-8900 You both hit the nail right on the head! Anyone who claims that the bodycount does not affect pair-bonding is obviously ignoring stats out there who prove the contrary. I've made a Take talking about this very topic Why The Number of Sexual Partners Matters ↗

[HellGeist]

@TruthBringer Great stuff, man! I have more to say on the topic in response to the critiques @This_Is_My_Opinion8 made, (which is fair and he is more than welcome to do so) but I do not have the time at the moment.

I will absolutely check out your post, friend.

You are Bringing the Truth as per usual!

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 You and I are not checking the same place for info then.

[t-8900]

It's called webmed and cdc. They are the official sources. Everything else is horse poop. You're welcome to tell yourself what you need to justify things how you see fit. My stance doesn't change and neither do the facts.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer I also saw those stats and already talked with you about it once. A big amount of sexual partners is not the causation is also a consequence.
Lastly, do you know what the difference is? 64% of women who only had their husband as a partner report a very happy marriage. Women with over 21+ partners report had a 57% chance to report an happy marriage. Congratulations in your 7% difference. This again goes to show that the problem doesn't lie in sex itself.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 let's say it's 67%. Doesn't change the fact that it manifest in just a small portion of the population.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Nobody said anything about causation. There is a clear correlation. That is already enough to say that those with higher body-counts are more at risk to bad consequences at life. You can play your mental gymnastics game all you want. But it's obvious that the general stats indicate that the most happy marriages (least divorces) are with the lowest body-count.

The stats of the CDC are more than enough. You can stop your mental gymnastics because nobody is going to buy what you're saying. The statistics speak for themselves. But of course you're desperate to talk against this because you're indoctrinated by the feminist ideology.

[HellGeist]

@t-8900 I did not find out until after I had posted all I did that OP had been raped.

That does indeed change the dynamic, and honestly her situation makes more sense now.

I was under the false impression that she was just one of those "empowered" Tinderella types with a relatively normal, non-traumatic upbringing who was engaging in hook-up culture just because she could.

I did not know she was coming from a place of deep trauma.

My heart deeply goes out to you, @Aerissa_Jade

I am very sorry if I came across as cold or callous. Had I known your history, I would not have written what I did in such a manner.

I still do not think it is healthy on any level for women to engage in a lot of casual sex or have a lot of sexual partners, however the bottom line is that I should have been more sensitive.

So again, my sincere apologies for what you have suffered.

As I said prior, I hope you find what you are looking for in life and I wish you love, peace and healing.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 and it doesn't mean i'm not one that it will manifest in. I'm not dirty. I dont intend to ever be dirty. If being dirty is your thing go be dirty. No thanks! And 1 in 6 americans is NOT 67%. They included places like Africa and poor parts of Asia. So dont even try with that nonsense. I'm not joining the roughly 17% of nasties.

[t-8900]

@HellGeist i explained it to her as well. I mean no offense. I was also raped as a child and between us we went down different roads. The point is still there a lot of guys care about body count regardless. But yes you can certainly empathize with her as I myself do. I could still be friend with such a person but not a spouse or sexual partner. It is what it is. Everyone has different criteria.

[HellGeist]

@t-8900 I'm with you 100%.

[Aerissa_Jade]

@HellGeist Thank you for your apology, I do not hold anything against you.

I love this quote from someone who commented on here a few days ago "We never know the causes and the full picture" on why someone does what they do.

I try not to use it as a excuse and often leave it out, but some things make more sense when the full picture is known. I don't see it as a excuse, more of a reason why I did things that I did.

At that time in my life, I was trying to take control of my life back and it was hard. I was trying to use men, to hurt them how I had been hurt, even though many didn't seem to care. Hard to hurt a guy that just wants some and doesn't care.

I was using them but some good men actually got hurt really bad. Really nice guys and I was a bitch to them, for no other reason than their gender.

Then one guy told me he was glad I was raped, he never would of gotten someone like me had I not been, that hurt bad.

He was glad women get raped so it makes it easier for him to get some. Huge wake up call.

Please just keep that in mind that not everyone thinks of it as hobby or test driving a car.

Had I not been attacked, I likely would have had less than 4 guys and been married with kids by now.

I am a survivor and I will survive and I will find what I am looking for. I will not give up and I am okay if I spend the rest of my life alone, I've accepted that.

@t-8900 Thanks for being a friend.

[HellGeist]

@Aerissa_Jade May God Bless and Protect You.

[t-8900]

@Aerissa_Jade hey no worries. thanks for not taking it wrong.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer I just said that it can be correlation, but the defining factor is not the sex itself. Is just another consequence of a mix of bad behaviors.
The same way a super conservative girl, will not have sex outside if marriage and is also the kind of person who doesn't believe in divorce.
A girl that actually has a functional head over her shoulders can have as much as she wants that in nothing will affect her. I ask you again what does sex does to a person that makes you change who you are?

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 if there is only 17% in the US you have even less to worry about.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 different strokes. I like the sure bets in life.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 No, it's not the sex itself. It is a bunch of other factors that contribute that are often achieved via sex. This is why sex is extremely important within this topic. It is like someone telling another to not drink a lot of beer because that will lead to XYZ. It is not the beer that is leading to XYZ, it is the alcohol that is the cause that comes with the beer. Hence why the beer is used as a strong correlation.

"A girl that actually has a functional head over her shoulders can have as much as she wants that in nothing will affect her."
- That's wishful thinking on your end. Humans are not robots. Even though one can tolerate a certain thing more than another, doesn't mean that this girl with a "good head on her shoulders" is never going to get affected. If she truly has a good head on her shoulders, then she will refrain from overindulging in the act, to begin with. Not push her luck. It's like I can take drugs and not be addicted as fast as another person. Doesn't mean I won't eventually become addicted if I take drugs more and more often. And if I didn't get addicted, it probably already did some damage to my body in one way or another.

Once again your're pulling a bunch of logical fallacies out of thing air trying to run away from obvious statistics. You're obviously incredibly desperate to try and damage control that which you already know but don't dare to acknowledge. Even though the facts are right in your face.

" I ask you again what does sex does to a person that makes you change who you are?"
- Again another red herring. We aren't talking about altered personality. We are talking about emotional baggage, pair-bonding issues, increased chance of divorce and a whole lot of other things that stats are screaming.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer But if she has her witt's about her from the start, her or his works both ways, how will sex affect them? You say it does have an effect and I disagree. I think sex on itself doesn't cause anything. It's another consequence of the personality type that you have. Because what emotional baggage does it give you? How does it gives you bonding issues? Is just sex. Doesn't affect you mentally in any way.

The facts are in my face. Thats why I call having lots of sexual partners a consequence not a causation.
Also 7% more likely to have an unhappy marriage is not enough for me to consider it a serious problem.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer but we are just going to keep going left and right on this. Again.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 you do you. Like I said from the start.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Again you're resorting to logical fallacies such as red herrings and whataboutism. By the way, you started to reply to me. And now you're just backing off because you know I have no issues replying back with debunking every point you make despite us never going to agree with each other.

It seems my analogies went right over your head. Did you even READ what I have written? Did you by mistake read past the anologies I've given you, despite them making a crucial part of my last reply?

"I think sex on itself doesn't cause anything"
- Nobody said that it is the sex itself. You obviously have not read jack shit I wrote. I clearly stated it is about the factors that are achieved VIA sex that cause these statistics to be what they are. No matter how much "witt" he or she has. Stats do not lie. Sure, you should always assess every individual and situation accordingly, but keeping in mind the general rule when assessing the individual is crucial to know what to look out for and if certain red flags are recognized.

With your logic, just because somebody didn't get cancer for smoking for their entire life, that means smoking is not the issue. Despite many others have died thanks to the consequences that came from smoking.

@HellGeist @t-8900Save your breath with this guy. Another person who obviously does not read anything and keeps circling around the same arguments despite them already been addressed.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer On the history of all our conversations never have you ever debunked any of my points.
And don't pretend you didn't saw me here and your first comment was targeting me. No one believes otherwise.

Yes I did wrote and you said it causes emotional baggage, makes it difficult to pair bond etc. You stated those as a consequence of sex.
I agree that stats do not lie. But again we can't blame a consequence instead of a cause. It's like saying there is less oxygen renovation in Brasil, so the animals are leaving their natural habitat must be to blame! No it's actually the destruction of the Amazon forest. You can't blame another consequence for the main problem makes no sense.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 "On the history of all our conversations never have you ever debunked any of my points."
- Your logical fallacies are very easily to be debunked mate. All you have done in the past is divert away, resort to whataboutisms, red herrings and strawman arguments. Even when you're being met with statistics, you do not dare to acknowledge what's infront of you, but rather pull red herrings of statistics to desperately suit your own biased narrative and twist them into strawman arguments to "debunk" the original statement/statistic/argument provided. Yeah, I've studied your way of arguing and you should definitely go sign up for a course on how to debate.

@HellGeist And I are both following each other so his comments are being presented as one of the top. And I happen to see you comment under his post. The fact you think I merely come here just because you happen to be here is quite the wishful thinking on your end. You're not so special as you think, pal.

Yesh those are consequence of sex. In most cases that is. You see sex as just some physical practise that doesn't have any mental or emotionial or hormonal effect on the human body, while SCIENCE clearly did prove this out to be the case. So yes, sex DOES lead to these consequences. And therfore a strong correlation with it is being made. It is not the sex itself that is the cause of thinks such as pair-bonding issues and emotional baggage. Sex happens to be the gateway towards the factors that contribute to these issues.

Once again I am repeating myself and once again you are NOT reading anything I've said. No wonder you're not convinced I haven't dissected anything you've said in the past if you do not bother read what the other has to say, in the first place. Ignorance is bliss obviously.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

"saying there is less oxygen renovation in Brasil, so the animals are leaving their natural habitat must be to blame! No it's actually the destruction of the Amazon forest."
- First of all, animals don't provide oxygen, in fact they are not correlated with lack of oxygen reproduction in Brasil. It is thanks to lack of oxygen that animals are leaving. You're basically comparing animals to consequences such as pair-bonding issues and emotional baggage. While these two things are CONSEQUENCES of something that has allowed it to happen. Your analogy fell flat on its face. Jesus Christ, you're making a fool out of yourself more and more. To fix your little analogy, the reason why lack of oxygen in Brasil can be said is due to overconsumption and deforestation. That has lead towards lack of oxygen regeneration which LEADS to animals leaving.

So the sex is equivalent to cutting trees. The oxygen regeneration issues (which has lead animals to leave) is equivalent to the factors that contribute towards emotional baggage and pair-bonding issues.

@CasaNorba Come have a laugh.

[CasaNorba]

@TruthBringer OTFRL!! wow that lack of oxygen in Brazil comparison almost made fall of my chair

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer You know that you saying something doesn't inherently make it true right? You can say you did this and that, but all it happened was you failing to give my arguments proper response. Simple as that.

But that SCIENCE, that you even wrote in caps is what I have been asking for! Give me the science, the proves that say that it gives emotional baggage and makes you lose the ability to bond. Tell something palpable. Like "it changes this forever in your body and you lose the ability to pair bond". Again just saying it does proves nothing.

Please you really do keep repeating yourself while failing to really address what I wrote. I am asking for solid evidences on how sex causes what you say it does. Because while sex messes with your hormones, their levels go back to normal soon after. So, again, bring me data that is sex that inherently causes what you say it does.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer "First of all, animals don't provide oxygen, in fact they are not correlated with lack of oxygen reproduction in Brasil"

You didn't understood what I said at all. And then you accuse me of not reading...
I know it's not related! That is the point! You can't blame a consequence or deforestation for the other consequences of deforestation. The same way you can't blame tons of sex, a possible consequence of having bad character, for the other consequences that come with having a bad character.
Did you understood now? Next time I make a drawing.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer also, leaving the metaphor aside... No the animals are not leaving due the lack of oxygen, they are leaving because the trees are being cut down and they don't have how to live, hide, eat, etc.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer consider that another proof that you talk about what you don't know.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 why do you continue with this? if you're so firm in your belief then move on because clearly you dont care after all, right? so why are you trying to justify something when none of us will ever agree with you on it?

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 I am fine with people not agreeing with me. But if he wants to continue this discussion we will.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 to what end? Its a dead end discussion.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 it might be already over.

[TruthBringer]

@t-8900 Yeah I won't bother discuss with him. I am used to debunk his logical fallacies but if someone will only come with logical fallacies, it simply gets boring. I might aswell go discuss with people with viable ideas rather than to argue with someone who is not only indoctrinated with the feminist ideology, but is also so dead on dismissing stats and facts.

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 And for that, I didn't even bother read your essay because you've already bored me with your last

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 You obviously didn't understood what I meant with science either. Since I recall talking about that sience pointed out that sex is an act that will have affect on factors such as hormones, the physical body and mental conditions of people. One obvious example is that hormones such as oxytocin release during sex. THAT is the SCIENCE I was talking about. Go practise your reading comprehension.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer
You would learn a thing or two if you did. Specially because not only you didn't understood my example, but you also said that animals left the Amazon due to the levels of oxygen decreasing. Proven very clearly you have no idea of the things you talk about.
Also reading comprehension not your best. I know hormonal levels change with sex, but like I said they get back to normal after. Having sex doesn't permanently changes your hormonal levels. So, again, explain how does sex is supposed to have the efects you claim it does.

[t-8900]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I disagree. Source: me. It changed me forever and made me far more horny that I couldn't control my urges. Go talk to rape victims or pornstars and they will tell you the same thing.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@t-8900 how about I talk with science that says that their hormonal level do get back to normal after sex?
What those women tall about is finding out how good sex can be. Like trying chocolate. Is good so you want more. Doesn't mean that chocolate changed your hormonal levels.

[t-8900]

Ask OP and she'll tell you the same thing. It changed us. We didn't get exposed normally

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I love how you just wallow in ignorance and denial when clearly stats show a correlation between amount of sexual partners and all the side-effects we have discussed. You obviously did not get the memo that we are talking about sex with DIFFERENT PARTNERS. So all we have discussed so far is not relevant and will not apply when someone has sex with just 1 partner. Sex is a healthy thing if done the right way. And it seems that slutting your way through countless bodies is not the 'right way' to do things.

But of course this will once again go right over your head and you're so fixated about the sex itself (red herring once again) when the actual topic being discussed is the number of sexual partners. It isn't my fault your analogy fell flat on its face. As well as it is not my fault nor my issue that you resort to logical fallacies to desperately run away from the actual topic being discussed. Typical behavior of someone who can't deal with cognitive dissonance.

Try again.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer That is actually a point in my favor. Thanks! You said that sex causes trouble to pair bond and gives you emotional baggage, and you keep failing to say how sex causes it. Another prove that it doesn't is that if a lot of sex is done with just one person, changes nothing. So sex in on itself changes nothing! That was a big shot on the floot.
So again, a big amount of sex partners is not the causation is another consequence commonly present in certain personalities.

Fine I will change the question then. Tell me how having many partners inherently makes you lose the ability to pair bond and gives you emotional baggage. What happens on your brain and body that causes that with many people that doesn't cause with just one.

See how easy it can be to end this? Just answer the previous question that I have been asking for the longest time now.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Sex with multiple partners will lead to that. Not the sex itself. Because if you have sex with just one person, you'll keep bonding with that person vs if you have sex with multiple people, your brain is trying to bond with multiple people which is a dead end. This is one of the reasons why so many women are in a mental turmoil. They open themselves up physically and emotionally to men who don't give a rat's ass about them other than having a fun time at that moment. And frankly, they have themselves to blame for allowing that regardless if they are naive or not.

"Tell me how having many partners inherently makes you lose the ability to pair bond and gives you emotional baggage. "
- This is quite a nuanced question. Like we all said before, check the statistics and you will have some idea of what range is "safe" and what isn't. Another RED HERRING to run away from these very statistics I once again re-direct you at. Your "question" which is nothing but a logical fallacy is hereby once again dismissed.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 "So again, a big amount of sex partners is not the causation is another consequence commonly present in certain personalities."
- Oh yeah? Where is YOUR science on this dramatic conclusion? Because the things we say, science is still trying to figure this one out on a causional level even though it did prove there is a CORRELATIONAL level. And the fact there is a CORRELATION is already enough to be cautious about this and conclude that having sex with multiple people will increase the risks of leading to certain bad consequences such as increased rate of failed relationships for example. You're desperately trying to find a causation, which you are not being given and therefore you're like "HA! That means it's all bullshit!". Which is a big error in judgment in itself. If you've ever attended university and had to deal with statistics, you will know that correlations are extremely important to be directed to certain conclusions (I bet you've never heard of a P-value and nul-hypothesis).

Jesus Christ you're desperate...

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer You say they do, but you still don't give prove that it actually works like that.
Women can and do have sex, just for sex. No emotions attached.
Also let's say they have lots of sex with just one person in a serious relationship. On your logic that would make it almost impossible for them to pair bond with another guy since they have such an emotional bond with him. Yet it doesn't work like that.
Also funny how you focus on women were when stats show that over 21+ partners decreases men's average happiness in marriage more than it does women.

My question is perfectly valid and you run away from it because you know that the true answer you have is "because that's how red pill guys say things are".

I agree with you that if a person has tons of sexual partners it can be an indicative that he or she have problems with their personality. You want to be careful is called for. Totally. But is not mandatory, exactly because it's not related to the number of sex partners, buy to the who the person is. And remember that it affects women's happiness in marriage only by 7%. No big effect here.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 "Also let's say they have lots of sex with just one person in a serious relationship. On your logic that would make it almost impossible for them to pair bond with another guy since they have such an emotional bond with him. "

- I stopped reading from there. I'm done. I don't plan on reading your comments full of logical fallacies when you clearly are either not reading what I'm saying or obviously twisting everything I say. I was VERY clear that which you just put in my mouth was not being said. Go be on your way. You can't read for shit. I stick to the stats and you go stick to whatever feminist biased wishful thinking you want

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer I also said that just because you simply say something doesn't make it true, but if you don't want to read then there is no conversation to be had.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I don't say things are true just because I happen to say them. Myself and others here have pointed out that studies show a clear correlation. But you want to play mental gymnastics with your logical fallacies to beat around that bush. Not to forget to mention you're either deliberately twisting my words, are not reading jack shit what I'm saying or need some serious reading comprehension practise. There is no conversation to be had with you because of those very reasons. Not to forget to mention you're not truly trying to understand or learn from others since much of what has been said goes against your feminist indoctrination. Ciao ciao.

[t-8900]

https://images.app.goo.gl/DmAFAFzAP5mKBYGd7

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer there is no mental gymnastics. To question if something is the causation or also a consequence is perfectly valid.
I read what you write. Just before you said that what you are defending only applies if the person has multiple partners, but not if just has lots of sex with one. I read it. I just said that that doesn't make sense and turn it into a point in my favor.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer that is the biggest difference between you and me. You actually think I am indoctrinated. That I am not thinking with my own head. You don't question your own believes. I do. I know that you and I have more common ground than you think. But you are far to sense to realize it.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Nope. You're not just turning it into your "favor". You're literally re-wording what the other says. Which is an INVALID way of having a discussion. When someone says A, you can't pretend they said B. That doesn't make sense and makes you look like an utter fool.

The difference between you and me is that I do not beat around the bush when presented with statistics and try to dismiss them just because they aren't answering a research question that they weren't intended to answer, in the first place. That's the REAL difference between you and me. Next to the fact that unlike you, I did not grow up with female ideals around me and didn't continue believing in them despite so many flaws and contradicting statistics around. Sorry mate, but you cannot convince anyone you're not indoctrinated with feminist ideas when not only did you grow up within a single-mother households, but you also married a feminist. Next to the fact you're mostly sticking up for women. W hich is your life, by the way and none of my business. But based on these information (that you provided), it doesn't strike me as a surprise you're anti red pill and all that.

"My question is perfectly valid and you run away from it because you know that the true answer you have is "because that's how red pill guys say things are"."
- Not only was your question a red herring which you seem not to understand what that means, you are also provided with stats (the ones we speak of) that are NOT coming from the red pill. These stats are from actual bureaus of statistics such as the CDC and more. So there goes your "rEd pIlL hUr DuR" argument.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer but I didn't said that you said A or B. You said that issues only come for having sex with many partners, not for having a lot of sex with one. I said that doesn't make sense because if one actually can't separate emotions from sex than after so many emotional investment in one person, to change to another should be hard. Yet is isn't.

I do support stats and facts. I never once said I didn't believe them in fact I all for them. But for example, boys are far more likely to dropout of school. They are also way more likely to have bad grades. Statistical fact. But why is that? The why matters doesn't it? Why doesn't it matter to you now? Because it fits into your red pill narrative. Simple as that.
About me. My mother never once was about female supremacy. In fact she always told me the man was the head of the house.
My wife like me says both men and women have problems in this world.
I defend what I believe in. Not what a random group tells me to believe. Unlike you.

Again, I never questioned the numbers of the stats. I am questioning the "why". That is all.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

Look I am going to say it one last time. Lots of sex done with 1 partner is far better and leads to true bonding compared to sex with multiple partners. The less partners the better (stats show). Also, from a neurological point of view, it makes absolutely sense why pair bonding issues occur as sex is not just some physical act you get to do and then move on and forget about. It involves the brain on a neurological level. It is known to be a bonding tool, especially for women. You cannot JUST separate emotions from sex like you want. This seems to be an easier thing in men, even though not always, but for women it is less likely to be the case, not impossible, but less likely.
If you supports stats and figures then you will love to read the book called “Hooked” by Joe S. Mcilhaney. This book has been featured by the Medical Institute of Sexual Health. It talks about the topic with scientific research explained in layman’s terms. You can buy it or read it for free here:

books.google.nl/books

@CasaNorba @t-8900 @HellGeist I recommend you guys to take a look at it as well.

“ I defend what I believe in. Not what a random group tells me to believe. Unlike you.”
- You defend the information that you grew up with and have been dealing with all your life. You've been raised with no proper masculine and active man in your life from day 1 and that makes the major difference. While this “random group” you speak of actually happens to preach what I have been believing in before I even got to know them. So nice try, buddy. It seems that this “random group” to be more right than you on the matter of this subject. On both levels of CDC statistics as well as that book debunking your belief-system. Enjoy reading the scientific studies (which I doubt you will since you’re not open-minded as you claim to be).

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

“Again, I never questioned the numbers of the stats. I am questioning the "why". That is all.”
- There is a difference between questioning with a “why” and flat-out dismissing stats because they don’t suit your narrative. You’ve been doing the latter since day 1. Good luck debunking that book and all the scientific articles it discusses. Don’t bother replying until you do.

Another bonus article written by a woman for you here:
psiloveyou.xyz/what-happens-to-your-brain-after-having-too-much-casual-sex-41a206c7f303

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer And wouldn't that true bonding make it very hard to ever bind with anyone else in case that relationship ends? It's true bonding after all.
But sex can be both. Sex can be just a physical act or a way to bond. People who have sex with strangers are not there for the bonding part.
"You cannot JUST separate emotions from sex" yes you can. It's 100% possible to have sex without any emotions involved. Glory holes exist. What emotions are involved there?

Information I grew up with? Dude this is all things that I find online. Not something anyone told me. I didn't believed anything, none of this was ever discussed with me. You think it was because for you world to make sense my mother must have been saying this and that to me. No. Really nothing that I am defending here was taught by anyone. In fact if I ask my mother she will say that she is against people having lots of uncommitted sex. She is quite conservative.
But unlike you who already had your brain conditioned to believe something, I did my own research. I came to my own conclusions. And I stand by them even when I don't have a group of butter dudes who believe the same as me.

But I am questioning why, not dismissing stats.

Are you really going to use a article written in a site called PSIloveyou as reliable?

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Love how you completely neglected the CDC sources and that book I very obviously have pointed to you and went straight to that bonus article which if you have read, she author REFERENCES STUDIES. So yes, it makes it reliable. It's no different than a newspaper telling you news and referring to the source of this news. *Massive facepalm*

You can rant all you want but you're obviously incapable to provide actual proof to your beliefs. We aren't talking about gloryholes, we are talking about normal sexual intercourse within and outside relatoinship contexts. Not gloryholes where hookers are being paid. So nice strawman argument there. Which is a funny strawman argument actually because promiscuity within things such as prostitution (including your gloryhole example) are people who are able to keep emotions out because their neurological synapsis have become desensitized from the oxytocin, which is indeed why they can separate emotions from sex. So you've actually only provided me examples that prove my own point, that of others and that of research (including that book I've sourced you).

Yes, it is possible to separate emotions from sex. That is AFTER you have went through the turmoil of brain chemistry because of sex. And THAT is what we are discussing here. You HAVE to go through that threshold in order to be able to not be affected. Hence why pair-bonding is very hard if not almost impossible at that point. And I'm mostly saying this about women as this is especially mostly applicable to them. Like a drug abuser who needs a higher dose in order to get high on the drug since they fucked up their neuron receivers. . You think you can drink 3 bottles of beer from day 1 without getting drunk or at the very least tipsy? Those who can drink a lot before they become drunk happen to be experienced drinkers.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

"But unlike you who already had your brain conditioned to believe something, I did my own research."
- SAYS THE DUDE CONTRADICTING RESEARCH ITSELF HAHAHA. Sure mate, you definitely "did" your "own" research. Hence why your entire belief-system when it comes to this topic contradicts studies themselves. It's obvious at this point that you do not believe in science when you've been provided with scientific research.

No one claimed your mom is this or that or that she did a poor job raising you. The point here is that you grew up without a stable masculine person in your life. And that's when you start to develop more affinity for female energy and women in general while pushing away anything that is inheritely masculine or slightly biased towards masculinity. It doesn't strike me as a surprise since dudes with your background tend to end up on that road (marrying feminists or trying to simp their way into women's graces).

I told you to reply to me after you've read my sources and are able to come with counter-sources to debunk anything mentioned in that book so far. But no, you decided to come back after your ego is bruised and decided to throw more damage control to beat around the bush. You failed once more, try again.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer I don't have a way to prove that the large number of partners is not a cause, but a consequence. But remember that neither you could disprove it. Why? Because no study was done in that sense.
About the book there is also books written by psychologists who basically say that toxic masculinity exists. Shall we take those seriously as well? You can't have double standards you either agree with all or with nothing.

You know that the concept of glory holes exist outside of porn right? You can pay as a random guy or girl to do this at the right place. This is just an example of sex that doesn't requires any sort of emotion.
Oh there oxytocin argument! Ya that one is funny, because while there was the hypotheses that it was linked to hypersexual disorder, it hasn't been proven yet. www.scimex.org/.../love-hormone-oxytocin-may-be-linked-to-sex-addiction

No you don't have to go through any threshold. Where did you took that from? Is this the oxytocin argument again? See answer above.

Actually no, I didn't contradict myself. You did however showed that you were the endoctrinated one. You already had previous beliefs put in your head. You didn't do your own research you were told something and now you chose to believe it no matter how many holes the theory has. You are literally what you accuse me of being!

"And that's when you start to develop more affinity for female energy". This again is just a red pill belief. I just googled this to see if there are any articles that specially prove this and nothing.

Regarding this last part read the top of my comment. Again you agree with all or with nothing.
Better luck next time.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer I actually found a study. Here www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../#!po=50.9709

"Secondly, ‘masculinity’ (consisting of high scores on masculine traits, low fear, and physical and verbal aggression) was not associated with father absence"

" It is therefore very unclear exactly how father absence, particularly father absence due to parental separation, relates to gender role development in males."

"Father-absent men were neither more reactive nor more masculine than father-present men."

Mic drop.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 "About the book there is also books written by psychologists who basically say that toxic masculinity exists. Shall we take those seriously as well? "

- HAHAHAH Okay I'm done. I'm so fucking done. I ain't going to read any more of that. This guy pulled the most massive red herring there is and just jumped towards toxic masculinity when that's not even the fucking topic of this whole post. Dude. Have it your way, I'm honestly done. 😂

That study did not even disprove jack shit of what I'm saying because the argument wasn't that growing up without a father makes you less straight or a man. "Mic dropped" HAHAHAH you didn't even understand the whole premise of that study 😂😂😂

Dude I'ts obvious you don't want to take a look at people's sources. That whole book destroyed your beleif system and all you can do is run away from it. Liek I said, go do you. I've seen enough 😂

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

""Father-absent men were neither more reactive nor more masculine than father-present men.""
- This literally did not disprove ANYTHING I said as the argument wasn't whether men who grew up with a father are more masculine. Also, this quote you yourself have given says "more". The men who grew up without a father AREN'T MORE reactive or masculine. So it means that a kid without a father isn't necessarily MORE masculine than a kid who did.

"" It is therefore very unclear exactly how father absence, particularly father absence due to parental separation, relates to gender role development in males.""
- No shit sherlock, this wasn't even an argument, to begin with. For fucks sake, why am I even bothering. You're On a serious damage control with this massive red herring of yours and not only that, you're pulling random studies and quotes that do not disprove jack shit I've said. While the book I referenced discusses the ACTUAL topic at hand.

Dude, go back to your wife 😂

[TruthBringer]

REALLY? Did you bring a study about a DISORDER? Once wher ethey couldn't even pinpoint whether it is caused by high levels of oxytocin. Jesus Christ not only are you not realizing you're not making a strong stance here, but you're also so incredibly desperate to search for random studies that would somehow remotely validate your thoughts, while these studies are not even meant to do that, in the first place 😂😂

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer I didn't read the book I just know it exists. But thing is just because it exists doesn't mean what it says is true. Feel free to say the same thing about the sources I just put down. But I actually did some research in the book and funny enough people seem to agree with me.
Let me quote one of the appreciations.
"Strong conservative view, biases, and lacking something more"
Another
"Although I agree with a lot of what is said, it was written with such a glaring agenda that it makes it difficult to take it seriously."
BOOM! This is what most of comments looked like. As you can see I doubted that book and I was right. I am not even sorry.

Actually it does I absolutely does disproves everything you said. You are backpedaling now. That study literally says that boys raised only by the mother don't have more feminine energy, like you called it. Frame it anyway you want.

Random studies? A study that actually goes against what you believe is random? Not valid? I wonder...

Here is the resume...
You pull off a book made by an extremely bias guy with an agenda to make women pure.

Your argument on oxytocin is false because it hasn't been proven yet.

Your argument on masculinity of those raised by mothers is also false and clearly red pill endoctrinated.

And finally you were the endoctrinated one since unlike me you actually had ideas drilled in your head.

That's all fowls!

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I stopped reading wehn you mentioned that you didn't read it and even if you did doesn't mean it is true despite the fact that it references scientific research. You don't bother read the sources given to you and neither am I interested in further reading your pathetic comments. You've obviously never attended University and neither are you a man of science. And therefore, you're not to be bothered with any longer. Go be in your feminist bubble and be on your way now.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer then let me enlighten you boy. Many comments on the book called it for the bias mess that it is. Such as...
"Although I agree with a lot of what is said, it was written with such a glaring agenda that it makes it difficult to take it seriously"

You might not believe this, but there is a far right agenda going on. Again that is the difference between you and me! I am aware that both sides have agendas and I avoid extreme views. You don't. It's sad because you are not without capacities and yet you can't see past what was endoctrinated on you.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Lmfao let me guess, those comments are from the alt left completely ignoring the scientific studies. So if these studies draw a conclusion, how can an author NOT draw an overall conclusion himself when stats and studies are screaming certain conslusions?

It's obvious you're desperate to dismiss the book because it does not serve your own biased views. Sadly for you, peer reviewed science doesn't lie. Try again, boy.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer completely bias book. I put it in question and you were all happy saying how wrong I was for it. Yet I was right. Agenda fueled bias and nothing more.

Again you have no idea what you have been turned into. It's honestly sad, but it is what it is.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Claiming something is wrong without elaborating with viable scientific sources that can easily debunk and prove your claim is a very idiotic way to prove something is wrong. And therfore, you have not proven anything wrong. Calling something biased without proper elaboration is not going to disprove the source, especially if arguments by the use of various scientific studies across many factors are used as references.

You think the beauty of that book is in the text of the author. Anyone who studied at a University knows that the beauty is in the list of references. But you would have known that if you even attended Univsersity, in the first place.

Guess what I did when I first discovered that book? I went straight for the references while ignoring the actual text of the author. Checking if his references were peer reviewed studies, which apparently they are. So once again, you failed miserably in making your point.

All you did was "hur dur this is biased!" while ignoring many scientific studies presented. *yawn* arguing with you is utterly boring and unproductive. I can already smell the next logical fallacy coming. As I said, believe whatever nonesense you want to believe. I stick to the scientific studies.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

"Again you have no idea what you have been turned into. It's honestly sad, but it is what it is."
- Coming from the dude who married a feminist talking to an Officer fighter pilot in training soon going to the US for the next 2 years, who grew up in a stable family unit as well as having a wonderful relationship while being the main provider while simultaneously keeping his girl satisfied in every area. Oh so bad of what I've become 😂

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer Neither can you. You have no idea if the data he presents is truthful or not. However you do have people who read the book say that basically is hilariously bias. I wasn't surprised. At all.

Like I said I didn't read it. I don't know of he made his own discoveries or if he is quoting others. Doesn't invalidade the previous point.

I agree that this is boring. Specially after you messed up so many times already. The oxytocin and the single mother effect on masculinity being the most recent ones.

Yes, says the engineer in an international company, married to a woman who knows to toes her own shoes, thinking about being a father soon and with very loving and caring family around me. Doesn't include a father and someone like him is not necessary.

But that is not what you I say you are. Props to you on what you have achieved. Doesn't prevent you from being indoctrinated. With you very much are.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Hahhah so you admit to not reading shit and already implying that the factual points and conclusions presented are invalid. So you don't read jack shit and already dismiss it as invalid or unreliable, despite all the scientific studies OF OTHERS (that have been peer reviewed) that he is presenting in his book. I already told you those aren't his own studies. They are of other bureaus and scientists and he is merely presenting them. What an epic fail on your end. That's basically what you are doing. Whether something is biased or not is irrelevant to the actual facts given. For an "engineer" you sure don't sound like one given your attitude towards scientific research.

A true engineer doesn't dismiss scientific research simply because it doesn't suit his way of thinking. Not only that, he also doesn't resorts to all kinds of logical fallacies just to try and get away from references presented. And yet you're claiming I'm the one who "failed miserably". Love the projection there.

"I agree that this is boring. Specially after you messed up so many times already. The oxytocin and the single mother effect on masculinity being the most recent ones."
- Not sure how I messed up where considering this was never even the discussion in the first place, but rather your useless attempt at an red herring. FAIL.

Keep living in denial, mate. And keep running from scientific research. Not figuring that the person who wrote that book is not using his own scientific research, but is rather referencing to MANY OTHERS. One who also happens to be the founder of the Medical Institution of Sexual Health HAHAH.

Sit down now, boy. The cognitive dissonance coming off of you stinks badly.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer Oh but I have read... I read the critics and was not surprised to find that people though it was so bias it was not even worth taking seriously.
And if they are saying so is because he is misinterpreting the studies that he himself is quoting. Simple as that. I know I know that you want to cling on that book for dear life, but a book for a bias author doesn't mean much.

Oh I question everything. That's part of my job. Continue to pilot and leave the thinking to the others deal?

Actually they were a topic of discussion at some point. Your memory is not the best is it?

Again, a book misinterpreting scientific studies and make a book out of it doesn't prove much. But I am repeating myself at this point. I know how brainwashed you are mate and you believe whatever you want to believe. You don't even realize how many times you messed up along this conversation. I still haven't forgot that you said "Animals in Brazil leave the forest because of the decrease in oxygen renovation". You think you know about the stuff you talk about, but you really don't. It's just sad when people don't know their place.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

You read critics, yet you ignored that this book received a good rating from the majority. It actually scored quite high in the reviews. So you base your conclusions on certain things people said rather than checking the referred sources provided. *slow clap* Such a scientific way to draw conclusions. There are media out there who expose fake science and the books doesn't seem to be there as "fake science".

Why? Because it didn’t publish its own research, but rather cited that of other peer reviewed ones. If we are going to jump to conclusions right off the bat, then I can say those critics have their own agenda and are mad the book didn’t suit their biased views. Yet I’ve not read a SINGLE critic proving the book to be wrong (good luck doing that with all the reviewed scientific studies presented).
“And if they are saying so is because he is misinterpreting the studies that he himself is quoting.”
- You didn’t read the book, so you’re just drawing baseless conclusions. Another fail on your end. Try harder.

“Again, a book misinterpreting scientific studies and make a book out of it doesn't prove much.”
- Invalid argument. You didn’t read the book to even know this. Again, fail harder.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8“

I know how brainwashed you are mate and you believe whatever you want to believe. You don't even realize how many times you messed up along this conversation.”

- AWh, backtracking because you failed to disprove the sources I’ve thrown at you. And that with a “fight” you yourself started. Enjoy your L, little boy.

“I still haven't forgot that you said "Animals in Brazil leave the forest because of the decrease in oxygen renovation". “
- Last time I checked, you were the one who came with this analogy that failed right off the bat.

“You think you know about the stuff you talk about, but you really don't. It's just sad when people don't know their place.”
- Says the guy desperately trying to contradict science and fails miserably in the process. Again, enjoy your massive L.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

“Continue to pilot and leave the thinking to the others deal?”
- Thanks for proving you don’t know what being a pilot means. @KrakenAttackin, perhaps you can educate this man on what it means to be an Officer fighter pilot and all the tasks one must do pre-flight and post-flight. It seems that this guy doesn't know that flying is actually a small percentage of my (and previously your) line of work.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer Funny thing is I don't need to try harder. Not half as you are anyway. Yes you can say the critics had their agenda. Fell free to do it.
It didn't surprised me at all with the negative reviews. Of course it has many people like you who will read it and love it because it makes just so much sense to them oh my god. Still bias with an agenda. I didn't read it, but I am sure I would be of the same option.

Wow how much triggered are you? You don't like to hear the truth? Aren't you the truth bringer? Clearly not as we have already established. Like I said before there is a big difference between you and I, in resume you can call it self awareness which you certainly lack.

Oh no my friend. I made an analogy that you failed to understand. And then you tried to present that absurd thing as a fact, in a attempt to disprove an analogy you didn't even understood. You said it like it was a fact, not me. And the very claim is ridiculous. If you haven't shot yourself in the foot enough times.

Contradict science? You are funny. I am contradicting a guy with a clear agenda. Like you are. But I guess is fair that you also dismissed the studies I gave about oxytocin and masculinity... except... oh wait they were not book misinterpreting things they were actual scientific studies. Silly me.
Again, know your place.
.
I never said it was an easy job. That you don't have to make split second decisions. But let's be real what job requires the most amount of knowledge? Yours or mine?

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

The dude resorting to all kinds of logical fallacies as well as dismissing presented scientific research is calling others “triggered”. Oh the irony. I can tell your ego is bruised. So mad because you couldn’t contradict jack shit myself and the others have said.
“I am contradicting a guy with a clear agenda”
- Really? And yet you failed to provide any counter-source or valid arguments contradict anything he said, let alone all the scientific studies (not his own) that he mentioned. If this is what you call a contradiction, then it must be the most idiotic contradiction I’ve ever seen. So much for an “engineer”.
“But I guess is fair that you also dismissed the studies I gave about oxytocin and masculinity.”
- Those weren’t even part of the topic, in the first place. It is only fair to dismiss a red herring because it is an invalid argument. Hence why it is called a FALLACY.
“But let's be real what job requires the most amount of knowledge? Yours or mine?”
For someone who claims to use more knowledge, you are very keen on dismissing scientific knowledge. Quite the irony of someone who happens to be an engineer who had to write a thesis. Also, being a pilot is more than flying and planning. In order to be able to fly, we have intensive training where you have to dive deep in the books of SCIENTIFIC TOPICS such as aerodynamics. Not to forget to mention having to know how to deal with real-time data when planning strategic missions. We both deal with knowledge, just in separate areas. Another fail attempt there, pal.
“I made an analogy that you failed to understand.”
– Your analogy lacked logical order from the very start, which caused it to fail flat on its face. Not my issue you cannot produce accurate analogies to topics being discussed. Fail, once again.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

Here, enjoy these screenshots showing all the scientific papers you chose to dismiss. Don’t worry, you can zoom in.

https://gyazo.com/c83686e49c2b6ffc6d9ba06e4bc81d69

https://gyazo.com/fda5b3baec71a2f7157eaaf0ecf50a34

https://gyazo.com/4306ca9b4f325d927d8acb19159440fa

https://gyazo.com/bad4063898c2d5bac553a1f09448bfc8

https://gyazo.com/fb7569ad1a306cacd2824bf4af66d2af

https://gyazo.com/87af7db53d5a0a708c4d353a041d7235

https://gyazo.com/787c1698fc37e8d2fc66944f4a06aa5c

https://gyazo.com/31cedcbc115c29e466f78ac8034bf915

https://gyazo.com/76050a8c351529caa5234a1da3ec9d5a

Now go lick your L.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer You clearly are from the way you are responding. You know it and I know it, but fine let's pretend we don't.
What you call logical fallacies are actually very easy observations. That you fail to see, but that is trend at this point.

I didn't contradicted him because I didn't read what he said. But I did read the reviews they were as expected. This is simple to understand.

Yes those were very much part of the topic at some point. You are trying to dismiss them because you feel like you lost there. Don't worry you lost everywhere else too.

Buddy I had a guy fresh out air force on my degree. Actually we had one from the army and one from the air force. Both said the theory that we gave in engineering was by far harder than the things you had to learn during their time serving.

1. You not getting it doesn't make it illogical. You just call everything illogical in an weak attempt to dismiss it. Kind of a trend too.
2. Doesn't change the fact that you said something completely absurd after and tried to sell it as fact.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer
I love this! Hahahah you actually gave yourself that trouble? You do realize that you just gave me the titles of the studies he saw right? None of them by the title says if he actually did a correct I interpretation of them or not. It's literally just the title of the studies. What do they say? Now good question.
I have an idea let's look at one. In fact the only one, literally only one, study of all of those talks about pair bonding and it's relation with romantic love. I went and looked for what it said. It address polygamy, arranged marriages, divorce and infidelity. They called it the four challenges. The premise basically was how can romantic love evolved to help us pair bond if those four things exist. That is it. Promiscuity is not on the topic and is not addressed at any time. But of course your dear author used this took it out of context and voila.
So literally one single study he saw that talks about pair bonding and it didn't addressed the main topic. This was too good!
You really thought this was going to be it didn't you? So sad.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I love how you got so fixated on the piloting stuff when that shit is on par with university level in my country. And also that you don't seem to know that I finished Uni before even applying for fighter pilot training. Don't worry mate, I know very well the difference between what uni gives and what the air force academy teaches.

Oh look, mister is still ranting while neglecting all those references. If you don't think he references any of the studies, then you're out of your mind. You hold no credibility trying to "debunk" anything when you didn't even bother read jack shit of what he says. You went straight to reviews that they themselves failed to disprove anything he said. People call Jordan Peterson biased, yet he is spot on on many things. That's why he gets so much hate from all sides, because he shoved some harsh facts in people's throats.

You claim he takes shit out of context while you didn't even read anything. So how would you know? OMFG THIS IS WAY TOO GOOD. So fucking desperate you are. Pair bonding IS the actual topic discussed under this comment section. Are you daft? 😂😂😂

So you looked at 1 single study out of all the referenced and then talk about how promiscuity is not being discussed? Did you check all the others? Let alone read the book? Of course you didn't. "bUt bUt Te rEviEwS sAy He iS biAseD wAh wAh!" This is just absurd at this point.
Keep running away from sources mate. Go be on your way now, I'm honestly just too embarassed for you.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Go be on your way. There is no point in continuing here. I don't need to argue with someone so keen on dismissing presented studies and plays all kinds of mental gymnastics to try and disprove them while not even having properly looked at them or the author presenting them.

Mate, want to have the last word, I'm willing to give it. I've already had my fair share of laughs

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer Oh you did? What degree did you took before joining air force?
You were the one who wanted to ahut down my point of you being indoctrinated by saying what you did for a living and that you had a housewife. One thing doesn't invalidades the other.

You were the one who sent them without properly analysing them. And now I am to blame for that? That is your fuck up not mine. When I told my job was to quests everything? See how I actually looked at the list of references and you just snap them without paying attention? I told you we are different.

And again you try to run and hide. Your entire argument was that promiscuous women had a hard time pari bonding. Yet none of the sources on the book you so shared like it was the second bible addresses it. You put a noose around you head, jumped and now here we are.

I looked at the one that remotely talked about the main topic. What other one did you expect me to read? I am actually feel sorry for you now I really do. Everything could have been left on "we agree to disagree". But you brought the book and dug a no end hole for yourself.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer perfect time for you to run away honestly after that colossal shot in the foot. I understand why you want to back away now. It was fun!

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

Bachelor’s degree mate. I don’t have a housewife, because I’m not married. I never claimed I did. Nice job making stuff up.
Not sent them without proper analysis? You didn’t even read the damn book. if someone is taking shit out of context it is you, because you didn’t even bother read what the author’s intentions were when he put it in his reference. I simply sent you screenshots to all the studies you chose to dismiss 😂
Promiscuous women do have a hard time pairbonding. All the references thrown at you and you still choose to dismiss them 😂
“Yet none of the sources on the book you so shared like it was the second bible addresses it.”
- You didn’t even take a look at 50% of them let alone read them to draw that conclusion. Again, read the book LMFAO.
“I looked at the one that remotely talked about the main topic. What other one did you expect me to read?”
- The book LMFAO

Also, nowhere does it mean that being "biased" that you're wrong. Many scientists become biased because a certain thing has been proven UNTIL that certain thing becomes disproven. Ever see the lessons of Richard Feynman? Didn't thinks so. So do you blame the author for being "biased" when all the sources he references in his text tend to prove his words?

Feel sorry for yourself to call yourself a man of science while dismissing science.

Let's agree to disagree. The cognitive dissonance is really doing you bad mate.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 "perfect time for you to run away honestly after that colossal shot in the foot. I understand why you want to back away now. It was fun!"

Says the guy who failed to disprove anything anyone said here. 😂😂😂😂😂
Thanks for the good laugh! 👋👋

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer But let's resume this before I go.
- You had a claim that you couldn't prove.
- Your tried to bring oxytocin. You failed because it hasn't been proven.
- You tried to attack my masculinity using my mother as argument. That failed to because it has been proven to exist no correlation.
- You misunderstood an analogy I made and after said an abused "fact" to try to disprove it. Showing very well you have no idea what you are talking about.
- You found a book online.
- I called it bias because reviews on it said so.
- You snap the references if the book without reading them.
- I read them. They have nothing to do with the main point we were discussing.

Again I can see why you want to back away now.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer Bachelor's degree in what?

I didn't read the book, but I did read the only reference it had regarding our conversation.

"All the references thrown at you and you still choose to dismiss them"
Because none of them said this:
"Promiscuous women do have a hard time pairbonding." or even close to it.

Again I read the references and I read the reviews. I am telling you I will agree with the reviews.

What else do you got?

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer laughing to not cry... I heard about this type of defense mechanism.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

A bachelor in Business and IT.
“You had a claim that you couldn't prove.”
Sadly for you, it has been proven by science and I’ve referenced an entire book for you to read. FAIL.

“Your tried to bring oxytocin. You failed because it hasn't been proven.”
- It has been proven that oxytocin gets released during sex and is the bonding hormone. Again, science (even outside the book) speak of this. FAIL.

“ You tried to attack my masculinity using my mother as argument. That failed to because it has been proven to exist no correlation.”
- Never did I claim you’re not masculine because you grew up in a single mother household. I said you didn’t grow up with a masculine father figure. That was aimed at another man, not you. EPIC FAIL. Go practise reading comprehension.

“You misunderstood an analogy I made and after said an abused "fact" to try to disprove it. Showing very well you have no idea what you are talking about.”
- As I’ve mentioned, your analogy had a flawed logical order as well as a flawed comparison which analogies are made to do, to begin with. Not my fault you cannot write analogies. FAIL.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

“You found a book online.”
- What does finding a book online have to do with this. That’s the whole point of the internet, finding stuff including science. Gladly I can read it without paying. Thanks internet! Another FAIL.
“I called it bias because reviews on it said so.”

- You called it biased and therefore tried to dismiss it as a damage control attempt, while reality says that even though someone is biased, doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong. Especially if scientific studies back them up. Many scientists are biased of the things that are already proven. That is UNTIL it gets DISPROVEN (again Richard Feynman). FAIL
-
- You snap the references if the book without reading them.
- - Those snaps were to show you that by dismissing the book, you dismissed all that is being discussed. I didn’t snap them claiming I read them or that they all disprove what you said. FAIL.

“ I read them. They have nothing to do with the main point we were discussing.”
- No you didn’t. Your lies are won’t work here.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer Not engineering then. Surprise. Talking about what you don't know.

Yes it is, but it does prevent you from bonding with others regardless of how many times it was released. I literally gave you a scientific article about that.

Yes you did and you are backpedaling now. Your own words were "feminine energy".

1. You failed to understand it.
2. Doesn't excuse the massive ridiculous statement made after.

You missed it but I was just saying you found it online. Not that finding it online was bad. This is just desperation. You feel so under fire that you see attacks when they are not even there. You are from the air force that shouldn't happen. And that now was an attack. See the difference?

I called it bias. A theory. I went to check it. It proved itself. What else do you want?

I didn't dismissed them the moment I actually read them. And you didn't. Which was a big mistake on your part.

Hahahahah! Funny thing is I actually did. Sorry if that is hard to take. Maybe laugh some more will help.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

“Not engineering then. Surprise. Talking about what you don't know.”
- Did I ever claim I did engineering? You think engineering is the only profession area that requires a lot of knowledge and study? LMFAO. Red herring at its finest.

“Yes it is, but it does prevent you from bonding with others regardless of how many times it was released. I literally gave you a scientific article about that.”

- And yet we see people with higher rates of failed relationships the more sexual partners they have. You clearly do not get the fact that oxytocin is a hormone and is highly dependent on neuron receptors which could be blocked or damaged by overindulgence (hence why drug abusers need higher doses the more they take drugs).

“Yes you did and you are backpedaling now. Your own words were "feminine energy".”
- A masculine man can still portray feminine energy. We are all feminine to some degree. Sorry to have offended you, mate!

“You missed it but I was just saying you found it online. Not that finding it online was bad. “
- If you don’t properly elaborate, people will fill in the gaps. You didn’t really make it clear why you mentioned me finding it online. Asif there is relevancy to that LMFAO.

“You missed it but I was just saying you found it online. Not that finding it online was bad. “
- By not reading it yourself? Despite like 90+% of the reviews on amazon alone give a score of 4-5 stars (5 is the max). Sure, keep trying to search for those minority comments to try and dismiss an entire book you clearly know nothing about. FAIL.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer You were talking about engineering like you knew something of it.

That Is when there is an issue with your hormonal receptors. If they are fine you will have no problem producing oxytocin and process it with a new mate regardless of how many you had before. In fact, the more times you have sex with someone the more you bond with the person. A ton of single night fucks won't do anything. A relationship will.

You are backpedaling because you did tried to use that to dismiss my argument... and now that you I showed a study that called BS on that attempt you are pretending that you didn't tried to nullify what I was saying with it.

Sure sure. You keep not understanding me and using that as an excuse for your moronic comments after.

I am sure many readers like you loved it! 5 start material! You can argue that the one calling him bias were the bias ones, but seeing the references I don't think so.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer by the way loved how many times you already said goodbye and you are still here. Let's be real if you weren't triggered you would have kept your word on that. I guess you are not as oukey with me having the last word as you say.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8

I don’t have to have done architecture to know what architectures do. Another invalid argument.
Go reach about neurological science and receptors and then start talking about oxytocin. Unlike you, I did get some lessons during my study in this field. You cleary do not get that even if you fuck 1 person that oxytocin gets released. That doesn’t mean that person immediately bonded like some mega strong bond. It means the hormone got released and something happened. Whether it is strong enough depends on the person and the way they respond. Keep repeating that process and other things are going to happen. It seems like you utterly misunderstood the premise of the whole argument as well as the book. Congratulations!
I don’t need to backpeddle with anything. The only one dismissing a source is yourself even though you didn’t bother read it. Keep that energy mate, you’ve proven not to be a man to trust giving scientific sources to.
“by the way loved how many times you already said goodbye and you are still here.”
- Says the guy who claimed to going to say his last thing and is still here. And yet I’m the “triggered” one. Be on your way now. You got blown out of the water with sources you failed to prove wrong and therefore this convo is over ;)

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer You know what doctors do. Do you know literally anything close to what they know? There you go.

"Depends on the person and the way they respond."
THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! You lost so hard right now. I am saying from the start that your personality is the decisive factor. Thank you for agreeing with me. The conversation really did end now.

I did read the source list. I did read the article that could remotely talked about what we are discussing here. And it didn't adress it at all. So the book is full of bias assumptions.

False. I never once said that I was going to leave. Unlike you.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I lost hard, you obviously didn't get the premise of the whole thing. Nowhere did I mention that everything we said is absolute. Damn even the book acknowledges that different people react differently. What you DON'T seem to get is that there is a general rule. THAT is where the argument is about. So where did I exactly leave? When we are all affected by DNA and neuron receptors? And most people react in the same way, which makes it the general rule? So because person A reacts less heavily on a drug (medicine or bad) than person B, does that take away the fact that the drug has an affect and does something to the body?

Jesus Christ you're so desperate to "win" when you do not even know what the other was arguing. Sorry for you mate, but you actually didn't win jack shit. ALl because you keep dismissing studies AND THE BOOK without actually properly reading them. Instead, you just cherry pick anything without proper context to why they are mentioned and then say "But it didn't mention bla bla bla". Well no shit sherlock, perhaps that's because the purpose of it in the book is set in a different context.

Unless you properly read the book and bring scientific sources debunking all that he said, you have not "won" jack shit LMFAO. Goodluck

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer You are trying to make my argument your argument now. Scroll back and you will me say that I find it totally justifiable to be careful when dealing with a person with a lot of previous partners, because it can be a indicator for bad personality.
I literally said that! So of if that was your point all along you have no excuse to continue this conversation after I said it! And I am the one who didn't understood what the other was arguing?
Also said that you and I had more common ground than you knew. Here is your proof of that.

I read the sources of the book. You should too. But according to what we just wrote we actually agree and this hole thing was fundamentally stupid.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 There are indeed things we agree on, but I've noticed many more things we don't. You don't believe in affects of pair-bonding. I do. In both observation of the world I live in as well as studies about neurological affects as well as real world statistics.

No point in going back and forth. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Come back when you actually read the book and are able to provice scientific studies that can accurately debunk it.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer do you remember one thing we both agreed a long time ago?
I said more a less this:
"Feminism is justified in the sense that around the world women's rights do need more attention. But, it's like having two starving children (two children, one representing women's rights and the other men's rights). One is more hungry than the other. So right now we are only give food to the that one and let the other one starve. It's not because one is worse that the other doesn't require attention. Right now only woman's rights get attention. More than what they actually need whole ours don't have any. Overall around the world we need less, but we still need it.
You fully supported that.

We do disagree on se points. I do believe in science. That's why I say it can be indicative of bad personality, because the numbers say it can. But like you said it depends from person to person the effect it has.

I am not reading all of it for the sake of this conversation. And you and I both know I will find it bias and agree with the comments.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I ain't reading what you've written.

Like I said. Read the book, gather scientific sources that are able to disprove the things he said. And then come back to me.

This conversation is over.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer don't put all your trust in a bias book.
Best of luck.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I put my trust in a book referencing a variety of scientific studies and bases its 'biased'. Which is what makes this book outstanding. But you wouldn't know since you don't want to read it. Best of luck to you aswell.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer references that don't comment on your believes.

[TruthBringer]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 References you didn't even bother researching properly nor tried to find out why they were references in the book. Because you didn't bother read it. Like I said, go be on your way. It's obviously useless to talk to you. Until you have read the book with utmost interest and attention, you have no credibility to comment on it.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@TruthBringer I will just be repeating what I already said. Just like you are.