Women, remember: Your body, your choice, your decision, your responsibility!

[Anonymous]

Quite a few women, and men on this website and others have joined discussions over whether a woman's past history can/should count in dating, whether the man even has the 'right' to ask... the refrain often goes, "He needs to learn that women have the freedom of choice/to express themselves sexually!"

Let's straighten something out.

Ladies, you are free to do basically whatever you like. A cute woman can have 2,000 partners if she wants. She can have zero. She can become a foster parent or a single mom or adopt orphans from some war torn country or become a porn star... your body, your life, your choice.

The flip side is, you are responsible for your own actions, and every choice--good or bad--has consequences.

Even good choices have some bad consequences. Right now I am working 64 hours a week to pay off some debt and because I finally got my break, career wise. Sure, it will help my career, and help my financial state. The flip side is I have almost zero social time, to make friends, to meet people, to just go out and enjoy the sights. Consequences.

Many people make a point about how women are free to choose--they do not realize, basically no one is arguing against that. No moral squad will break into an apartment and beat down a man and woman who met over tinder 20 minutes earlier and decided to bang. No secret society is finding porn studios and torching them. No Santa Claus is going to punish women who decide to focus on career and not marry until age 30.

That doesn't mean there arent' consequences. Because just as women are free to make their own choices, men are also free to make their own choices.

Every girl can have as many boyfriends or hookups or such as she pleases--no one will stop her.

The flip side is, a few years down the road when she is posting things on facebook about learning from mistakes or how she just wants a constant partner, those consequences can come back to bite her. Maybe she'll meet a great, handsome, loyal man who doesn't mind that he's number 12 for her.

But she might meet that awesome man that just seems perfect, and he ends up saying, "I'm sorry, but I'd really rather date a woman with a lower count."

She can rant and write about "ignorance" and "misogyny" online all she wants, but that doesn't change the simple fact--she is not the only one who gets to make choices. Men react to what women do--women react to what men do. Unfortunately for such women, they now must bear the consequences of their own choices. Many, many men have no desire to make a committment to a woman who has been with a large number of other men. That is not our nature. We don't won't put a high value on something that cannot be ours--and a woman who has had many past lovers can never really be ours, we sense.

"Women's freedom of sexuality" does not mean "Women are free from their own choices impacting what men think of them."

[Stacyzee]

I agree with your view point.
"You made your bed so lie in it" There is truth behind that saying.
It seems nowadays this a good majority of this generation believes in doing an "act" but not baring the consequences of it.
If I rob a store... am I not a robber?
If I steal a shoe... am I not a thief?
If I buy a lot of clothes on a every day basis... am I not a shopaholic?
If I sleep with a lot of men... am I not a slut?
I mean "slut" is an ugly word but if it has stripes then it's a zebra!
I think the people with some of these people are that they are sensitive to how the word sounds. I can paint the behavior in any other light, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is!
If people don't like those names they are called then either keep their sex life private or don't engage in discussions about your sexual past if you don't want to be judged.
Through anything in life... you have to judge!!
It's unrealistic to not formulate an opinion about someone or something.
If i didn't do so in every day life... I'd probably be dead.
I'm about to cross the street, there's a lot of cars coming
::Mind makes judgment to wait until the road is clear::
This is food is steaming hot.
::Mind makes judgment to wait until it cools down::
You judge through any aspect in life.
If I do not judge, then I must not be a living species.

[Stacyzee]

*I think the problem with some of these people

[ted22]

Didn't expect this, great view.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Trigger warning:

"You are not your own, you were bought with a price [His blood]" - 1 Cor. 6:19-20

The body inside your body is not your body.

"My body, my choice" runs on the same logic as "My Plantation, My Prerogative."

genfringe.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/.../...53563.jpg

[Brokenheartedx]

So a young girl gets abused and ends up pregnant, is she murdering her rapist child or saving herself from looking into the eyes of the man who took her innocence? The woman who is raped same applies- what about the woman who is told that within minutes of giving birth her baby will die because it's severely disabled and in agony? Do they class as murder? I think when it does come to sensitive subjects as abortion men should not have opinions ever...

[myTake Owner]

you're right, restricting abortion would be racist.

[ObscuredBeyond]

@Brokenheartedx: I have heard several accounts of several women who got pregnant via rape. Almost none of them despise their child, or see the child's eyes as the eyes of a rapist. That's a bogus argument. Only just under 1% of all abortions are due to rape or incest anyway. Prevention of death-by-childbirth is even laughably lower. The number 1 reason women go through with it is money. They think that they'll be more-wanted by employers somehow without a child than with one. This thinking is also faulty. Yet, they give to Molech in exchange for prosperity. Like the heathens of old that would murder their children in the hopes of good sailing winds.

[Brokenheartedx]

My sister is going through torture, her daughter only 13 has an undiagnosed mental disorder, she cuts herself, hears voices, is violent and has hurt animals, it is a faulty gene that her father forgot to mention that gets passed down, I asked my sister would she have had my niece if she had known, my sister said no- my neice is in a pyshictric ward and has been for months... biggest fear she may have a baby one day and hurts it or worse... I don't want my niece in jail for hurting or killing her child and not even remember doing it.. do I think she's capable of it? Yes because if she can snap a kittens neck in 2 and not remember doing it could she trusted with a baby? then I will agree to abortion at every turn... do you understand that? my sister would never have had my niece if she had known how unwell her daughter would become.. you can't judge people unless you know

[Brokenheartedx]

unless a man carries a child then he can comment- it's easy to judge others when you will never know.. some mothers also have no maternal bone in their bodies.. so children grow up being abused or neglected... and most times men pressure women to have abortions...

[myTake Owner]

until women can be fathers they better shut up about deadbeat dads lol

[tyber1]

Sorry but no. Life forms that are physically dependent on a host are at the mercy of the host. The host takes priority, every time. This is no different with a fetus than it is with a tapeworm.

[BuchitaBuchys]

It's attached to her though. It's technically part of her body. Not murder.

[TimeSplitters123]

@Brokenheartedx That is very sexist of you, their is plenty of things that i think women shouldn;t have opinions on, Very few abortions are based on rape, and abortion is one of the most classic examples of women avoiding taking responsibility for their actions and probably the worse example. Well done on the poster though, this is the best description and accurate description of abortion yet.

[TimeSplitters123]

@BuchitaBuchys Cold blooded murder of the worst form.

[Brokenheartedx]

I think in this world if a woman sleeps with a thousand men she should be treated the same as a man who has slept with a thousand women...

Either way what people do in their lives is none of my buisness if it doesn't affect me... yes it's their bodies not mine so thy want to ruin it then that's up to them. I don't consider anyone a slut or a player I just think of them playing Russian roulette with their own lives, that's all I'll think.. doesn't concern me, none of my buisness and their bodies aren't mine.

[myTake Owner]

i actually tell women on this site, if they started shunning promiscuous men, the country would be better off.

[Brokenheartedx]

I can't get a man to date me at all! No joke I tried Internet dating- it's all do you want *fun* yeah cause my idea of fun is getting an STD! Put me off men for a while I'm not happy being single but id be more unhappier being used...

[SomeOtherGuy]

And every viewpoint can be challenged. A consequence that arises from someone's viewpoint can be challenged, and should be. Society is something that should constantly be challenged.

So while a person's viewpoint can't be changed, society holding that viewpoint should be.

My argument is that sex has no baring on a person's character.
If you meet 3 people who have slept with over 12 people and 3 people who have slept with 2 people, you can't accurately predict which of those 6 people will steal from you, murder, or even cheat on a partner. Not unless we ask for more information.

So we can safely say that it has no baring on a person's morality or character.

What about a person "being ours"? Well, that's abstract. Under the same pretense, a person who has been in 20 serious, emotionally invested relationships also can't be "ours."
But this isn't true.

If both the sexual or serious relationships were unhealthy ones, we may say the person is irresponsible, unwise, or perhaps damaged.

But no one, women or man, owns another person. There is no ownership. Even if that's not what this means, the concept is abstract. It makes no sense. At what point is someone incapable of being with another person in a healthy way?

Unless their behaviors were unhealthy and continue to be unhealthy, then we can't really say.

It's not about the quantity, it's about the quality.
But people fail at making that distinction.

The only thing that a person with 12 sexual partners can tell me over a person who has had 2 sexual partners is that the person with 12 sexual partners has a different viewpoint of sex than the person with 2 sexual partners.

And if you're a person who shares that viewpoint, go for the person with 12 sexual partners. Not the person with 2, who probably won't share your viewpoint.

And even then, the number doesn't mean much.
You always have to dig a bit deeper.

I use to have a stigma, believing that women with lots of partners weren't quality women. I challenged that stigma. I saw that women who remained virgins could still be FUCKING AWFUL people, and some not. That women with high counts could still be very nurturing, capable, and fantastic in bed.

I realized I was wrong, that my logic was flawed. It isn't the quantity, it's the nature of their partnerships, both sexual and emotional. It's all the things that have nothing to do with sex.
So I grew up, and I got over that notion.
I hope others can too.

[tolmbyy]

"If you meet 3 people who have slept with over 12 people and 3 people who have slept with 2 people, you can't accurately predict which of those 6 people will steal from you, murder, or even cheat on a partner. Not unless we ask for more information." stopped reading there. yes we can predict those things since we have statistics on them. For example, a high partner count in women is strongly linked to divorce.

[SomeOtherGuy]

@tolmbyy Didn't know Divorce always ended with someone cheating. Man, good thing you have those statistics. And also understand that correlation and causality are separate. Wait, you do understand that, don't you? Or do you just like to throw around "Science" without knowing how it actually works? I tend to laugh the most at people who bring up "Statistics," by the way. You do understand how inconclusive statistics can actually be, right?

[SomeOtherGuy]

@tolmbyy Also didn't realize divorce is conclusively the result of two people being immoral, and thus bad people. Sorry man, but you're stretching, trying to create an argument out of something that is false. I cannot accurately predict a person's likelihood to lie, cheat, or steal based on if they have or haven't gotten a divorce. As per my case against using statistics as a foundation to stand on, some 50 - 100 odd years ago 1% of the population was bisexual. But now 10% of the population identifies as bisexual. However, people who are bisexual aren't on the rise, and in 100 years we won't have 20% of the population as bisexuals. What's actually happening is that people are now more aware of bisexuality and find it easier to identify as a bisexual and accept that identity. Thus, more people are comfortable identifying. There are other examples like this. Such as one involving power lines and cancer. So I don't recommend bringing up statistics.

[SomeOtherGuy]

@tolmbyy I'm not even sure you understand the weight of finding a study that conclusively proves or disproves that morality is linked to number of sexual partners. That's not to say it isn't possible, but it needs to be structured a certain way. The closest thing we have at the moment to get an idea if this case is in philosophy. We have to ask, is it logical that every time you have sex with a new partner, you are being immoral? We're not talking religious morality here either. We're talking a clear correlation between societies code of ethics and morals and number of sexual partners. Perhaps there is a logical threshhold where a person's moral conduct begins to decrease after having sex with every new partner? Is a person who has had 10 partners more likely to engage in criminal activity? Is there a logical explanation as to why? Sorry, but if I try to find a link between morals and ethics and number of sex partners, I just can't logically find a way that they're related.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Hopefully one day you also realize how little they're actually related. I say this from the position of someone who has relatively little sexual partners too. My sexual activity doesn't put me on moral high ground. It's silly to think it does. People who argue that numbers are bad or good are not doing anyone a favor. The reason I get backlash for low partners, despite that being my personal preference, is because people like the myTake owner arguing that it does. His argument just creates grounds for a counter argument that numbers are a good thing. But they're not good or bad. They're a personal preference, and they simply state how you view sex and relationships. You should be on the same page as your partner when it comes to that.

[tolmbyy]

Haha you're so mad right now Explain why I would care if it's due to causality or if it's simply correlatef. The end result is the same. Moron.

[SomeOtherGuy]

@tolmbyy Hmm, okay... Guessing you think that if someone writes a lot, they're mad? That's kind of an odd and illogical conclusion. Some things are just more complex, and need a deeper explanation. Though, I could probably sum it up so it's easier to digest. Also, watching you resort to childish name calling sort of makes me believe you're not the type to use reason and logic to back your arguments. Also, for causality and correlation let me give you an extreme example. I could say that every person that has drank water will die. As you can see, I'm not lying. But drinking water does not cause death. Simply water based organisms decay. The same goes for your statistics. If we sample 5 marriages where at least 1 of the partners has been in over 10 sexual relationships, and two of them lead to divorce, we still cannot make a clear correlation between the number of partners and the reason for the divorce. It's very similar to the water example. Make sense?

[SomeOtherGuy]

@tolmbyy I'm hoping you're intelligent enough and smart enough to understand what I'm saying. Nothing is being proven or disproven by bringing up these statistics. It's bad science. It's like if you went to a doctor, told him your throat was sore, and he immediately told you you have throat cancer and started you on 3 rounds of chemotherapy without digging deeper. How about you try an empathy exercise. Choose 10 different people, real or imaginary, celebrity or crush or lust. Then imagine YOU, not an imaginary person but you yourself, had 10 different sexual relationships in the span of 2 years with 10 these ten women. Do you think you would be more likely to murder, backstab, harm, abuse or mistreat another person or animal after being with those 10 different sex partners? Do you think YOU would be more likely to mistreat, devalue or harm your 11th partner? Are YOU more likely to engage in criminal activity or mistreat your spouse from being with these 10 partners?

[tolmbyy]

Dude, what are you even doing?

Hilarious how your only argument is that the studies only had 10 people

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../abstract

[tolmbyy]

Writing several paragraphs of nonsense isn't how you win an argument by the way. I'm fully aware of what the definition of "correlation" is. Defining correlation isn't helping you at all.

[tolmbyy]

I'm not interested in whether it's correlation or causation. In fact it's most likely correlation, but I will stay away from high-partner-count females nontheless since it's one of the smartest choices you can make if you want a long lasting relationship/marriage.

[SomeOtherGuy]

@tolmbyy That's fair, but according to this article you should only be in a relationship with a woman who has only had sex with you. In other words, only a virgin woman. You also have a moral obligation to stay with that woman after having sex with her, otherwise you've ran the risk of ruining her future marriage if you break up with her, and are equally accountable. But again, this is irrelevant. The question I posed is," Does having multiple sexual partners make someone immoral, under the context that they are more likely than people with a very low count to commit crimes, treat others poorly, lie, or cheat on their partner?" You have provided no answer to that question. And neither have I. That's because there isn't a relation to a person's morality and their sexuality. Which was my whole point. If the institution of marriage is important to you. Feel free to follow that article. (Though I would argue a single paper does not make hard proof)

[SomeOtherGuy]

@tolmbyy You seem more hell-bent on somehow proving a case. A case that I don't really care if it's proven or disproven. I am actually not sold on the institution of marriage. As a matter of fact, I think society can thrive without the institution of marriage. However, if you want a "strong" marriage, that's great for you. I would argue that for many others, poly-amory is a much stronger institution than marriage. A case that's not hard to sell. But every person has different strengths and weaknesses, as well as preferences. Still, you really should have been following my argument. My argument was never in favor of marriage, and never under the context of marriage. If that was your argument fine. You have a credible source that argues that marriage is a bad choice for people who have had sex with anyone outside of that marriage. It's simply another case of why modern society should drop the glorification of marriage.

[myTake Owner]

In the sequel take I provide studies that indicate women with more partners are more likely to cheat and or divorce.

[myTake Owner]

Nor did I say what you declared I said. Don't put words in my mouth, douche bag.

[SomeOtherGuy]

@tolmbyy By the way, from all my observations of married couples, couples who marry the first person they sleep with really do have marriages that last much longer than those who have higher partner counts. For these people, I would definitely say the institution of marriage is a good choice. However, for people with higher counts (not just women), it may be better to consider another style of relationship. Marriage may very well not be your thing. And that's perfectly fine, like I said. We need to put other relationship models in the spotlight. Marriage is not the end-all-be-all model of happiness. And again, neither marriage nor partner count have any baring on morality. Which is the first argument you brought up in your first reply.

[tolmbyy]

I don't associate partner count with morals either but I was under the impression that you did. I'm a huge nihilist.

I'm sure if someone were willing to spend money on the studies, they could prove that high sexual partner count is linked with "immoral" behaviour, but I guess we'll never know. I'll just go with my experiences for now.

As far as serious relationships go I'm confident with my game plan.
https://i.imgur.com/DnMjpl3.jpg

[SomeOtherGuy]

@tolmbyy To each their own. I'm more of a Pragmatic Altruist. If someone did do a survey like that, in order for the study to be properly conducted and the data to be conclusive, you'd have to do a very large, well defined study. From my understanding of my own psyche and other people's, I can't conceive there being a logical correlation. If there is one, it's likely a result of societal influence, and the same conclusion could be drawn from serial monogamists. Anyways, your entire first reply had me under the impression that you did believe morality and sexual partner count are associated. If your end-game is marriage, follow the statistics and research. My own anecdotal evidence supports the same idea, that marriage is best for partners who haven't had other partners. But I also stand by the idea that marriage shouldn't be romanticized with all the recent changes to modern society.

[LuckyLittleLucy]

I actually love this take... I read the title and thought it was going to be "Woman are always moaning about everything, it's all their fault" but it was really well written, clear and put across really good points!
I'm a very stubborn person, but I love it when somebody persuades me into changing my opinions, and you did that.
I've often though "Well my choices are up to me, and they're nobody elses's business (e. g. amount of partners etc.)" but the way you've explained it, I can see why people do want to know, and why they do care about it. The funniest part is I care myself but was just being totally backwards trying to convinve myself otherwise...
Sorry, I rambled, Great Take!

[Rawrzz]

Number 12? 12 really isn't a big number. >.>

How exactly does number have anything to do with ownership of women? If she fucks one guy, the seal is broken. Why does 10 more make a difference?

[myTake Owner]

the more partners, the less her bonding ability.

[Rawrzz]

How's that work? The more partners I've had, the more I've learned about relationships.

[myTake Owner]

hormonal, not a mental decision.

[Rawrzz]

How exactly do hormones change for women with the more partners they've had?

[BuchitaBuchys]

I agree with your take. But I don't call women or men sluts. They are promiscuous people, and they engage in casual sex. Fine. But I don't want that for me, and I want a partner with similar views to mine.

[myTake Owner]

Nor did I call them sluts, as the word does not appear in my article. Nor does it matter it you call them sluts or not. Do you think people the 50's called them sluts? There will always be some word that takes a negative connotation. What it is matters not.

[BuchitaBuchys]

Ok, well I prefer not to use a word with negative connotation.

[BuchitaBuchys]

And this wasn't directed at you specifically lol just in general. Because when people say this type of shit, then they call them every name in the book saying "they don't deserve any respect."

[myTake Owner]

Oh, I get the point. Slut is a mean word, so don't say it. Simple reality is there will always be a mean word for every people, place, and things to scorn. When slut falls out of fashion, another word will arise. Just as "player" was in vogue a few years ago, now girls like to say "fuckboy."

[BuchitaBuchys]

I still don't use them. I prefer good old fashioned idiot. I'm not against insults, just not group specific. Like slut (shames women), fuckboy (men), n** (black people), cracker (white people), Spics (Hispanics), fag (gay men), dyke (lesbians), etc.

[BuchitaBuchys]

Fucking GaG sensors n i g g a? Lol

[myTake Owner]

haha, last i looked fag has been replaced by gay and dyke is replaced by lesbo. do people still say spic? and if you're listing insults why does nigga get blotted out like we're 12 year olds watching a movie with... gasp... the f word?

[BuchitaBuchys]

I didn't censor it, they did lol

[myTake Owner]

that's gay

[hellionthesage]

Absolute fact. I do not know why so many believe otherwise. An action without reaction is no action at all so removing the consequences of choice would be to remove choice all together. Good take.

[Meesterlijk]

The best Take I've ever read. It's direct, unforgiving en entirely true. Awesome job!

[OlderAndWiser]

Absolutely! I remember the Dixie Chicks openly criticizing President Bush for invading Iraq and then complaining because, afterwards, many Americans boycotted their music. They made a silly complaint: "What about our right to free speech?" Response: you have the right to say whatever you want and the public has the right to react however it chooses.

[REALisRARE]

2016... still won't listen to them!😜

[ted22]

This is why they dont make music no more? I live outside the US

[OlderAndWiser]

@ted22 Most people think this is why the Dixie Chicks have faded.

[OlderAndWiser]

Three down votes from the women? The American public does NOT have a right to react to the Dixie Chicks? If they didn't have a right to react, how did you have a right to down vote me?

[Soyeah999]

Omg someone is making sense! Wtf is this a dream?

[SarahsSummer]

I completely agree that there are consequences to every action, man, woman, child or adult but a persons prior sexual history is nobody else's business.
it may be their partners curiosity but that doesn't make it their business. My boyfriend is much older than me and I'm sure has had many more partners than I have but I don't ask. I don't care. I don't judge. we used protection for the first few months of our relationship. We both had physical exams and tests for all std's and shared that info. But the number and any judgement of a number can be so arbitrary, the things I care about in a mate have nothing to do with what he did in his youth. It has to do with what he learned from his youth. Which has to do with the man he has become. The man he is today. Our past experiences shape us into what we are today especially the failures, mistakes and or bad judgements. I don't need to know if my guy was fired from 5 jobs before he found his true calling career. I don't need to know if he used to have bad credit. If he is now fiscally responsible and successful in his career maybe all those things have helped to mold him into the man he is today.
On the sexual side of things If he can make me orgasm and fully satisfy me in bed every time I don't need to know where or with whom he got his practice or skills. Quite frankly, I don't want to think about him touching other girls he way he touches me. I don't need to know that his comforting hand caressing through my hair after a tough day at my work came from dating 20 nervous wrecks before me. If he really likes the way I please him, he doesn't need to know how, where, how or if I got previous practice. If he loves my cooking does he need to know I used to burn everything I touched? Or is it important that I figured it out and can make a killer chicken piccata today. What matters is who the person is today. He didn't become infatuated with the me of 5 years ago and I didn't know he existed 10 years ago. If he loves what I am today and I love what he is today, isn't that what really matters? Instead of looking for a reasons to end a relationship look for the reasons you began it.

[myTake Owner]

If you are going to make a serious commitment to someone, you have the right to ask every detail you see fit to ask. People aren't memory wiped every year or two. What a man or woman goes through changes them, it impacts them. People also have the utter right to know who they are dealing with. If I am considering committing to a woman, that I will be there for her and protect her if need be, I deserve to know if she was an utter slut who dated criminals or if she was a church girl that had two boyfriends. Though let's be real... if a man asks a woman her count, and she refuse to answer... that's pretty much a definite answer itself.

[SarahsSummer]

I'm suggesting not asking. If you fall in love with a girl, love her family, her career, her body and mind what difference does it make if she had 2 previous partners or 6? Are you suddenly going to dismiss everything you fell in love with?

[myTake Owner]

it always hits me... a couple supposedly in love, and when asked about her past, the woman retorts, 'that's none of your business!' does that sound like a couple in love?

[myTake Owner]

i should write another take: 'the number--why men care.'

[CheerGirl38139]

I agree with the basic concept and @OlderandWiser made an excellent analogy.

What i don't get (and this goes for guys and girls) is the " I want someone with a lower number". Especially the older we get. Let's assume the people are drug and std free and don't have a litter of government fed kids.

What does it matter and how do you qualify what is an acceptable number? Is it like a sliding scale per decade or something?

What if a man or woman is in their 40s? What's the number and is that number the same regardless of gender?

I just don't see why it really matters. If you're two people in a committed relationship what does his or her previous quantity of sex partners have to do with it? If a woman is 45, is 5 too many? Ten?

How about a man of 45? What's his number? And why does his new girlfriend even give a shit?

[SarahsSummer]

I concur!

[myTake Owner]

For simple example, women with high partner counts, and women who first had sex in early teens, are much more likely to divorce, according to studies.

[CheerGirl38139]

But not men huh...

[myTake Owner]

I have no doubt men with higher counts are more likely to cheat and or divorce. However, I am neither gay, nor are most women smart enough to actively choose to go for a man with a low partner count. If it bugs you I suggest you write a take to your fellow ladies and tell them to not date players! it would be good.

[CheerGirl38139]

Tbh your take is the most well written one I've seen supporting this position. You have done a good job explaining and supporting your points. However, you just made mine in your last statement. I don't think I will be a girl with a high count. But it's really none of my business how many girls a guy screwed before he even met me. The fact that many guys think their number doesn't matter, but the girl's number is of critical importance, is the problem. I can't fix it by writing a take, begging or preaching. But if I meet a guy and we develope a relationship that leads to marriage talk, we are already in love and past the point of questioning things like that. I wouldn't ask him his number. It's none of my business. And I wouldn't answer if he asked me, even if my number was only one or two. If that's a deal breaker, he woils not be the man I hoped he was anyway. This whole topic just makes me shake my head. Anyway, your take is well done. Your mindset is what makes me sad.

[myTake Owner]

thing is, you and severalbother girls just proved those men half right already--stating a man's count is none of your business. however, men and women are different. you deciding men can sleep around does mean they kind of can--but it does not mean men will or should decide the same thing about women. we are still learning the impacts of sex. for instance, semen was once thought to be just carrier of sperm. now we know that it hormonally affects the woman's mood, even.

[CheerGirl38139]

I disagree dude. But I do respect your general attitude in making your case. I don't think "sleeping around" is a particular wise choice for EITHER gender. But I don't judge anyone that makes that choice for themselves. I'm not half making a point for the male case. I'm making a point for BOTH genders. As I said in my original reply, barring STD's, a littler of kids as a single parent, etc. - its none of anyone's business - male or female - what that person didn't sexually before they met someone. It's just not relevant. If it means that much to someone, I think they have other issue that need to be worked out. However, that too, is their business, not mine. But a person that has a "high number" - male or female - that wants to scrutinize their partner's sexual past, is a flaming hypocrite. You seem to be advocating the traditional "double standard". Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

[myTake Owner]

I've many times stated girls should not date promiscuous men, they just never listen. and a different standard is not a double standard. for example, short women who want to date men 8-12 inches taller than themselves... is that a double standard?

[gotc147]

This is not the liberal way.

The liberal way is do whatever you want and everybody must applaud you.

[BuchitaBuchys]

I'm liberal and I agree with this take.

[gotc147]

@BuchitaBuchys then you're not as liberal as you think.

[BuchitaBuchys]

I don't see anything wrong with socialism. I feel the people who do, are sheltered af because it's usually the most vulnerable who suffer more when you let people "fend for themselves" (which is usually children, old people, the sick, etc.) Being liberal doesn't mean "let people be idiots and give them participation ribbons". Just don't treat them like crap. Let men and women slut around but they have to realize their consequences and you have to realize you're not entitled to their bodies. Just because they fucked every guy/girl in town, doesn't mean it's "your turn". This is pretty much what people think and it's annoying entitlement at it's finest.

[gotc147]

@BuchitaBuchys socialism is great... Until you run out of everybody else's money, see Greece. Liberalism is all about responsibility, just not on one's own part, usually it's republicans who are responsible, unless it's something good. A woman has eight kids with eight different men? Give her more and more welfare, the dads don't pay their child support? Give them welfare too, unless they're white, then throw them in jail immediately. You need to pay more attention to what liberal politicians are in favor of.

[DarkHumorRUs]

ITT (in this thread): The writer discusses how women "need a man" to tell them that THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT with their bodies.

[myTake Owner]

--and men can than refuse to date or marry them for what they have done with their bodies.

[naturallywonderful]

I agree 100%

[M_A_X]

Women need to ask to not be spoken down to or treated like children. Women need to ask to be treated like functional, thinking, reasoning adults, like everyone else. If we continue to baby women in our society, it's only going to be our faults when they can't take responsibility for themselves or their decisions.

And women, you should DEMAND to be treated like functional, thinking, reasoning adults

Pretty much everything that they said in this old cartoon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knIroVvPZU4

[Rissyanne]

Love your take. Responsibility... consequences and accountability

[JRICHARDS1996]

I actually agree with your take. At the beginning I was expecting some dumb feminist rant but it actually made a good point at the end. I would add however that men who have high expectations from women like virginity should likewise be willing to reciprocate so that they are not asking for anything which they are not giving. That is why I try to hold myself to my own standard by preserving my virginity for my wife someday.

[Nuqood]

Women don't want there to be consequences to their actions; Women want to make decisions and everyone must accept them and cater to their decisions.

Women don't understand the concept of not being owed anything. You'll see women cry victim-blaming all the time when they're suggested to take preventative measures to protect themselves, failing to see that it is their responsibility to protect themselves from threats. Another thing women love to proclaim is their reproductive rights, forgetting that they're basically behaving like biological terrorists by attempting to force someone into being a parent because THEY personally have moral issues with abortion. When we force women to be mothers, it's an act of misogyny and is a violation of her rights, but when we force men to be fathers, it's seen as normal since 'someone has to take care of the kid' and saying 'he should have worn a condom' as if a woman isn't responsible in the consent of protection free sex, and isn't responsible for bringing life into the world when both people weren't on board.

Sidenote: I am pro-choice, but I find it funny how women who get abortions are celebrities in the eyes of the public, but men who bail on their families that they never asked for are deadbeats. The anglosphere is a complete fucking mess, and I can't wait until someone wipes us out.

[Nuqood]

went way off topic in my rant, so forgive me. I do find it hysterical when women nitpick male behaviour and it's accepted, but when men state what they find attractive and unattractive behaviour it's an apparent attack on a woman's femininity. Women seem to forget that it's men that dictate what is and isn't attractive in women, be it looks or behaviour. If the majority of men are disgusted by a high slay count, then sorry bitch but your high slay count will be judged. I got my dick pierced, and lots of girls aren't down for it, but I don't bitch about how more women should be into dick piercings. I made the decision; I handle the responsibility. Great take, by the way.

[TimeSplitters123]

Very good point, the truth feminism encourages women to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

[Bandit74]

I agree 100%

Just like women are free to sleep with as many men as they want men are free to refuse to commit to them based on her choices.

Just like women might refuse to date a guy based on the number of inches he stands he stands off the ground (height) or the number of dollars in his bank account, men should be able to refuse to date them based on their number of sexual partners.

[walkthelinexx]

I don't know why women always have to be "told" things. Whether it's be feminists and other women or sexist. FYI we have basic common sense like anybody. People treat girls like we're so trite and feeble minded. Even the ones who pretend to look out for us.

Nobody is a special snowflake and we all have agency and we're all entitled to basic human rights. That's nothing new and it applies to both genders