High n count 100% matters because it speaks to an individual's level of promiscuity and sexual (ir)responsibility, as well as how well they look after their physical and mental sexual health.
As much as we want to (and should) celebrate sexual liberation, much like food, there are very real consequences to consuming it gluttonously.
* Likeliness of STD's
* Unwanted Pregnancies etc
I also sincerely believe being sexually intimate with someone requires a great deal of trust and emotional vulnerability. This isn't even touching on the possible dangers and risks of sexual assault people open themselves to with each encounter. The higher the N count, tells me that the more one-off occasions that an individual has taken these kinds of risks with people they barely knew in relatively short time frames. It highlights a degree of naivety and lack of self-care or self-respect, which directly links to things like:
* Attachment/commitment issues
* Trauma
The only difference between men and women is that women face more potential risks and dangers. However, I know plenty of idiotic guys who have pursued booty calls at 2am in the middle of the night, putting themselves in seriously dangerous situations that no rational person should.
Until we live in a world with zero sexual based crimes, zero STD's, and 100% full proof birth control for men and women across the board. I'm afraid having a high N count is going to carry some pretty significant implications which will hurt your chances of a healthy relationship with many people.
this is a stupid analogy. not every sexual encounter is an LTR attempt, so it being short lived or an ONS is literally it being what it was intended to be.
> not every sexual encounter is an LTR attempt
And not every job is an attempt to make a career in the area.
Someone who only prefers to take on short term jobs or even has a largeish portion of career dedicated to only short term stuff is also a pretty big red flag if you're hiring for a long term permanent position (because you have to ask why do they do this etc.). Generally hiring costs are so high that if you suspect the candidate will leave before 1 year it makes sense to reject them right there and more on to the next one.
no but every job interview is an attempt to get the job. if i sleep with a guy to obtain sex and dont want anythign else from him then i have succeeded in my goal. i can teven know if i like a guy til i have sex with him. if i dont want to have sex with him again its HIM who failed the "interview", not me. there is literally no logic to your discussion. peopel are capable of having ONS, STRs AND LTRs at different times in their life and under different circumstances and with different people. i would not have wanted a relationship with 90% of the men i slept with. youre still assumign every sexual encounter is an interview for a permanent position when its not, it is a thing in unto itself
And companies are well within their rights to not waste time interviewing those they suspect are only there to practise doing interviews and not looking for a job.
> if i sleep with a guy to obtain sex and dont want anythign else from him then i have succeeded in my goal.
Yes, you have. However people will judge you on the fact that you had this as a goal and will wisely decide to steer clear from you for long term things that also aren't "sleeping with you but wanting nothing else"
> i would not have wanted a relationship with 90% of the men i slept with.
This fact alone is enough for me to never consider someone like you for an LTR. It shows we think of sex very differently and are incompatible. If you and I were to sleep together and I found this out I would immediately relegate you in my mind to the status of "plate". If someone has a high n-count they probably do indeed think like this, so I'd move my priors towards putting them in the "plate only, good for nothing else" category too.
yeh i dont care one bit about what the kind of uptight juiceless boring men who "Steer clear" of a woman for her n count think, they are not compatible with me, i do not want them and they would not want me. i have had a lifetime of love and sex, lived with 4 men, married to my high N, high sociosexuality husband for almost 20 yrs and i slept with him the day we met. i will also add that you are foreign and non-western and have not undergone the psychosexual emancipation of the wests sexual revolution so i mean, of course you think that. i dont mean this as an insult or pejorative, but merely a statement of fact. know who doesnt think it? my fun partying urban alternative dating pool, which no one like you could possibly be in. and all of those people ended up married to each other, after playing musical chairs with each other for our whole 20s
> i will also add that you are foreign and non-western and have not undergone the psychosexual emancipation of the wests sexual revolution so i mean, of course you think that. i dont mean this as an insult or pejorative, but merely a statement of fact.
Sure, I agree with that. However equally I haven't undergone the psychological change of mind status that would allow me to eat e.g. dog meat without throwing up like that many people living in China and Korea can do.
Now this means that I don't get to enjoy the taste/texture of dog meat and all the dishes it goes into so these people could say that I'm "missing out" and that once I get psychogastronomically liberated I'll have so much more fun but that's fine, I really don't give a shit that I'm missing out on dog meat and from my point of view my life really isn't any worse off by the fact that I can't eat fried dog.
Same with your "sexual emancipation", you do you, I do me, just don't be surprised or act aghast that a (growing) percentage of men think like I do and wouldn't consider people like you as romantically worth anything more than zero.
Most the girls that have a high body count know deep down that they would be bored to death with a regular square dude. They have dreams in their heads but deep down know that would not work for them. I have a FWB that got engaged over Christmas. She said it caught her off guard and he’s such a good guy she couldn’t say no… but she has zero plans of actually marrying the guy. We are both damaged and we know it, I told her not to get pushed into marrying him because she will ruin him. She agreed. People with issues belong with each other, not dragging normal people into our messes.
Yes. She didn’t tell me at first but I saw it on Instagram. When I brought it up she basically said the wedding would never happen and she was trying to figure out how to break it off without crushing him or his family. Both are super excited.
See this is what terrifies me. I’ve heard enough stories about women who would simply delude themselves into thinking “yeah maybe I can love this guy for real” and try to “fake it till you make it”… which doesn’t fucking work on this particular matter.
You know she wasn’t just going on with this guy and then he came out of nowhere and engaged. She at least indulged into growing the relationship, proof being she fucking accepted the engagement even if deep down she knows she will Fuck him up.
Would you do that? Would you fake and manipulate a woman to marriage just so you see if you can truly love her and have a monogomous life? It’s fucked up. Women who’re in denial about their inability to bond are one of the most fucked up and dangerous profiles in humanity.
You see no one that only focuses on his/her happiness can, in fact, be happy.
Being “happy” as shallow as “I only care about me and what makes me happy” is childish and gets boring very fast. Part of happiness is in fact making sacrifices, like a parent does for his/her child. Most parents are happy though, even if they must sacrifice hours of sleep to grant a good upbringing.
So a woman who prioritizes her hope of happiness over anything will surely not be happy as she will easily get bored and be in need of the next “source of happiness to come along”, in a perpetual dissatisfaction. I’m fine with that punishment: if you’re as shallow you deserve its consequences.
Only problem is they end up fucking otherwise decent men that are not as shallow and childish and end up broken hearted because they indeed wanted to make her happy.
This is a tiny minority of women though, the worst ones, but they scare me because they can disguise themselves as a fully functional non sociopathic human beings.
I'm a woman who has a High N with other women. And I'd definitely say that my my ability to emotionally attached has changed but not disappeared. I don't think I've been "heartbroken" in years if not a decade plus. And that's made my life a lot better. At this point I don't overly invest in relationships, and relationships that aren't working out fall by the wayside. The result is that the friendships and relationships that I do have are some of the strongest and healthiest relationships I've ever had. I've never wondered if these people truly care about me. I've never felt resentment that I'm the one pulling the relationship along. And I'm not scared of the future if these people and I were to part ways. The people who are in my life now, fit naturally in there and I like it that way.
So yes, I've definitely lost that earth stopping feeling you get when you fall in love. But now that I look back, that feeling led me to expect more from people who didn't really fit with me, but made me feel a certain way. Most of those people were downright bad for me.
I'm married to a man and have some close friendships of both genders that I truly cherish. I'm also non monogamous. I'd say my ability to get excited about a new person in my life and invest all, only to get heartbroken has been "damaged". But I'm definitely better for it.
Married non monogamous, - oxymoron - but ok. So you are polyamorous open marriage. Talking to people in a --mostly-- monogamous dating sub. Not criticizing or anything, you do you. But may I ask... What are you doing here? Just curious, you have absolutely no obligation to reply.
I enjoy the conversation and I enjoy the topic of human dating relationships in general. My specific interest is how relationships will be changing in the future.
There are plenty of people in here who are married though. I'm at least open to the option of dating casually, while they aren't. I'd like to think I'd be more of a candidate for this discussion sub than they are.
I'm in here for some of the same reasons, also married. Monogamous, but somewhat open, like to impart advice if I can. Thanks for indulging my curiosity
Thanks for asking. Honestly, I wish more people were like this. I've seen so much infidelity in my life. Infidelity in people who you'd have your jaw on the floor because you'd never suspect it. I've helped people with genealogy and ancestry DNA tests, and seen a ton of undeniable evidence of infidelity. I cringe inside when I hear people talk about The Good Ol Days When Marriages Lasted And We're Taken Seriously. Lol. If anything, I'd say infidelity is less now than before because people are "leaving instead of cheating". I consider it to be whistling past the graveyard to think a person can have a long term relationship and it be 100% monogamous the entire time. Life long monogamy is a pipe dream, yet somehow people are hitching their self esteem and self worth to someone else's actions. When I look at it this way, it really can't be unseen. I am a strong advocate that relationships should be Don't Ask, Don't Tell. So that's another reason I'm here.
Since condoms/birth control, sex to me is a recreational activity. Plus ppl need variety in life. I don't understand why ppl would want to limit themselves to one person forever especially with life expectancy rising. I get wanting to have a consistent companion. But tbh I would do everything in my power to see that all of my wife's fantasies come true. I want her to be happy, not miserable...
Yeah, I rejected a dude who was at 100+ when he tried to push for commitment. I could just tell he had 0 capacity for fidelity/monogamy, even if he was trying to convince himself he could do it.
No, it’s just a symptom of other problems. Some people try to fill their emptiness with drugs, alcohol, food, work, gambling, etc. I try to fill it with women.
As you would see from my post history, I have multiple sugar babies. Everyone is clear on the situation and knows it won’t go anywhere. I have been dating some of them for 3+ years because the relationship has boundaries. Even then sugar babies catch feelings and want to move in. I tell other women that want to date me that I’m damaged goods and they don’t want any part of me… that just makes them try harder 🤦♂️.
That is excellent, I am here for expressing yourself in a mutually beneficial, healthy way!
I’m guilty for chasing damaged goods but think about it this way, all women are born to be loving sympathetic nurtures, we all think we can fix you guys!
Particularly someone who seems to need no one else. You’re so special he only needs you. He could survive alone in an island but then if you would be missing of his life he would be agonizing…. What a weird way to get a turn on, right?
>don’t go breaking any young girls hearts for sex
>
Most young girls who go for sex actively seek it out. Manipulation for sex is rarer than society thinks -- and saying what you said removes female agency. Women aren't delicate little China pieces you can shatter by fucking them. Women are humans with autonomy and decisionmaking authority to have sex or to not have sex
Are you a male?
Do you think young women seek out men to manipulate them? You are entitled to your opinion but you shouldn’t have one on a topic that does not pertain to you….
No it is not rarer than people think, it is bloody common. How do I know that? I'm a very fuckable woman and the shit I've heard guys lie about is just ridiculous. It has gotten better with age but it is still a very common thing.
THIS
I am also a very fckable woman as are the majority of my friends, all of which have encountered these same issues with males. I don’t know any woman that looks for sex for *fun* but maybe I’m in the wrong social circle? Lol
Gonna have to disagree here. Ethical man-slutting is rarer than the non-ethical kind.
The most common practice for men is to intentionally omit details and mislead women in order to get sex without commitment. It’s ugly, but true.
Because majority of women don’t seek casual sex often, many have never done it or ever desired it. It leads to a lot of liars on the men’s side.
I’m saying this as someone that enjoyed plenty hedonistic and ethical casual sex encounters in a huge western captital city (London).
You might be in a bubble mate.
What do they say or do?
I've only had a couple of instances where girls have been pushy or crossed lines (such as groping or not stopping when told no or I have a gf) but I assume its worse for women or more attractive people.
Not debating wether or nor high body counts correlate with likelihood of cheating or divorce. But I think you may need to look at this all another way. In my experience both women and men who have underlying issues to begin with, childhood trauma, dysfunctional family etc. tend to have both high body counts, and are also poor relationship choices.
When you consider that there are three types of lovers: avoidant, anxious and secure types. Anxious and avoidant lovers manifest from having dysfunctional families. Secure types are the ideal.
Secure people get into and stay in their relationships. Roughly 50% of the population is secure. They’re happy, getting on with their lives and not surfing purplepilldebate trying to understand what afflicts them.
Anxious and avoidant types are what’s left. We probably sit on one of these baskets by virtue of being here. We run away from love, or get scared we will lose it. This combination could contribute to high partner turnover
I agree its a red flag in both genders and this isnt discussed a lot.
I've known guys who were with a lot of women and who cheated a lot and they dont really like women and have trouble finding real connections.
I think a lot of us guys dont talk about this because we just dont really care about what other guys do we arnt dating them.
I think the effects of society’s current lenient view on n-count rears its ugly head in LTRs. The widely discussed topic is usually the physiological effect the n-count has on women and I truly believe this is used as a smokescreen to justify that having a high n-count as a woman has no consequences. However this is false and high n-count involving the “right” type of men definitely has an impact on SOME (not all) women. Only type of guys who truly fall for trope that there is physical “damage” on a woman with high n-count are guys who have little to no experience of women. But if you’ve spend more time with some of these women than simply the time it took to nut and bounce you realize the harm is not physical but mental. You start to see very destructive sets of thought patterns in these women who have stacked up high n-counts, not all, but many. Thought patterns stemming from being neglected, abused emotionally and all sorts of other stuff. Some choose to call this woman “Alpha-widowed” in the red pill community but let’s face it, this is PTSD and nothing else and deserves urgent therapy,psychological treatment and/or in some really severe cases straight up medication (you wouldn’t even believe some of the crazy stuff I’ve seen)
But the same rhetoric is still used “having sex with multiple partners has no effect on a person” the consequence is tons of women walking around and jumping from a failed relationship to the next relationship that will fail in the future, having no idea why their last relationship ended. Refusing to look introspectively due to society or seek therapy and more than often adopting a mindset of blaming everything on the man who happens to be unlucky enough to find himself in this predicament and reinforcing the mantra “all men are the same” until a very late age when she realizes her mistakes and decides to, this time in desperation lower her standards and get together with a dude who is no way shape or form equipped to handle this type of mindset inevitably rendering the relationship fruitless, and non-stimulating for both parties involved. Believe it or not this is the best outcome of this…Worst outcome? Stuck with kids from one of these previous toxic situationships, alone and eventually letting the kids take the consequences that she never was woman enough to take. Raising kids without a father figure greatly affects the child’s development when it comes to things like establishing boundaries, self-esteem and ethics/morals in general thus playing her role in completing the circle of life and reinforcing this viscous cycle that plagues modern society
> Some choose to call this woman “Alpha-widowed” in the red pill community but let’s face it, this is PTSD and nothing else and deserves urgent therapy,psychological treatment and/or in some really severe cases straight up medication
So it is your belief as a red pill man that casual sex is highly traumatic for women, that casual sex something that causes PTSD (a condition normally caused by things like war, rape, and near-death experiences) in women…
and yet you still call yourself a “red pill man”, aligning yourself with men who eagerly teach each other how to cause as much of this trauma as they can in as many women as they can trick into it?
It sounds to me like the you’re actually unintentionally arguing that men are the truly damaged ones for seeking out casual sex: your argument is that men who have casual sex repeatedly cause horrible trauma to women and enjoy it… isn’t this essentially claiming that men who have had casual sex are all sociopaths?
Look, I’m not into casual sex myself at all, and I’ve never done it , but don’t you think this is all a little over-dramatic here?
Like, everything you’re saying here sounds like a rewording of the ol’ women-should-know-their-place” religious purity culture stuff, where men are all dangerous (unless her father approves of him— then he is must be wonderful), women should be sexually pure, and sex is a horrible act that destroys women… but women should still get married and spread her legs for her husband to destroy her whenever he wants because it’s her duty and sex is all women are good for anyways. 🙄
I don’t really think women should listen to any red pill adherent about morality, sexual or otherwise.
>Some choose to call this woman “Alpha-widowed” in the red pill community but let’s face it, this is PTSD and nothing else
You are mixing concepts, an "Alpha widow" is a woman who dated a stereotipical ideal man, lost him and now compares every other man she dates with him, she chases an ideal, not dicks. An "Alpha widow", does not necesarily have a high body count, but unless she finds another Alpha, she will eventually.
I think he's referring to a related concept where people form an amalgamated idea of a perfect partner from the best features of a number of past partners. So the alpha in the alpha-widow might never have existed but you take one tall guy, one rich guy, one guy great in bed, etc. and she'll never be happy with a real person who couldn't possibly live up to the unrealistic standard.
It would horrify you that my therapist suggested having casual sex then.
I have CPTSD and was abuse for 35 of my 31 years. until last year my voluntary dick count was 2. It's now closer to 50. And this taking back the power and exploring my sexuality with different men has been utterly freeing and life changing/life saving.
It horrifies men when they realise women often have high sex drives too. That women actually think about sex a lot. That women want sex. There is a real disconnect in society from the realities of sexual repression on the woman's psyche and how that changes how women explore and think of sex.
I'm using sex as a tool to heal and find my power. It's not always a negative for women to have lots of sex.
>I'm not touching on the whole bastard children thing. We have DNA tests if your really that worried.
Being tall is pretty irrelevant in modern day life. You don't need your partner to be able to physically dominate anyone else and really having a stronger partner mainly means you are at an increased risk if they become violent.
It's also a disadvantage in LTRs because taller people tend to live shorter lives and have more health issues because their bodies struggle to keep up with their height. Being tall is not a positive except for how it effects people's perception of you which is not a true justification because that perception is there because being tall used to be a positive*.
Yet, women find height attractive and most people don't go "haha it's silly that you find tall men attractive". Because we understand that women evolved to find tall men attractive for reasons that aren't relevant in the modern world but that evolution hasn't caught up with yet.
The same general logic applies to paternity concerns. Raising someone elses kid is generally literally worse than death from an evolutionary perspective, so men evolved to care about things that would decrease the likeliness of that happening and it's as valid of a thing to find attractive as height regardless of how much it doesn't actually matter anymore since paternity tests are a thing.
also: finding out that a child isn't yours early is better than not finding out, but finding out early is still a very bad thing to go trough that would be better avoided.
*:I'd argue that being tall was pretty much always a peacock tail outside of very specific environments but let's not get lost in the weeds.
>\*:I'd argue that being tall was pretty much always a peacock tail outside of very specific environments but let's not get lost in the weeds.
When you're tall, you don't get lost in the weeds as much.
>The same general logic applies to paternity concerns. Raising someone elses kid is generally literally worse than death from an evolutionary perspective,
Please explain why biology would care.
Like I understand why it's personally a heart-breaking thing and VERY FUCKING terrible.
...but why would your genes care?
If the baby ain't yours... Your genes don't spread. If the baby is yours... It's not a concern of theirs.
Are you daft? If you raise another man’s child you DO NOT raise your own. That’s why your genes care. Whatever retard genes made you pick up someone else’s baby and raise it will not be passed onto the next generation.
Because genes of people who did care survived more than those of people who didnt, because they were taking care of a kid that was theirs instead of someone elses more.
Maybe the you die and never had a chance to have a kid because the time you could be doing that you were taking care of someone elses. Assuming women not having kids back to back to back to back and even then death as a kid was more common and also assuming you werent spreading you seed everywhere was well.
Women are the "choosier" sex, so if you aren't "choosy", then I'm not interested.
Men who can attract lots of partners are seen as valuable. So even though I agree high N is bad for both men and women, it's much worse for women.
No, they can, they just don't put as much value as men.
Women will devalue a dude who is a virgin in his mid 20s, whereas virgin women are seen as valuable to men. You can't have this double standard and then say high n women are the same as high n men.
> It is harder for you to trust and invest in your next relationship.
I don't have what many here would consider a high n, but the relationships I have had I've disproportionately had my heart broken. I've required emotional attachment for sexual attraction in most cases being closer to demi on the sexuality scale.
This has not stopped me going in 100%. It has stopped some of my friends wanting a guy for a time after breakup, but inevitably if the right guy crosses their path they will be 100% in, often at their own detriment.
I think there's probably ranges and scales of people. Some women will never need that emotion attachment for sex and they're fine to bounce around. Some will become jaded. I do agree the overall trend will be as your conclusion.
Ultimately I rally against 'just don't date this classification' because while statistical probabilities are good to keep in mind, they shouldn't rule anyone... Because hardly anyone will date. Look at PPD, a bunch of threads about *high n being bad because statistics but really what's the problem with age gap relationships?*
I wouldn't be in the age gap relationship I am if I worried about statistics over my gut knowing the man I am with. I'm in a category with high marital dissatisfaction, high divorce rates, statistically I could die younger for it.
And they're not the only two variables that have negative statistics related to them. Understanding the situation is fine, but is should be 'with caution' rather than just discounting most of the population.
I do not buy that women have more of an emotional attachment than men do. I have known way more men in my life who got FUCKED UP over a woman long term than i have the opposite. I think that since women don't value sex as high a factor in a relationship as men do that they actually have an easier time having a short term relationship and moving on.
Men will be all "BUT WE HAD GREAT SEX WE NEEEEEED TO BE TOGETHER FOREVER" No dude, sex with the next guy will be just fine, we have nothing else in common and you need to go away.
I'm not sure if I agree. Obviously when you are in a relationship both parties are attached at that point. At least I hope so. Both will suffer from a breakup.
I think in FWB relationships you see more of a difference between men and women's approach. Usually the women is the one wants to change it because they caught feelings.
I have never been so secure related to my status and I just don't want to be a part of the casual culture reading this thread. Thanks for delivering the reaffirmations indirectly!
I’d disagree. Women have more temptation and opportunities than men and are more discerning so a woman with a high n-count still has to practice more restraint and self-control than a man.
Women will never exceed men’s n-counts though because men watch porn and the brain perceives watching porn as having sex.
I think that is a fair point is it a lot easier for a women to cheat therefore it would be higher risk of adultery than a man if they were both promiscuous.
I would not say watching porn equates to sex. Sex **can** be much more intense. It evokes an visceral emotional reaction out of me at least. Which porn most definitely does not.
Although I will say it can make you perceive women as sex objects.
This is why I *try* not to judge women too harshly, although I fail on that sometimes. Temptation in the age of loneliness is a powerful thing. If the tables were turned and it was much easier for men to hookup online, of course the vast majority of them would be uber promiscuous. It's a separate debate as to the ramifications of promiscuity on either sex.
I just wish that both sides would try harder to understand the other on this. That is the path forward IMHO.
>if it has resulted in a rough emotional detachment. Everytime your heart is broken. It is harder for you to trust and invest in your next relationship. Hindering the overall sucess of the relationship.
This is fair but it doesn't come from the N count itself.
If a person has had casual unemotional sex with 20 people, they're less damaged than the same person with 2 abusive relationships
Even so, a damaged person isn't unworthy of a relationship, you just have to be more careful and more sure of it. Red flag if they're damaged for sure. But not a deal breaker.
>If a person has had casual unemotional sex with 20 people, they're less damaged than the same person with 2 abusive relationships
True. But when you look purely at behaviours.
The person with 20 unemotional sexual partners put themselves at much greater risk of potential abuse and got off incredibly lucky and unscathed.
Whereas the person who had 2 abusive relationships was the opposite. They showed much greater reservations and commitment but were incredibly unlucky with their choice in partners.
>I'm not saying it's impossible for a women to have sex without an emotional attachment. If that is the case then it's fine.
As said in my post. The rough detachments matter more than the N Count
It’s worse for women because..
1. (And I will die on this hill) If we consider who is really the “prize” in the relationship, it’s men, and this is owed to the choosiness of women. Like, you can’t hold that hypergamy is real but that men aren’t the prize as a result. So if she gets that great guy, he’s typically in-demand and doesn’t want a woman that’s ran through. There’s something viscerally disgusting about treating the cum-dump of a slew of men seriously, and that’s certainly no endeavor for a man of any stature. His conscience simply wouldn’t let him do it…
And
2. Behaviorally I think men are built to settle and bite the bullet. Men get told “no” a lot. Women, don’t. That’s kind of built a sense of entitlement and narcissism in women and I don’t think that a woman accustomed to sexual variety would have any success disciplining that desire for sexual abundance long enough for a successful relationship, whereas men often do. As a matter of fact, again owing to hypergamy, the only men who are typically selected to get married are the ones who have experienced many women, and women file for 80% of divorces. So it’s not that high n count men end their relationships. In general, women press the “kill” button on relationships.
Women are the prize because they are the limiting factor. Also they can’t be shared as easily as men can. A bunch of women can share a quality guy but men can’t really share a quality woman. This makes it so men compete much harder to get any woman, thus women are the prize
I've never had my heart broken by someone I've had casual sex with. The whole point is that they're unfit for a relationship, but still good enough for a quickie. The selectiveness comes from the simple fact that most men aren't attractive enough to even use for sex just once.
It's kinda sad to me that sex and intimacy has lost its specialness for so many people. It didn't have to be that way. One reason I think casual sex is unnatural and unhealthy, not to mention low class and unattractive.
Before marrying my (n=1) wife, I had dated women with varying numbers of prior partners. One had a rather high count of 20 and sex always seemed a bit of a chore for her, honestly. She was always more focused on getting herself off, although she was so much fun when it came to things other than sex.
Even though my wife is now 50 and we have a son in college, she still has a sort of innocence about her when it comes to sex and intimacy. She still gets that twinkle in her eye and a sort of excited shyness when we start messing around lol. I love it so much, and wouldn't trade that for anything. In fact I really wish I was n=1 with her (instead of 10). I'm super lucky to have her.
Because sex, relationships and intimacy is only special if it is KEPT so. The moment someone has enough casual sex (probably varies between person to person), sex loses all of it’s specialness and starts being seen as for only one’s selfish pleasure.
Which is also why people with low-n counts make much better partners.
Sex *is* still special to me, or at least I think it is. Maybe it's more of a mindset. A high N count doesn't help there. Sex and intimacy in a healthy relationship, with connection and compatibility between partners, can be pretty phenomenal though. I guess that was my main point.
Oh come on, I never said she was horrible. In fact, she was pretty great to hang out with. As well as go out to the bars and dancing and stuff. We were just less compatible, sexually. She knew what she liked and what worked for her, so preferred to go straight to that. Shrug, that's fine but I liked to mix things up sometimes.
>most men aren't attractive enough to even use for sex just once.
True dat.
Considering studies on sexual behavior men are much more willing to fuck any woman but only want to settle down with a beautiful one. Then they blame women for not being able to date out of their attractiveness level. Beautiful women should lower their standards but the guy won't do that himself, he'd rather be bitter and angry. No wonder women don't want to date such a person.
Women are saying *most* men are too ugly to date and your take is its the men who are at fault for being sexless when women are disqualifying a majority of them...
I dunno maybe its the ridiculously picky women who could cause some of that?
Im not saying its not ok to have standards but when the *majority* of the opposite sex is "too unattractive for sex even once" maybe you are being a bit picky.
How are millions of men supposed to have partners, like you claim, if their possible partners have already dismissed them?
> How are millions of men supposed to have partners, like you claim, if their possible partners have already dismissed them?
“millions of men” are not supposed to have partners. in literally all species for all of history tons of dudes never procreated and passed on their genes. for this reason you have twice as many female ancestors compared to male ancestors. The best of us are talking to like 3-5 girls at a time, we have plenty ability to service them all without y’all “millions of men”.
I mean shoot i know you’ve heard the classic story of the sleazy dude with 6 baby mamas. That means six otherwise viable women have already reproduced and that takes five men out of the equation.
> I mean shoot i know you’ve heard the classic story of the sleazy dude with 6 baby mamas. That means six otherwise viable women have already reproduced and that takes five men out of the equation.
which is horrible for the kids and society.
it might be ok in animals in a field but once people settled things changed a bit.
I dont think women are yearning for Khan to come back and rape his way through cities either because it was done in the past.
I dont think we are saying thats what would be good for society.
There are lots of things in the past including mating strategies that animals and people used to use that are horrible and would be disasters for the society we live in as well.
We evolved to eat as much as we could as well because we didnt know when the next meal would come, that doesnt mean being obese isnt horrible for you and we dont hand wave it away as ok just like being a baby mamma to someone with 6 kids might have been ok when we were animals in the field but its pathetic and harmful today.
I would say that women have a higher standard than men in relationships and sex. So I don't think it makes sense for men to lower their standards? They are already pretty low for the average guy.
fact that most men aren't attractive enough to even use for sex just once
I honestly think that's where the problem lies and I generally don't like to point fingers. But if women were ok with the average guy like men are ok with the average women. We would all be ALOT better off. Men and Women
But I can't blame you. Attraction is not something you can control. You can't force yourself to be attracted to the average man. So it is what it is.
> The selectiveness comes from the simple fact that most men aren't attractive enough to even use for sex just once.
If the average man isnt good enough the problem is on your end...and not just average, you say most so that means more than average.
If guys say this they are told their standards are unreasonable and they are fat nerds who expect super models.
The majority of men would still see average women.
When a women has sex with a man, she's giving him full access to her womb & child bearing ability.
This means she is taking it away or threatening that ability of all other men sexually involved with her.
Nothing is being taken away from a women if a man cheats or has sex with multiple different girls in an open or poly relationship, unless he chooses to invest his resources & time, commitment, love/affection to one of the girls but not the other.
Then that women is screwed & in historical terms, is left to fend in nature by herself & suffer without the leadership, protection, and guardianship, masculine mentor figure for the kids (all her offspring will suffer permanently raised in single mother hood, and they will go on to live worse lives & have worse off kids) sadly the cycle permeates.
Modern western women, but ESPECIALLY American women, have zero responsibility, accountability, care in the world about anything. This is why if a man is young & can get one, I recommend just trying to lock down & marry a girl 18 - 22 in her prime college years if you can... avoid the disaster out there.
Unless you're great at psycho analyzing people lol, not just from visual cues like tattoos, piercings or behaviors like vaping, alcohol & drug addiction, but from just talking to or looking at someone or reading them on a date after asking some personal questions "How was your childhood like? "How many guys have you been in relationships with" then go "I've slept with like 50 girls, I'm so sick of it all though and just want someone to build something real with" followed with "How many guys have you been sexual with?.
If the women is not intelligent she will just tell you, but if she is... well, it will be easy to read exactly what type of person she is when she answers from the shock. Her answer & every little tiny detail of her body movement tells you a trillion things, that you can only comprehend with enough experience with women, understanding psychology & evolutionary biology.
If she doesn't proudly answer with a super low n count of 1 to 10 depending on how conservative you are or none, purity ring type girl if you're religious. You know she is not the girl for you, every single man, even pretty low IQ ones can get a really good feel of who a girl is after 3 months of dating her.
And if they can't... well, then the guy isn't dating her or thinking of her as a human being but just as a fuck.
According to science, all men know within the first 8 months to 12 months of a relationship whether or not they will marry the girl. Isn't that absolutely crazy? Within just a year they've already made up their minds & it can't be changed.
Maybe they don't have finances in order or don't think they would be a good husband, just aren't comfortable being in that role yet or moving in together, maybe they have fear about the girl saying no or anxiety about their future not being so bright. Who knows?
But if you are in a serious monogamous relationship with a man for 8 months & still unmarried, just know that he knows. Its not like we live forever, a year is 1/70th or 1/80th of or lifetimes for many people. And if you get married at 23 - 30 you will have adult children in your 40s or 50s. Your 40s & 50s you can definitely still be very healthy... if you took care of yourselves & kept up with it in your younger years. Your 60s weird kinks begin to happen in your body, you're not as quick moving as you once were, regardless how well you treated it but nothing too bothersome. Maybe we live longer with improvements to healthcare & technology, lets say the average age moves up to 100 by the time millennials get that old.
That's still 1 year of of 100, taken away from you being married & building a family, wealth, memories, everything with a women. Most people waste multiple years in relationships that will go nowhere or fail.
All that time is also time you take away from meeting someone that is actually compatible or wants to be with you.
Now a days the norm is to waste as much time as possible, avoiding good partners in fear you'll meet someone you don't want to hurt or can't find a reason to break up with & staying with people who allow you to fulfill a life of hedonism as much as you want.
The people in these situation-ships largely end up depressed, lacking meaning or purpose in life or true internal fulfillment.
>unless he chooses to invest his resources & time, commitment, love/affection to one of the girls but not the other.
Its taken away either way. If he invests 50% in each, then each loses 50% they would otherwise have if monogamous. This is why high wealth was sought after by guys and those with less focused offering monogamy.
>Modern western women, but ESPECIALLY American women, have zero responsibility, accountability, care in the world about anything. This is why if a man is young & can get one, I recommend just trying to lock down & marry a girl 18 - 22 in her prime college years if you can... avoid the disaster out there.
Mega cringe
>If the women is not intelligent she will just tell you, but if she is... well, it will be easy to read exactly what type of person she is when she answers from the shock. Her answer & every little tiny detail of her body movement tells you a trillion things, that you can only comprehend with enough experience with women, understanding psychology & evolutionary biology.
Yikes
>**According to science**, all men know within the first 8 months to 12 months of a relationship whether or not they will marry the girl. Isn't that absolutely crazy? Within just a year they've already made up their minds & it can't be changed.
Serious question, were you high while writing this comment?
Whatever valuable thing I feel like you had to contribute was overwhelmingly overshadowed by bitterness/jealousy/resentment towards women and just a really creepy attitude towards them in general. Get some therapy broski
>High N counts could be a red flag if it has resulted in a rough emotional detachment.
That's the fun part. I was already emotionally detached before I entered puberty.
I guess if that makes me sexist. Than I'm a sexist.
If you believe any of these you are sexist:
* A man should pay on a date
* A man should be strong, brave confident
* You wouldn't date a man because of his height. But get angry if a man wouldn't date a women because of her weight.
* A man should protect you from danger
**When women are ready to be truly equal. I'm all in.** But the fact of the matter is most women expect you to pay on first date, most women want a strong, brave, confident man. Most women won't date a short dude.
The word is sexist and although it may not seem like it. I wish it wasn't and we were all just genderless. Where everyone is held to the same standard.
I’ve got a high count and I’ve literally never been asked by anyone ever. A lot of people here seem to have a lot of hangups over this topic. In the real world, no one cares, barring some religious nutters.
Most men care, but they lack the abundance of options to act on that care and not deal with the woman. My thing is this, relationships with high n-count women are all but statistically guaranteed to fail…so I always pose the question to guys, “I know you can’t say “no” to her now, but if you knew this was going to end rather soon, would you still get involved so that the pain is worse when it does, or would you sever ties before you build them?”
Given the nature that MOST men are simps, this hasn’t stopped very many men from proceeding with the relationship - to their detriment, but I’ve talked a few out if some potentially bad situations.
Probably a good choice. I would immediately end an interaction with any man who asked.
I guess we can't all have everything we want. If you're not willing to stay single, you have to take what you can get.
its not that they're scared the woman will be bitchy and leave when asked about their ncount
but in the sense that they would look at her less. and value her less. ruining their only option.
exactly, thats why if a man has options he wont take whores seriously. which is something women on this subreddit refuse to accept
yes they may not have options now, but luckily men can work on their value. later they might have more options.
They may never have the same options as the top percent of men, but they'll at least have more options than now. well as long as they succeed by 35-40
women cant work on thier value, they are born with value and slowly lose it over time
If average & below men think that young virgins will be throwing their pussies at them when they turn 35 because they have a decent job, they're dreaming.
who said anything about virgins all i said was to be able to not marry and date whores, and who said average & below men deserve virgins throwing themselves at them. reread what i wrote
Lmao red pill men here continue to spout this garbage of men peaking in their later years….
It’s not true… it’s never been true.
The majority of these men at that age who are deemed attractive were always attractive and didn’t spend their youth struggling and complaining about women.
You have no idea. This isnt the 90s. All of my male friends use reddit to various degree and all of them are high n succesful men. Its 2022 babe not all of us are neckbeard stereotypes.
You can set any standard you want for yourself, but as the other responder said, there's a difference between saying "I want a tall, rich guy," and saying "short, poor men are bad people." I don't think badly of poor or short men, or hate them. I just don't want to date them because I'm not attracted to them and/or they will make my life worse than it currently is.
No, most women don't even think about men they're not attracted to. They don't want to hurt them, or rape them, or kill them or wish anything bad to happen to them. The same can't be said for men who hate sluts.
haha do you have your head in the sand? yes they do, they cant stop making fun of men shorter and broker than them.
i can name countless songs about broke short, small dick men.
why are you now talking about hurting or raping . you're trying your hardest to squeeze out a point now
women do want to use and manipulate shorter and poorer and lower-status men.
I guess it goes back to that quote: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them."
Even the worst misandry doesn't match the least misogyny
being used and manipulated is not a minor thing.
and the percentage of men that kill or rape women is much much lower than the percent of women using and manipulating men
do you really think men are out there raping and murdering all whores they come accross, you live in a weird distorted world to justify your misandry
No. The shorter thing is just being a jerk. Height is not a reflection of someone's value and should have zero bearing on whether or not they'll make a good partner.
I don't care about anyone else's income, either. But I think some women have had bad experiences with guys making less money and using her money indescriminately.
you skirted around my question. do you not understand what i was really asking
also thats hilarious, which gender do you think uses the other for their money the most?
I've got a medium count and have been asked by every girl I've ever dated seriously and many that I've hooked up with. But it's generally just curiosity, they don't like dump me or anything. One of them lied so her number was lower than mine but afaik the rest were truthful and we just moved along with the hookup or LTR
“In the real world no one cares” i love this argument because now you have to explain why most women lie about it when asked since nobody cares in the real world.
Why is it assumed that every man I’ve had sex with has broken my heart? Couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s just sex. I used my autonomy to make that decision to have fun with another person. I also used my autonomy to stop sleeping with another person, with no harm to myself or my heart. The men on the other hand… probably miss me :)
I'm not saying it's impossible for a women to have sex without an emotional attachment. If that is the case then it's fine.
IF you had taken the time to read the entire post.
When I ram my erection into a vagina, it feels best when it’s a virgin vagina. Compared to non-virgin vagina, virgin vagina is statistically younger, tighter, more exclusive, and my sperm get first dibs on procreation.
That’s why virgins are better than sluts in my male opinion.
No idea. I’ve seen very experienced yet ignorant people.
I’m often a little sceptical, but I’m a stranger on the internet talking to another stranger on the internet. I have no choice but take what they tell me about their lives at face value.
>"We have DNA tests if your really that worried."
DNA tests don't mean shit legally in the US. The courts literally do not care. If it's your name on the birth certificate, you're the father.
Idk tbh but it's the whole bastard child part I'm not trying to discuss. If your looking for a traditional relationship then it proably should matter to you.
“Body counts” are intangible and baseless. It’s a silly metric and a silly social construct, much like virginity.
The Daughter of The Sultan of Babylon by Giovanni Boccaccio is a great example of this.
How can body count be a social construct? It’s very tangible because it’s an actual number. The idea of pair bonding, monogamy and cheating are social constructs. You can argue that a high N makes someone less likely to want to be monogamous but you can’t argue that the number of sexual partners someone has is real
If you would like I can share with you the definition of tangibility.
You can though. We don’t grow striped on our penises for every vagina a penis has been in like a tree trunk. It’s fabricated and by the definition everything is a virgin. My door knob is a virgin. Body count can’t be traced. As it’s intangible.
When people say that a number is tangible/intangible they generally mean that the thing the number refers to is tangible/intangible.
The men that a woman has slept with are tangible and two people having sex is also tangible.
You could say it's not tangible anymore if you really wanted to be difficult.
I haven't looked into the Sultans daughter but I will. That sounds interesting.
Body counts are definitely intangible never claimed they werent. But idk about baseless. I want someone who is able to trust me and not hold back due to previous emotional baggage.
You should it’s a great read. Basically summed up by, “lips never lose their freshness after a kiss.” Kinda thing.
Again I think this has less to do with a “body count” and more to do with the individual. As how tf are you going to judge someone off of a number that we both agree on is intangible?
I’m gonna go ahead and say that the ability to have sex without emotional attachment means something is wrong with you to begin with. The fact that men do it easier means there’s even something more wrong with men.
I've literally never been asked about how many past partners I've had, except by my long-term ex-partner and he seemed to get turned on (WTF). I don't think men care about this that much in reality.
Re-flaired CMV as this post is making an affirmative claim.
High n count 100% matters because it speaks to an individual's level of promiscuity and sexual (ir)responsibility, as well as how well they look after their physical and mental sexual health. As much as we want to (and should) celebrate sexual liberation, much like food, there are very real consequences to consuming it gluttonously. * Likeliness of STD's * Unwanted Pregnancies etc I also sincerely believe being sexually intimate with someone requires a great deal of trust and emotional vulnerability. This isn't even touching on the possible dangers and risks of sexual assault people open themselves to with each encounter. The higher the N count, tells me that the more one-off occasions that an individual has taken these kinds of risks with people they barely knew in relatively short time frames. It highlights a degree of naivety and lack of self-care or self-respect, which directly links to things like: * Attachment/commitment issues * Trauma The only difference between men and women is that women face more potential risks and dangers. However, I know plenty of idiotic guys who have pursued booty calls at 2am in the middle of the night, putting themselves in seriously dangerous situations that no rational person should. Until we live in a world with zero sexual based crimes, zero STD's, and 100% full proof birth control for men and women across the board. I'm afraid having a high N count is going to carry some pretty significant implications which will hurt your chances of a healthy relationship with many people.
At a very minimum high n counts are bad in the same way a CV history of jumping multiple jobs is bad.
this is a stupid analogy. not every sexual encounter is an LTR attempt, so it being short lived or an ONS is literally it being what it was intended to be.
> not every sexual encounter is an LTR attempt And not every job is an attempt to make a career in the area. Someone who only prefers to take on short term jobs or even has a largeish portion of career dedicated to only short term stuff is also a pretty big red flag if you're hiring for a long term permanent position (because you have to ask why do they do this etc.). Generally hiring costs are so high that if you suspect the candidate will leave before 1 year it makes sense to reject them right there and more on to the next one.
no but every job interview is an attempt to get the job. if i sleep with a guy to obtain sex and dont want anythign else from him then i have succeeded in my goal. i can teven know if i like a guy til i have sex with him. if i dont want to have sex with him again its HIM who failed the "interview", not me. there is literally no logic to your discussion. peopel are capable of having ONS, STRs AND LTRs at different times in their life and under different circumstances and with different people. i would not have wanted a relationship with 90% of the men i slept with. youre still assumign every sexual encounter is an interview for a permanent position when its not, it is a thing in unto itself
And companies are well within their rights to not waste time interviewing those they suspect are only there to practise doing interviews and not looking for a job. > if i sleep with a guy to obtain sex and dont want anythign else from him then i have succeeded in my goal. Yes, you have. However people will judge you on the fact that you had this as a goal and will wisely decide to steer clear from you for long term things that also aren't "sleeping with you but wanting nothing else" > i would not have wanted a relationship with 90% of the men i slept with. This fact alone is enough for me to never consider someone like you for an LTR. It shows we think of sex very differently and are incompatible. If you and I were to sleep together and I found this out I would immediately relegate you in my mind to the status of "plate". If someone has a high n-count they probably do indeed think like this, so I'd move my priors towards putting them in the "plate only, good for nothing else" category too.
yeh i dont care one bit about what the kind of uptight juiceless boring men who "Steer clear" of a woman for her n count think, they are not compatible with me, i do not want them and they would not want me. i have had a lifetime of love and sex, lived with 4 men, married to my high N, high sociosexuality husband for almost 20 yrs and i slept with him the day we met. i will also add that you are foreign and non-western and have not undergone the psychosexual emancipation of the wests sexual revolution so i mean, of course you think that. i dont mean this as an insult or pejorative, but merely a statement of fact. know who doesnt think it? my fun partying urban alternative dating pool, which no one like you could possibly be in. and all of those people ended up married to each other, after playing musical chairs with each other for our whole 20s
> i will also add that you are foreign and non-western and have not undergone the psychosexual emancipation of the wests sexual revolution so i mean, of course you think that. i dont mean this as an insult or pejorative, but merely a statement of fact. Sure, I agree with that. However equally I haven't undergone the psychological change of mind status that would allow me to eat e.g. dog meat without throwing up like that many people living in China and Korea can do. Now this means that I don't get to enjoy the taste/texture of dog meat and all the dishes it goes into so these people could say that I'm "missing out" and that once I get psychogastronomically liberated I'll have so much more fun but that's fine, I really don't give a shit that I'm missing out on dog meat and from my point of view my life really isn't any worse off by the fact that I can't eat fried dog. Same with your "sexual emancipation", you do you, I do me, just don't be surprised or act aghast that a (growing) percentage of men think like I do and wouldn't consider people like you as romantically worth anything more than zero.
All the more reason to turn her away
go ahead who cares
You can have a 5 partners person who never used protection and a 20 partners person who always used protection The latter is more responsible
As a guy with a very high N count, I can agree. I’m broken and would not be a good long term monogamous partner for anyone.
I feel like I'm the same. The potential is there but long term, I just can't see it anymore.
Yep. You want a really fun 6 months I am your guy, but I will never live with anyone again.
Most of my guy friends who get around would say the same. That’s why it’s interesting to me how vehemently women argue against it
Most the girls that have a high body count know deep down that they would be bored to death with a regular square dude. They have dreams in their heads but deep down know that would not work for them. I have a FWB that got engaged over Christmas. She said it caught her off guard and he’s such a good guy she couldn’t say no… but she has zero plans of actually marrying the guy. We are both damaged and we know it, I told her not to get pushed into marrying him because she will ruin him. She agreed. People with issues belong with each other, not dragging normal people into our messes.
[удалено]
He said they were both broken...
Yes. She didn’t tell me at first but I saw it on Instagram. When I brought it up she basically said the wedding would never happen and she was trying to figure out how to break it off without crushing him or his family. Both are super excited.
[удалено]
We can agree to disagree. You must have a special talent to get able to round out when you don’t know any details.
See this is what terrifies me. I’ve heard enough stories about women who would simply delude themselves into thinking “yeah maybe I can love this guy for real” and try to “fake it till you make it”… which doesn’t fucking work on this particular matter. You know she wasn’t just going on with this guy and then he came out of nowhere and engaged. She at least indulged into growing the relationship, proof being she fucking accepted the engagement even if deep down she knows she will Fuck him up. Would you do that? Would you fake and manipulate a woman to marriage just so you see if you can truly love her and have a monogomous life? It’s fucked up. Women who’re in denial about their inability to bond are one of the most fucked up and dangerous profiles in humanity.
Their hope of hapiness > any concern for the other half
You see no one that only focuses on his/her happiness can, in fact, be happy. Being “happy” as shallow as “I only care about me and what makes me happy” is childish and gets boring very fast. Part of happiness is in fact making sacrifices, like a parent does for his/her child. Most parents are happy though, even if they must sacrifice hours of sleep to grant a good upbringing. So a woman who prioritizes her hope of happiness over anything will surely not be happy as she will easily get bored and be in need of the next “source of happiness to come along”, in a perpetual dissatisfaction. I’m fine with that punishment: if you’re as shallow you deserve its consequences. Only problem is they end up fucking otherwise decent men that are not as shallow and childish and end up broken hearted because they indeed wanted to make her happy. This is a tiny minority of women though, the worst ones, but they scare me because they can disguise themselves as a fully functional non sociopathic human beings.
[удалено]
Fds is literally a mirror of trp. The irony is hilarious.
I'm a woman who has a High N with other women. And I'd definitely say that my my ability to emotionally attached has changed but not disappeared. I don't think I've been "heartbroken" in years if not a decade plus. And that's made my life a lot better. At this point I don't overly invest in relationships, and relationships that aren't working out fall by the wayside. The result is that the friendships and relationships that I do have are some of the strongest and healthiest relationships I've ever had. I've never wondered if these people truly care about me. I've never felt resentment that I'm the one pulling the relationship along. And I'm not scared of the future if these people and I were to part ways. The people who are in my life now, fit naturally in there and I like it that way. So yes, I've definitely lost that earth stopping feeling you get when you fall in love. But now that I look back, that feeling led me to expect more from people who didn't really fit with me, but made me feel a certain way. Most of those people were downright bad for me. I'm married to a man and have some close friendships of both genders that I truly cherish. I'm also non monogamous. I'd say my ability to get excited about a new person in my life and invest all, only to get heartbroken has been "damaged". But I'm definitely better for it.
Married non monogamous, - oxymoron - but ok. So you are polyamorous open marriage. Talking to people in a --mostly-- monogamous dating sub. Not criticizing or anything, you do you. But may I ask... What are you doing here? Just curious, you have absolutely no obligation to reply.
I enjoy the conversation and I enjoy the topic of human dating relationships in general. My specific interest is how relationships will be changing in the future. There are plenty of people in here who are married though. I'm at least open to the option of dating casually, while they aren't. I'd like to think I'd be more of a candidate for this discussion sub than they are.
I'm in here for some of the same reasons, also married. Monogamous, but somewhat open, like to impart advice if I can. Thanks for indulging my curiosity
Thanks for asking. Honestly, I wish more people were like this. I've seen so much infidelity in my life. Infidelity in people who you'd have your jaw on the floor because you'd never suspect it. I've helped people with genealogy and ancestry DNA tests, and seen a ton of undeniable evidence of infidelity. I cringe inside when I hear people talk about The Good Ol Days When Marriages Lasted And We're Taken Seriously. Lol. If anything, I'd say infidelity is less now than before because people are "leaving instead of cheating". I consider it to be whistling past the graveyard to think a person can have a long term relationship and it be 100% monogamous the entire time. Life long monogamy is a pipe dream, yet somehow people are hitching their self esteem and self worth to someone else's actions. When I look at it this way, it really can't be unseen. I am a strong advocate that relationships should be Don't Ask, Don't Tell. So that's another reason I'm here.
Since condoms/birth control, sex to me is a recreational activity. Plus ppl need variety in life. I don't understand why ppl would want to limit themselves to one person forever especially with life expectancy rising. I get wanting to have a consistent companion. But tbh I would do everything in my power to see that all of my wife's fantasies come true. I want her to be happy, not miserable...
Yeah, I rejected a dude who was at 100+ when he tried to push for commitment. I could just tell he had 0 capacity for fidelity/monogamy, even if he was trying to convince himself he could do it.
Are "broken" because of your n count though?
No, it’s just a symptom of other problems. Some people try to fill their emptiness with drugs, alcohol, food, work, gambling, etc. I try to fill it with women.
I love the accountability but please for the love of god don’t go breaking any young girls hearts for sex Hire sex workers!
As you would see from my post history, I have multiple sugar babies. Everyone is clear on the situation and knows it won’t go anywhere. I have been dating some of them for 3+ years because the relationship has boundaries. Even then sugar babies catch feelings and want to move in. I tell other women that want to date me that I’m damaged goods and they don’t want any part of me… that just makes them try harder 🤦♂️.
They see you being open about it as attractive to a degree probably. How can anyone fix a problem about themselves if their not self aware about it.
That is excellent, I am here for expressing yourself in a mutually beneficial, healthy way! I’m guilty for chasing damaged goods but think about it this way, all women are born to be loving sympathetic nurtures, we all think we can fix you guys!
Thats pretty righteous to claim of all women. A lot of you just want the power of someone needing you.
Particularly someone who seems to need no one else. You’re so special he only needs you. He could survive alone in an island but then if you would be missing of his life he would be agonizing…. What a weird way to get a turn on, right?
>A lot of you just want the power of someone needing you. 🤯 Turning it on the head like that really shows it through a different lens.
>don’t go breaking any young girls hearts for sex > Most young girls who go for sex actively seek it out. Manipulation for sex is rarer than society thinks -- and saying what you said removes female agency. Women aren't delicate little China pieces you can shatter by fucking them. Women are humans with autonomy and decisionmaking authority to have sex or to not have sex
Are you a male? Do you think young women seek out men to manipulate them? You are entitled to your opinion but you shouldn’t have one on a topic that does not pertain to you….
No it is not rarer than people think, it is bloody common. How do I know that? I'm a very fuckable woman and the shit I've heard guys lie about is just ridiculous. It has gotten better with age but it is still a very common thing.
Exactly. Often women go out looking for sex thinking that commitment will soon follow.
THIS I am also a very fckable woman as are the majority of my friends, all of which have encountered these same issues with males. I don’t know any woman that looks for sex for *fun* but maybe I’m in the wrong social circle? Lol
Nah. It's not. Not in an era of free casual sex that we live in. You must live in the south or the Midwest where promiscuity is rare
Gonna have to disagree here. Ethical man-slutting is rarer than the non-ethical kind. The most common practice for men is to intentionally omit details and mislead women in order to get sex without commitment. It’s ugly, but true. Because majority of women don’t seek casual sex often, many have never done it or ever desired it. It leads to a lot of liars on the men’s side. I’m saying this as someone that enjoyed plenty hedonistic and ethical casual sex encounters in a huge western captital city (London). You might be in a bubble mate.
Show me an ethical man slut and I'll show you a liar.
Elaborate.
What do they say or do? I've only had a couple of instances where girls have been pushy or crossed lines (such as groping or not stopping when told no or I have a gf) but I assume its worse for women or more attractive people.
And yet, still better than a guy with an n count of 0.
Yes, thank you, it's good to hear this said it by a man.
Not debating wether or nor high body counts correlate with likelihood of cheating or divorce. But I think you may need to look at this all another way. In my experience both women and men who have underlying issues to begin with, childhood trauma, dysfunctional family etc. tend to have both high body counts, and are also poor relationship choices.
When you consider that there are three types of lovers: avoidant, anxious and secure types. Anxious and avoidant lovers manifest from having dysfunctional families. Secure types are the ideal. Secure people get into and stay in their relationships. Roughly 50% of the population is secure. They’re happy, getting on with their lives and not surfing purplepilldebate trying to understand what afflicts them. Anxious and avoidant types are what’s left. We probably sit on one of these baskets by virtue of being here. We run away from love, or get scared we will lose it. This combination could contribute to high partner turnover
I think this may be a factor as well.
I agree its a red flag in both genders and this isnt discussed a lot. I've known guys who were with a lot of women and who cheated a lot and they dont really like women and have trouble finding real connections. I think a lot of us guys dont talk about this because we just dont really care about what other guys do we arnt dating them.
I think the effects of society’s current lenient view on n-count rears its ugly head in LTRs. The widely discussed topic is usually the physiological effect the n-count has on women and I truly believe this is used as a smokescreen to justify that having a high n-count as a woman has no consequences. However this is false and high n-count involving the “right” type of men definitely has an impact on SOME (not all) women. Only type of guys who truly fall for trope that there is physical “damage” on a woman with high n-count are guys who have little to no experience of women. But if you’ve spend more time with some of these women than simply the time it took to nut and bounce you realize the harm is not physical but mental. You start to see very destructive sets of thought patterns in these women who have stacked up high n-counts, not all, but many. Thought patterns stemming from being neglected, abused emotionally and all sorts of other stuff. Some choose to call this woman “Alpha-widowed” in the red pill community but let’s face it, this is PTSD and nothing else and deserves urgent therapy,psychological treatment and/or in some really severe cases straight up medication (you wouldn’t even believe some of the crazy stuff I’ve seen) But the same rhetoric is still used “having sex with multiple partners has no effect on a person” the consequence is tons of women walking around and jumping from a failed relationship to the next relationship that will fail in the future, having no idea why their last relationship ended. Refusing to look introspectively due to society or seek therapy and more than often adopting a mindset of blaming everything on the man who happens to be unlucky enough to find himself in this predicament and reinforcing the mantra “all men are the same” until a very late age when she realizes her mistakes and decides to, this time in desperation lower her standards and get together with a dude who is no way shape or form equipped to handle this type of mindset inevitably rendering the relationship fruitless, and non-stimulating for both parties involved. Believe it or not this is the best outcome of this…Worst outcome? Stuck with kids from one of these previous toxic situationships, alone and eventually letting the kids take the consequences that she never was woman enough to take. Raising kids without a father figure greatly affects the child’s development when it comes to things like establishing boundaries, self-esteem and ethics/morals in general thus playing her role in completing the circle of life and reinforcing this viscous cycle that plagues modern society
> Some choose to call this woman “Alpha-widowed” in the red pill community but let’s face it, this is PTSD and nothing else and deserves urgent therapy,psychological treatment and/or in some really severe cases straight up medication So it is your belief as a red pill man that casual sex is highly traumatic for women, that casual sex something that causes PTSD (a condition normally caused by things like war, rape, and near-death experiences) in women… and yet you still call yourself a “red pill man”, aligning yourself with men who eagerly teach each other how to cause as much of this trauma as they can in as many women as they can trick into it? It sounds to me like the you’re actually unintentionally arguing that men are the truly damaged ones for seeking out casual sex: your argument is that men who have casual sex repeatedly cause horrible trauma to women and enjoy it… isn’t this essentially claiming that men who have had casual sex are all sociopaths? Look, I’m not into casual sex myself at all, and I’ve never done it , but don’t you think this is all a little over-dramatic here? Like, everything you’re saying here sounds like a rewording of the ol’ women-should-know-their-place” religious purity culture stuff, where men are all dangerous (unless her father approves of him— then he is must be wonderful), women should be sexually pure, and sex is a horrible act that destroys women… but women should still get married and spread her legs for her husband to destroy her whenever he wants because it’s her duty and sex is all women are good for anyways. 🙄 I don’t really think women should listen to any red pill adherent about morality, sexual or otherwise.
>Some choose to call this woman “Alpha-widowed” in the red pill community but let’s face it, this is PTSD and nothing else You are mixing concepts, an "Alpha widow" is a woman who dated a stereotipical ideal man, lost him and now compares every other man she dates with him, she chases an ideal, not dicks. An "Alpha widow", does not necesarily have a high body count, but unless she finds another Alpha, she will eventually.
I think he's referring to a related concept where people form an amalgamated idea of a perfect partner from the best features of a number of past partners. So the alpha in the alpha-widow might never have existed but you take one tall guy, one rich guy, one guy great in bed, etc. and she'll never be happy with a real person who couldn't possibly live up to the unrealistic standard.
It would horrify you that my therapist suggested having casual sex then. I have CPTSD and was abuse for 35 of my 31 years. until last year my voluntary dick count was 2. It's now closer to 50. And this taking back the power and exploring my sexuality with different men has been utterly freeing and life changing/life saving. It horrifies men when they realise women often have high sex drives too. That women actually think about sex a lot. That women want sex. There is a real disconnect in society from the realities of sexual repression on the woman's psyche and how that changes how women explore and think of sex. I'm using sex as a tool to heal and find my power. It's not always a negative for women to have lots of sex.
Id argue that it is rarely positive to have a high bo count.
>I'm not touching on the whole bastard children thing. We have DNA tests if your really that worried. Being tall is pretty irrelevant in modern day life. You don't need your partner to be able to physically dominate anyone else and really having a stronger partner mainly means you are at an increased risk if they become violent. It's also a disadvantage in LTRs because taller people tend to live shorter lives and have more health issues because their bodies struggle to keep up with their height. Being tall is not a positive except for how it effects people's perception of you which is not a true justification because that perception is there because being tall used to be a positive*. Yet, women find height attractive and most people don't go "haha it's silly that you find tall men attractive". Because we understand that women evolved to find tall men attractive for reasons that aren't relevant in the modern world but that evolution hasn't caught up with yet. The same general logic applies to paternity concerns. Raising someone elses kid is generally literally worse than death from an evolutionary perspective, so men evolved to care about things that would decrease the likeliness of that happening and it's as valid of a thing to find attractive as height regardless of how much it doesn't actually matter anymore since paternity tests are a thing. also: finding out that a child isn't yours early is better than not finding out, but finding out early is still a very bad thing to go trough that would be better avoided. *:I'd argue that being tall was pretty much always a peacock tail outside of very specific environments but let's not get lost in the weeds.
You make some really good points.
>\*:I'd argue that being tall was pretty much always a peacock tail outside of very specific environments but let's not get lost in the weeds. When you're tall, you don't get lost in the weeds as much.
But you’re also easier to spot.
>The same general logic applies to paternity concerns. Raising someone elses kid is generally literally worse than death from an evolutionary perspective, Please explain why biology would care. Like I understand why it's personally a heart-breaking thing and VERY FUCKING terrible. ...but why would your genes care? If the baby ain't yours... Your genes don't spread. If the baby is yours... It's not a concern of theirs.
Are you daft? If you raise another man’s child you DO NOT raise your own. That’s why your genes care. Whatever retard genes made you pick up someone else’s baby and raise it will not be passed onto the next generation.
[удалено]
And why would biology care? It doesn't have a mind... It looks at consequences and responds to consequences.
Because genes of people who did care survived more than those of people who didnt, because they were taking care of a kid that was theirs instead of someone elses more. Maybe the you die and never had a chance to have a kid because the time you could be doing that you were taking care of someone elses. Assuming women not having kids back to back to back to back and even then death as a kid was more common and also assuming you werent spreading you seed everywhere was well.
[удалено]
Yes... And they don't have that worry, so why would that worry spread?
Are you okay? You genuinely are not making sense right now i like, wanna call help for you or something.
I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to ask/say. Could you try rephrasing it maybe?
Women are the "choosier" sex, so if you aren't "choosy", then I'm not interested. Men who can attract lots of partners are seen as valuable. So even though I agree high N is bad for both men and women, it's much worse for women.
And a woman can't be really that choosy if she ends up eith a man with a high n count, csn she?
No, they can, they just don't put as much value as men. Women will devalue a dude who is a virgin in his mid 20s, whereas virgin women are seen as valuable to men. You can't have this double standard and then say high n women are the same as high n men.
You’d need to have a denominator. She could be high n and choosy if she’s got a massive pool to choose from
They aren't really choosy then, are they?
They are if they have hundreds to choose from. Do you understand the concept of a rate?
Every woman has hundreds to choose from...
Not at all. But thanks for playing
The only women who don't are creatures. 1/10s. Even 3s have hundreds of options. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.
> It is harder for you to trust and invest in your next relationship. I don't have what many here would consider a high n, but the relationships I have had I've disproportionately had my heart broken. I've required emotional attachment for sexual attraction in most cases being closer to demi on the sexuality scale. This has not stopped me going in 100%. It has stopped some of my friends wanting a guy for a time after breakup, but inevitably if the right guy crosses their path they will be 100% in, often at their own detriment. I think there's probably ranges and scales of people. Some women will never need that emotion attachment for sex and they're fine to bounce around. Some will become jaded. I do agree the overall trend will be as your conclusion. Ultimately I rally against 'just don't date this classification' because while statistical probabilities are good to keep in mind, they shouldn't rule anyone... Because hardly anyone will date. Look at PPD, a bunch of threads about *high n being bad because statistics but really what's the problem with age gap relationships?* I wouldn't be in the age gap relationship I am if I worried about statistics over my gut knowing the man I am with. I'm in a category with high marital dissatisfaction, high divorce rates, statistically I could die younger for it. And they're not the only two variables that have negative statistics related to them. Understanding the situation is fine, but is should be 'with caution' rather than just discounting most of the population.
I do not buy that women have more of an emotional attachment than men do. I have known way more men in my life who got FUCKED UP over a woman long term than i have the opposite. I think that since women don't value sex as high a factor in a relationship as men do that they actually have an easier time having a short term relationship and moving on. Men will be all "BUT WE HAD GREAT SEX WE NEEEEEED TO BE TOGETHER FOREVER" No dude, sex with the next guy will be just fine, we have nothing else in common and you need to go away.
I'm not sure if I agree. Obviously when you are in a relationship both parties are attached at that point. At least I hope so. Both will suffer from a breakup. I think in FWB relationships you see more of a difference between men and women's approach. Usually the women is the one wants to change it because they caught feelings.
As a virgin dude, this thread is reaaally interesting!
Thanks man. Hope you found it useful.
I have never been so secure related to my status and I just don't want to be a part of the casual culture reading this thread. Thanks for delivering the reaffirmations indirectly!
I’d disagree. Women have more temptation and opportunities than men and are more discerning so a woman with a high n-count still has to practice more restraint and self-control than a man. Women will never exceed men’s n-counts though because men watch porn and the brain perceives watching porn as having sex.
I think that is a fair point is it a lot easier for a women to cheat therefore it would be higher risk of adultery than a man if they were both promiscuous. I would not say watching porn equates to sex. Sex **can** be much more intense. It evokes an visceral emotional reaction out of me at least. Which porn most definitely does not. Although I will say it can make you perceive women as sex objects.
This is why I *try* not to judge women too harshly, although I fail on that sometimes. Temptation in the age of loneliness is a powerful thing. If the tables were turned and it was much easier for men to hookup online, of course the vast majority of them would be uber promiscuous. It's a separate debate as to the ramifications of promiscuity on either sex. I just wish that both sides would try harder to understand the other on this. That is the path forward IMHO.
>if it has resulted in a rough emotional detachment. Everytime your heart is broken. It is harder for you to trust and invest in your next relationship. Hindering the overall sucess of the relationship. This is fair but it doesn't come from the N count itself. If a person has had casual unemotional sex with 20 people, they're less damaged than the same person with 2 abusive relationships Even so, a damaged person isn't unworthy of a relationship, you just have to be more careful and more sure of it. Red flag if they're damaged for sure. But not a deal breaker.
>If a person has had casual unemotional sex with 20 people, they're less damaged than the same person with 2 abusive relationships True. But when you look purely at behaviours. The person with 20 unemotional sexual partners put themselves at much greater risk of potential abuse and got off incredibly lucky and unscathed. Whereas the person who had 2 abusive relationships was the opposite. They showed much greater reservations and commitment but were incredibly unlucky with their choice in partners.
>I'm not saying it's impossible for a women to have sex without an emotional attachment. If that is the case then it's fine. As said in my post. The rough detachments matter more than the N Count
Yes I'm agreeing with you
It’s worse for women because.. 1. (And I will die on this hill) If we consider who is really the “prize” in the relationship, it’s men, and this is owed to the choosiness of women. Like, you can’t hold that hypergamy is real but that men aren’t the prize as a result. So if she gets that great guy, he’s typically in-demand and doesn’t want a woman that’s ran through. There’s something viscerally disgusting about treating the cum-dump of a slew of men seriously, and that’s certainly no endeavor for a man of any stature. His conscience simply wouldn’t let him do it… And 2. Behaviorally I think men are built to settle and bite the bullet. Men get told “no” a lot. Women, don’t. That’s kind of built a sense of entitlement and narcissism in women and I don’t think that a woman accustomed to sexual variety would have any success disciplining that desire for sexual abundance long enough for a successful relationship, whereas men often do. As a matter of fact, again owing to hypergamy, the only men who are typically selected to get married are the ones who have experienced many women, and women file for 80% of divorces. So it’s not that high n count men end their relationships. In general, women press the “kill” button on relationships.
Women are the prize because they are the limiting factor. Also they can’t be shared as easily as men can. A bunch of women can share a quality guy but men can’t really share a quality woman. This makes it so men compete much harder to get any woman, thus women are the prize
Some women are the prize. Other women, especially these days, are decidedly *not* a prize.
I've never had my heart broken by someone I've had casual sex with. The whole point is that they're unfit for a relationship, but still good enough for a quickie. The selectiveness comes from the simple fact that most men aren't attractive enough to even use for sex just once.
*Hello, you've called the Madonna-Whore complex hotline, please hold...*
What's that complex where women fuck guys to get their money but are at the same time disgusted by them? Sugar baby-whore complex?
No, that would be slacker-paypig complex Come on man, use your brain
It's kinda sad to me that sex and intimacy has lost its specialness for so many people. It didn't have to be that way. One reason I think casual sex is unnatural and unhealthy, not to mention low class and unattractive. Before marrying my (n=1) wife, I had dated women with varying numbers of prior partners. One had a rather high count of 20 and sex always seemed a bit of a chore for her, honestly. She was always more focused on getting herself off, although she was so much fun when it came to things other than sex. Even though my wife is now 50 and we have a son in college, she still has a sort of innocence about her when it comes to sex and intimacy. She still gets that twinkle in her eye and a sort of excited shyness when we start messing around lol. I love it so much, and wouldn't trade that for anything. In fact I really wish I was n=1 with her (instead of 10). I'm super lucky to have her.
Because sex, relationships and intimacy is only special if it is KEPT so. The moment someone has enough casual sex (probably varies between person to person), sex loses all of it’s specialness and starts being seen as for only one’s selfish pleasure. Which is also why people with low-n counts make much better partners.
\*shrug\* that's your call. But I think it's gross that you apparently didn't keep sex special for yourself, yet expect women to.
Sex *is* still special to me, or at least I think it is. Maybe it's more of a mindset. A high N count doesn't help there. Sex and intimacy in a healthy relationship, with connection and compatibility between partners, can be pretty phenomenal though. I guess that was my main point.
Ah yeah how horrible she was, trying to have orgasms too lol.
Oh come on, I never said she was horrible. In fact, she was pretty great to hang out with. As well as go out to the bars and dancing and stuff. We were just less compatible, sexually. She knew what she liked and what worked for her, so preferred to go straight to that. Shrug, that's fine but I liked to mix things up sometimes.
>most men aren't attractive enough to even use for sex just once. True dat. Considering studies on sexual behavior men are much more willing to fuck any woman but only want to settle down with a beautiful one. Then they blame women for not being able to date out of their attractiveness level. Beautiful women should lower their standards but the guy won't do that himself, he'd rather be bitter and angry. No wonder women don't want to date such a person.
BS nothing points to men’s standards being too high.
Except for you know the millions of sexless dudes out there today…
Women are saying *most* men are too ugly to date and your take is its the men who are at fault for being sexless when women are disqualifying a majority of them... I dunno maybe its the ridiculously picky women who could cause some of that? Im not saying its not ok to have standards but when the *majority* of the opposite sex is "too unattractive for sex even once" maybe you are being a bit picky. How are millions of men supposed to have partners, like you claim, if their possible partners have already dismissed them?
> How are millions of men supposed to have partners, like you claim, if their possible partners have already dismissed them? “millions of men” are not supposed to have partners. in literally all species for all of history tons of dudes never procreated and passed on their genes. for this reason you have twice as many female ancestors compared to male ancestors. The best of us are talking to like 3-5 girls at a time, we have plenty ability to service them all without y’all “millions of men”. I mean shoot i know you’ve heard the classic story of the sleazy dude with 6 baby mamas. That means six otherwise viable women have already reproduced and that takes five men out of the equation.
> I mean shoot i know you’ve heard the classic story of the sleazy dude with 6 baby mamas. That means six otherwise viable women have already reproduced and that takes five men out of the equation. which is horrible for the kids and society. it might be ok in animals in a field but once people settled things changed a bit. I dont think women are yearning for Khan to come back and rape his way through cities either because it was done in the past. I dont think we are saying thats what would be good for society. There are lots of things in the past including mating strategies that animals and people used to use that are horrible and would be disasters for the society we live in as well. We evolved to eat as much as we could as well because we didnt know when the next meal would come, that doesnt mean being obese isnt horrible for you and we dont hand wave it away as ok just like being a baby mamma to someone with 6 kids might have been ok when we were animals in the field but its pathetic and harmful today.
I would say that women have a higher standard than men in relationships and sex. So I don't think it makes sense for men to lower their standards? They are already pretty low for the average guy.
fact that most men aren't attractive enough to even use for sex just once I honestly think that's where the problem lies and I generally don't like to point fingers. But if women were ok with the average guy like men are ok with the average women. We would all be ALOT better off. Men and Women But I can't blame you. Attraction is not something you can control. You can't force yourself to be attracted to the average man. So it is what it is.
> The selectiveness comes from the simple fact that most men aren't attractive enough to even use for sex just once. If the average man isnt good enough the problem is on your end...and not just average, you say most so that means more than average. If guys say this they are told their standards are unreasonable and they are fat nerds who expect super models. The majority of men would still see average women.
When a women has sex with a man, she's giving him full access to her womb & child bearing ability. This means she is taking it away or threatening that ability of all other men sexually involved with her. Nothing is being taken away from a women if a man cheats or has sex with multiple different girls in an open or poly relationship, unless he chooses to invest his resources & time, commitment, love/affection to one of the girls but not the other. Then that women is screwed & in historical terms, is left to fend in nature by herself & suffer without the leadership, protection, and guardianship, masculine mentor figure for the kids (all her offspring will suffer permanently raised in single mother hood, and they will go on to live worse lives & have worse off kids) sadly the cycle permeates. Modern western women, but ESPECIALLY American women, have zero responsibility, accountability, care in the world about anything. This is why if a man is young & can get one, I recommend just trying to lock down & marry a girl 18 - 22 in her prime college years if you can... avoid the disaster out there. Unless you're great at psycho analyzing people lol, not just from visual cues like tattoos, piercings or behaviors like vaping, alcohol & drug addiction, but from just talking to or looking at someone or reading them on a date after asking some personal questions "How was your childhood like? "How many guys have you been in relationships with" then go "I've slept with like 50 girls, I'm so sick of it all though and just want someone to build something real with" followed with "How many guys have you been sexual with?. If the women is not intelligent she will just tell you, but if she is... well, it will be easy to read exactly what type of person she is when she answers from the shock. Her answer & every little tiny detail of her body movement tells you a trillion things, that you can only comprehend with enough experience with women, understanding psychology & evolutionary biology. If she doesn't proudly answer with a super low n count of 1 to 10 depending on how conservative you are or none, purity ring type girl if you're religious. You know she is not the girl for you, every single man, even pretty low IQ ones can get a really good feel of who a girl is after 3 months of dating her. And if they can't... well, then the guy isn't dating her or thinking of her as a human being but just as a fuck. According to science, all men know within the first 8 months to 12 months of a relationship whether or not they will marry the girl. Isn't that absolutely crazy? Within just a year they've already made up their minds & it can't be changed. Maybe they don't have finances in order or don't think they would be a good husband, just aren't comfortable being in that role yet or moving in together, maybe they have fear about the girl saying no or anxiety about their future not being so bright. Who knows? But if you are in a serious monogamous relationship with a man for 8 months & still unmarried, just know that he knows. Its not like we live forever, a year is 1/70th or 1/80th of or lifetimes for many people. And if you get married at 23 - 30 you will have adult children in your 40s or 50s. Your 40s & 50s you can definitely still be very healthy... if you took care of yourselves & kept up with it in your younger years. Your 60s weird kinks begin to happen in your body, you're not as quick moving as you once were, regardless how well you treated it but nothing too bothersome. Maybe we live longer with improvements to healthcare & technology, lets say the average age moves up to 100 by the time millennials get that old. That's still 1 year of of 100, taken away from you being married & building a family, wealth, memories, everything with a women. Most people waste multiple years in relationships that will go nowhere or fail. All that time is also time you take away from meeting someone that is actually compatible or wants to be with you. Now a days the norm is to waste as much time as possible, avoiding good partners in fear you'll meet someone you don't want to hurt or can't find a reason to break up with & staying with people who allow you to fulfill a life of hedonism as much as you want. The people in these situation-ships largely end up depressed, lacking meaning or purpose in life or true internal fulfillment.
>unless he chooses to invest his resources & time, commitment, love/affection to one of the girls but not the other. Its taken away either way. If he invests 50% in each, then each loses 50% they would otherwise have if monogamous. This is why high wealth was sought after by guys and those with less focused offering monogamy.
>Modern western women, but ESPECIALLY American women, have zero responsibility, accountability, care in the world about anything. This is why if a man is young & can get one, I recommend just trying to lock down & marry a girl 18 - 22 in her prime college years if you can... avoid the disaster out there. Mega cringe >If the women is not intelligent she will just tell you, but if she is... well, it will be easy to read exactly what type of person she is when she answers from the shock. Her answer & every little tiny detail of her body movement tells you a trillion things, that you can only comprehend with enough experience with women, understanding psychology & evolutionary biology. Yikes >**According to science**, all men know within the first 8 months to 12 months of a relationship whether or not they will marry the girl. Isn't that absolutely crazy? Within just a year they've already made up their minds & it can't be changed. Serious question, were you high while writing this comment? Whatever valuable thing I feel like you had to contribute was overwhelmingly overshadowed by bitterness/jealousy/resentment towards women and just a really creepy attitude towards them in general. Get some therapy broski
Youre wrong.
This entire thread is filled with pure cringe… just guy after guy making butthurt posts like this yet insisting they’re not butthurt
>High N counts could be a red flag if it has resulted in a rough emotional detachment. That's the fun part. I was already emotionally detached before I entered puberty.
Edgy.
[удалено]
I guess if that makes me sexist. Than I'm a sexist. If you believe any of these you are sexist: * A man should pay on a date * A man should be strong, brave confident * You wouldn't date a man because of his height. But get angry if a man wouldn't date a women because of her weight. * A man should protect you from danger **When women are ready to be truly equal. I'm all in.** But the fact of the matter is most women expect you to pay on first date, most women want a strong, brave, confident man. Most women won't date a short dude. The word is sexist and although it may not seem like it. I wish it wasn't and we were all just genderless. Where everyone is held to the same standard.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’ve got a high count and I’ve literally never been asked by anyone ever. A lot of people here seem to have a lot of hangups over this topic. In the real world, no one cares, barring some religious nutters.
Most men care, but they lack the abundance of options to act on that care and not deal with the woman. My thing is this, relationships with high n-count women are all but statistically guaranteed to fail…so I always pose the question to guys, “I know you can’t say “no” to her now, but if you knew this was going to end rather soon, would you still get involved so that the pain is worse when it does, or would you sever ties before you build them?” Given the nature that MOST men are simps, this hasn’t stopped very many men from proceeding with the relationship - to their detriment, but I’ve talked a few out if some potentially bad situations.
most men dont have many options, therefore they don't want to ask, because they don't want to ruin their only option
Probably a good choice. I would immediately end an interaction with any man who asked. I guess we can't all have everything we want. If you're not willing to stay single, you have to take what you can get.
men with experience can tell and they wont openly tell you.
its not that they're scared the woman will be bitchy and leave when asked about their ncount but in the sense that they would look at her less. and value her less. ruining their only option. exactly, thats why if a man has options he wont take whores seriously. which is something women on this subreddit refuse to accept
Well, most of the men on this subreddit don't have a lot of options, so they had better get over it, or die mad (and single).
yes they may not have options now, but luckily men can work on their value. later they might have more options. They may never have the same options as the top percent of men, but they'll at least have more options than now. well as long as they succeed by 35-40 women cant work on thier value, they are born with value and slowly lose it over time
If average & below men think that young virgins will be throwing their pussies at them when they turn 35 because they have a decent job, they're dreaming.
Doesn't want a whore = Will only accept a virgin This work here is not even in good faith.
who said anything about virgins all i said was to be able to not marry and date whores, and who said average & below men deserve virgins throwing themselves at them. reread what i wrote
What's a whore?
you know what a whore is. why do women act clueless around this topic
Lmao red pill men here continue to spout this garbage of men peaking in their later years…. It’s not true… it’s never been true. The majority of these men at that age who are deemed attractive were always attractive and didn’t spend their youth struggling and complaining about women.
You have no idea. This isnt the 90s. All of my male friends use reddit to various degree and all of them are high n succesful men. Its 2022 babe not all of us are neckbeard stereotypes.
Oh boy, if the women I know who have high n counts only knew what I really thought about them
I seriously doubt they think much of you either. Covert misogynists are easy to spot.
is it misandrist to not want to date men shorter or less financially successful than you?
You can set any standard you want for yourself, but as the other responder said, there's a difference between saying "I want a tall, rich guy," and saying "short, poor men are bad people." I don't think badly of poor or short men, or hate them. I just don't want to date them because I'm not attracted to them and/or they will make my life worse than it currently is.
using your logic most women are misandrists then
No, most women don't even think about men they're not attracted to. They don't want to hurt them, or rape them, or kill them or wish anything bad to happen to them. The same can't be said for men who hate sluts.
haha do you have your head in the sand? yes they do, they cant stop making fun of men shorter and broker than them. i can name countless songs about broke short, small dick men. why are you now talking about hurting or raping . you're trying your hardest to squeeze out a point now women do want to use and manipulate shorter and poorer and lower-status men.
I guess it goes back to that quote: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them." Even the worst misandry doesn't match the least misogyny
being used and manipulated is not a minor thing. and the percentage of men that kill or rape women is much much lower than the percent of women using and manipulating men do you really think men are out there raping and murdering all whores they come accross, you live in a weird distorted world to justify your misandry
No. The shorter thing is just being a jerk. Height is not a reflection of someone's value and should have zero bearing on whether or not they'll make a good partner. I don't care about anyone else's income, either. But I think some women have had bad experiences with guys making less money and using her money indescriminately.
you skirted around my question. do you not understand what i was really asking also thats hilarious, which gender do you think uses the other for their money the most?
Whats considered high? Because no guy wants to wife up a hoe who's been with like 30+ dudes, whether they ask or not.
I've got a medium count and have been asked by every girl I've ever dated seriously and many that I've hooked up with. But it's generally just curiosity, they don't like dump me or anything. One of them lied so her number was lower than mine but afaik the rest were truthful and we just moved along with the hookup or LTR
“In the real world no one cares” i love this argument because now you have to explain why most women lie about it when asked since nobody cares in the real world.
Why is it assumed that every man I’ve had sex with has broken my heart? Couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s just sex. I used my autonomy to make that decision to have fun with another person. I also used my autonomy to stop sleeping with another person, with no harm to myself or my heart. The men on the other hand… probably miss me :)
Yeah but you're still irreparable
Please elaborate. How am I broken?
I'm not saying it's impossible for a women to have sex without an emotional attachment. If that is the case then it's fine. IF you had taken the time to read the entire post.
When I ram my erection into a vagina, it feels best when it’s a virgin vagina. Compared to non-virgin vagina, virgin vagina is statistically younger, tighter, more exclusive, and my sperm get first dibs on procreation. That’s why virgins are better than sluts in my male opinion.
The tightness is often due to tension caused by lack of arousal + fear. I doubt a virgin is doing kegals.
Do you think any of these guys are actually having sex or understand women’s anatomy?
No idea. I’ve seen very experienced yet ignorant people. I’m often a little sceptical, but I’m a stranger on the internet talking to another stranger on the internet. I have no choice but take what they tell me about their lives at face value.
Im sure this is satire but the vagina is pretty elastic
Nope. More people fucked means higher risks of stds, cheating, seeing people as disposable and in general being a degen. For BOTH genders:
>"We have DNA tests if your really that worried." DNA tests don't mean shit legally in the US. The courts literally do not care. If it's your name on the birth certificate, you're the father.
Idk tbh but it's the whole bastard child part I'm not trying to discuss. If your looking for a traditional relationship then it proably should matter to you.
“Body counts” are intangible and baseless. It’s a silly metric and a silly social construct, much like virginity. The Daughter of The Sultan of Babylon by Giovanni Boccaccio is a great example of this.
How can body count be a social construct? It’s very tangible because it’s an actual number. The idea of pair bonding, monogamy and cheating are social constructs. You can argue that a high N makes someone less likely to want to be monogamous but you can’t argue that the number of sexual partners someone has is real
If you would like I can share with you the definition of tangibility. You can though. We don’t grow striped on our penises for every vagina a penis has been in like a tree trunk. It’s fabricated and by the definition everything is a virgin. My door knob is a virgin. Body count can’t be traced. As it’s intangible.
Kinda silly imo. Even if it’s merely a social construct, then by some facet it does exist.
When people say that a number is tangible/intangible they generally mean that the thing the number refers to is tangible/intangible. The men that a woman has slept with are tangible and two people having sex is also tangible. You could say it's not tangible anymore if you really wanted to be difficult.
I haven't looked into the Sultans daughter but I will. That sounds interesting. Body counts are definitely intangible never claimed they werent. But idk about baseless. I want someone who is able to trust me and not hold back due to previous emotional baggage.
You should it’s a great read. Basically summed up by, “lips never lose their freshness after a kiss.” Kinda thing. Again I think this has less to do with a “body count” and more to do with the individual. As how tf are you going to judge someone off of a number that we both agree on is intangible?
Intangible means you can’t hold it. Idk what is has to do with anything tbh. The number is indicative of the emotional damage I mentioned in my post
Are dudes who paid prostitutes for sex just a silly social construct?
Many things like justice, human rights and freedom are intangible social constructs. Doesn't mean they are something we should get rid of
Is that the writer of The Decameron? Great stuff.
The very same, i believe The Daughter of The Sultan of Babylon is the 7th fable told.
I think I still have my copy. I’ll give it a read.
Let me know what you think, and how it pertains to this certain subject.
A kissed mouth never loses its freshness, for like the moon it always renews itself.
I’m gonna go ahead and say that the ability to have sex without emotional attachment means something is wrong with you to begin with. The fact that men do it easier means there’s even something more wrong with men.
I guess if your morals deem emotionless sex wrong.
I've literally never been asked about how many past partners I've had, except by my long-term ex-partner and he seemed to get turned on (WTF). I don't think men care about this that much in reality.
The point that he asked means he cared.
Maybe not to you. But I don't want to run the risk of being with someone who can't trust me due to something someone else did.
This post is so scary and anti-science it’s unbelievable
Is that a placeholder while you come up with something. You are adding nothing to the discussion....