Current Events > girl has sex with 50 men = used up, gross. girl has 1 boyfriend for years = pure

(+) Yeah! (+)

yet 1 boyfriend girl would have had way more sex than the first girl.

yes i know, the lock and key analogy

i just always laugh when people say a woman who's had a lot of partners is somehow more "used up" than a woman who's been with one guy for years and would have had sex way more times than the first.
---

std

I think it has more to do with the perception that a woman that's been with 50 guys has low self-esteem and/or low standards, and probably caught an STD somewhere along the way

Not that I agree with it, but that's the logic behind it
---

wrong

only virgins are pure :')
---

Virgins are pure

the girl who had sex with the only one boyfriend in her life means she's faithful

Virgins are the purest and highest desire of innocence. Alot of cult leaders seek virgins for personal reasons like David Koresh in the 90s.
---

And when you're with the one woman for a long time she is more likely to have done some very dirty things you'll never know about.
---

slut doesn't mean "has lots of sex". It means "has sex with lots of people"

I know you didn't use the word slut, but this something a lot of people don't get
---

its a stupid double standard

when applied to men, hes a lad if hes had sex with lots of different women
---

I had sex with a lot of guys and my p**** is cute and tight. Girls that stay with a dude are just gonna get married and have kids.
---

arent there studies that showed that marriages to women with less past partners are less likely to end in divorce?

I think it has something to do with grass is always greener or the 'what if' ex-partner

Having sex with over 50 men means you're about 500x more likely to contract an STD than someone who only has sex with one person
---

Its more about the person being sexually faithful
---

rikasa posted...

I had sex with a lot of guys and my p**** is cute and tight.

That's what they all say.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Having sex with over 50 men means you're about 500x more likely to contract an STD than someone who only has sex with one person

Source?
---

men are so arrogant they think the thing that pushes out goddamn children will be looser from having their 5 incher limply thrust into it a few times
---

shnangyboos posted...

rikasa posted...

I had sex with a lot of guys and my p**** is cute and tight.

That's what they all say.

She's not tight trust me I put my hand up there once with no problem
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Having sex with over 50 men means you're about 500x more likely to contract an STD than someone who only has sex with one person

Source?

The numbers are pulled straight out of the ass but if you're sleeping around you pretty much have to accept that you have HPV, HSV 1 or 2 and have probably had the clap/chlyamidia (sp?) at least once. The chances of contracting those would increase exponentially the more partners you had.
---

Y'all got some weird ideas. As long as someone is safe and clean I couldn't care less. Who wants someone that doesn't know a thing or two in the sack (and how do you expect them to learn)? When you're a boy, virgins are terribly important for some reason. When you grow up, the last thing you want to do is mess around breaking in a noob.
---

Ultima Dragon posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Having sex with over 50 men means you're about 500x more likely to contract an STD than someone who only has sex with one person

Source?

The numbers are pulled straight out of the ass but if you're sleeping around you pretty much have to accept that you have HPV, HSV 1 or 2 and have probably had the clap/chlyamidia (sp?) at least once. The chances of contracting those would increase exponentially the more partners you had.

I've fucked over 50 girls. Including some barebacks barebacks that I probably shouldn't have. Never had an STD. Got my last test 4 years ago just before I started dating my wife. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones.
---

toyota posted...

arent there studies that showed that marriages to women with less past partners are less likely to end in divorce?

I think it has something to do with grass is always greener or the 'what if' ex-partner

There's a really, really obvious explanation for this phenomenon and you're missing it entirely.

Hint: the causation goes the other way.
---

As long as the vag is tight, wet, warm, and disease-free, who cares how many guys she's been with (assuming she's not a cheater)?
---

Parappa09 posted...

its a stupid double standard

when applied to men, hes a lad if hes had sex with lots of different women

It's not right when men do it either.
---

Aside from having a revolving door crotch being gross for any gender, the type of person that thinks that way is not for me. Even when I was a teenager, I just wanted to skip dating and settle down.
---

The double standard died YEARS ago, wtf? Where do you guys live, what universe?

Maybe I've been incredibly lucky for over 10 years
---

IMO, doesn't make her used up.

Does make her a whore though

Thats about a guy a week
---

Parappa09 posted...

its a stupid double standard

when applied to men, hes a lad if hes had sex with lots of different women

---

jumi posted...

As long as the vag is tight, wet, warm, and disease-free, who cares how many guys she's been with (assuming she's not a cheater)?

I agree with this.
---

How about the fact the more men a woman has been with before marriage the more likely she is to divorce her husband. More dicks more divorce. Also keep in mind women initiate about 80% of divorces.

The data is absolutely clear and there are multiple sources for this.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4085758/amp/Experts-reveal-sexual-partners-ve-determine-likely-DIVORCE.html

I am pretty sure the number of sexual partners a man has had had either no impact on his likelihood to divorce his wife or the reverse.

This is another case of feminism peddling this bullshit to the masses that men and women are the same and treat sex the same. They absolutely do not and anyone with real life experience knows that. A man has sex with a woman he likes and she ditches him after that he's like oh well at least I fucked. This happens to a woman and she is likely to be emotionally hurt, this happens multiple times and she is damaged. Do not ever marry a damaged woman, you will note that the lowest rate for divorce is amongst woman who were virgins at marriage and its also low for women with 1 sexual parter prior to marriage, it spikes after that and keeps going up.
---

Girl has sex with a bunch of guys and shes normal

Guy has sex with a bunch of guys and all the sudden hes gay

The double standard is redonk
---

It is a double standard. They exist. Too bad. You can see that a woman who's taken 50 dicks by age 24 is completely listless, you can just tell. It's like the episode of The Simpsons where Bart sells his soul.
---

Middle hope posted...

Girl has sex with a bunch of guys and shes normal

Guy has sex with a bunch of guys and all the sudden hes gay

The double standard is redonk

---

https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2015/10/03/madonna-whore-complex/
---

deupd_u posted...

It is a double standard. They exist. Too bad. You can see that a woman who's taken 50 dicks by age 24 is completely listless, you can just tell. It's like the episode of The Simpsons where Bart sells his soul.

The 1000 cock stare.
---

double standards develop when the underlying situations (in this case, ease of finding a willing sexual partner) are not the same

there are many reasons a woman might have many sexual partners. some of those reasons relate to personality traits toxic to long term relationships, others do not.

there's only one reason a man has many sexual partners: because he can.

we judge women foolishly and too rapidly for this choice, because we fear the outcome of tying ourselves to a toxic person. imagine if women seized upon a correlated trait to judge men as potential domestic abusers without even knowing us. i doubt we'd like that much.
---

Darkman124 posted...

imagine if women seized upon a correlated trait to judge men as potential domestic abusers without even knowing us. i doubt we'd like that much.

Who cares if we liked it as long as it was valid. It is a fact that the more partners a woman has the less reliable she is in a long term relationship. The reverse is not true.

Are you suggesting men ignore this evidence because feelings?
---

i'm suggesting there's more reliable data methods and correlation is not causation
---

Darkman124 posted...

i'm suggesting there's more reliable data methods and correlation is not causation

Well, forgive people for not using highly precise data collection methods to make judgement calls for routine situations in their everyday lives, most of us arent super nerds like that nor have the time to do so. Additionally, women are also guilty of foolishly judging men based on imprecise data as well. Generally speaking, women are quite judgmental of men based on the career a guy has(some of my female friends simply refuses to date guys of certain professions like engineer). Similar to men, they also judge based on whether they think the guy sleeps around a lot or not, its interesting both genders use this criteria as a data point for inference.
---

deupd_u posted...

It is a double standard. They exist. Too bad. You can see that a woman who's taken 50 dicks by age 24 is completely listless, you can just tell. It's like the episode of The Simpsons where Bart sells his soul.

thats because every time theres sex theres an energy transfer and loss. but people are too stupid to understand that.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Well, forgive people for not using highly precise data collection methods to make judgement calls for routine situations in their everyday lives, most of us arent super nerds like that nor have the time to do so. Additionally, women are also guilty of foolishly judging men based on imprecise data as well. Generally speaking, women are quite judgmental of men based on the career a guy has(some of my female friends simply refuses to date guys of certain professions like engineer). Similar to men, they also judge based on whether they think the guy sleeps around a lot or not, its interesting both genders use this criteria as a data point for inference.

attention-seeking behavior patterns are much better predictors of relationship instability than the number of dicks that have been in someone, as they are direct markers of narcissism, the most common 'dark triad' personality trait in women
---

Darkman124 posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Well, forgive people for not using highly precise data collection methods to make judgement calls for routine situations in their everyday lives, most of us arent super nerds like that nor have the time to do so. Additionally, women are also guilty of foolishly judging men based on imprecise data as well. Generally speaking, women are quite judgmental of men based on the career a guy has(some of my female friends simply refuses to date guys of certain professions like engineer). Similar to men, they also judge based on whether they think the guy sleeps around a lot or not, its interesting both genders use this criteria as a data point for inference.

attention-seeking behavior patterns are much better predictors of relationship instability than the number of dicks that have been in someone

Source? I dont necessarily disagree, but I think people associate high partner count with attention seeking behavior anyway, theres certainly overlap to it.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Source?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01463373.2015.1012220
---

I like the way I saw it on Twitter last year (and have no idea of the original source)

"A girl has sex with twenty guys, they call her a slut. A guy does it, and they call him gay."
---

I have to pay to read it apparently, the abstract doesnt mention anything about what you claimed, it basically mentions Machiavellinism and psychopathy are predictors of conflict, but that doesnt necessarily have to do with the person being attention seeking.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

I have to pay to read it apparently, the abstract doesnt mention anything about what you claimed, it basically mentions Machiavellinism and psychopathy are predictors of conflict, but that doesnt necessarily have to do with the person being attention seeking.

Results of a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) revealed a significant model identifying differences between frequency of reported conflict (never, rarely, sometimes, or often; always removed from analysis as it had less than 2 cases and prevented any post-hoc test) based on personality reports (Wilks = 0.87, F [9, 467] = 3.17, p = 0.001, 2 = 0.47). Univariate effects were significant for Machiavellianism (F [3, 197] = 6.72, p = 0.001, 2 = 0.09), subclinical psychopathy (F [3, 197] = 4.74, p = 0.003, 2 = 0.07), and subclinical narcissism (F [3, 197] = 3.36, p = 0.02, 2 = 0.05). Post-hoc analyses (Scheffe) revealed that Machiavellian individuals reported significantly more conflict (often M = 2.76, sometimes M = 2.45, rarely M = 2.23) than those lower on Machiavellianism (never M = 1.33); similarly, individuals reporting high levels of psychopathy reported significantly more conflict (sometimes M = 1.97, often M = 2.21) compared to those with lower levels of psychopathy (never M = 1.21; rarely did not significantly differ from the other groups, M = 1.70); and individuals reporting high levels of narcissism reported significantly higher levels of conflict (rarely M = 2.78, often M = 3.11) compared to those reporting lower levels of narcissism (never = 1.96; sometimes did not differ from the other groups, M = 2.78). Hypothesis 1a was supported.

Hypothesis 1b purported that reports of the Dark Triad would be directly related to the intensity of romantic partner conflict and, similarly, Hypothesis 1c reported that Dark Triad reports would be directly related to the hostility of romantic partner conflict. The degree to which conflict was intense was directly related to subclinical narcissism (r = 0.21, p = 0.002), subclinical psychopathy (r = 0.28, p < 0.001), and Machiavellianism (r = 0.40, p < 0.001). Similarly, the degree to which conflict was hostile was directly related to narcissism (r = 0.18, p = 0.01), psychopathy (r = 0.37, p < 0.001), and Machiavellianism (r = 0.33, p < 0.001). Hypotheses 1b and 1c were supported.

Hypothesis 2 forecasted that reports of the Dark Triad personality structure would be directly related to the use of the Four Horsemen during romantic partner conflict. Reports of Machiavellianism were directly related to the reported use of contempt (r = 0.46, p < 0.001), defensiveness (r = 0.35, p < 0.001), stonewalling (r = 0.26, p < 0.001), and criticism (r = 0.37, p < 0.001). Similarly, reports of subclinical psychopathy were directly related to the reported use of contempt (r = 0.44, p < 0.001), defensiveness (r = 0.25, p < 0.001), stonewalling (r = 0.25, p < 0.001), and criticism (r = 0.39, p < 0.001). Equally, reports of subclinical narcissism were directly related to the reported use of contempt (r = 0.24, p < 0.001), defensiveness (r = 0.26, p < 0.001), and criticism (r = 0.21, p = 0.001). Narcissism was unrelated to stonewalling (r = 0.16, ns). Hypothesis 2 was mostly supported.

didnt realize it wasnt entirely free to read. my employer gives me access to these pieces.

there are things to avoid in a partner. narcissism is one of those things. some promiscuous people are narcissists, certainly not all. i think most people know how to identify it over time, and knee-jerk judgments about behavior we haven't observed is a poor method.
---

That all very interesting, but does being Machiavellian or subclinically narcissistic imply the same thing as attention seeking behavior? I was always under the impression most attention seeking people are so because theyre are insecure from a lack of self-esteem, surely a narcissist doesnt have this problem? Additionally, its much harder to detect a narcissist(they can be very charming) that it would be to detect if a person is sleeping around a lot or not, which can then be used to make an inference on the person having the other qualities you brought up.
---

there are things to avoid in a partner. narcissism is one of those things. some promiscuous people are narcissists, certainly not all. i think most people know how to identify it over time, and knee-jerk judgments about behavior we haven't observed is a poor method.

We can agree to that, but I think there is utility to knee jerk judgments in our daily lives, it can save us a lot of time. We have instincts, they can be wrong but I dont mind using them for efficiency purposes. If theres situations where I need to be really sure of something then Ill apply the full extent of my rational faculties.
---

Darmik posted...

And when you're with the one woman for a long time she is more likely to have done some very dirty things you'll never know about.

That's not very encouraging. :/
---

This topic got way nerdier than I intended
---

DavidWong posted...

This topic got way nerdier than I intended

Its CE
---

DavidWong posted...

This topic got way nerdier than I intended

I intended.

Kazi1212 posted...

That all very interesting, but does being Machiavellian or subclinically narcissistic imply the same thing as attention seeking behavior? I was always under the impression most attention seeking people are so because theyre are insecure from a lack of self-esteem, surely a narcissist doesnt have this problem? Additionally, its much harder to detect a narcissist(they can be very charming) that it would be to detect if a person is sleeping around a lot or not, which can then be used to make an inference on the person having the other qualities you brought up.

Insecurity (and the associated unending search for validation) is a common trait of subclinical narcissism. It's an easy marker for it, one that I look for when deciding whether I want someone to know my real name.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1449478?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
---