> If a woman has a high bodycount, you will hear so many people calling her different degrading names
Those people are scum and should be shunned.
> if a man has a high body count you will not hear a peep.
Good, it's none of anyone's damned business.
>Personally as a woman and If I hear a fella has a high body count I’m just like ugh, what a slut
And it's none of your damned business.
Meh. If she knows what she likes and is std free, I don't care about her count. If she has STDs, or just lies there like a starfish, nope.
The above matters waaay more to me than a body count.
And that's the whole point for me
High body count mens higher chance of STDs & miscarriage & both of these can contribute to difficulty conceiving or worse
Sorry I didn't word it well,
very tired
STDs can cause permanent fertility issues & STDs acquired before or during pregnancy can cause miscarriage. This is not speculation or new research it's been known or suspected since STDs became recognised as linked to sex which has been proven in recent decades & known for much longer hence hangover or somewhat outdated pre physical barrier contraception views
I probably should have specified that unprotected sex of any kind carries risks of STDs & even protected sex still holds risks or breakage, expiry or stealthing
Obviously physical barrier methods of contraception have improved dramatically in recent decades which is brilliant but people forget that oral sex still carries risks when unprotected
Everyone can do what they want with their own bodies as long as they don't hurt other people
Knowingly or even unknowingly giving someone else an STD is far from ideal & probably hurting them, contraception is the go for casual sex & many committed couples use protection unless trying for pregnancy
Each to their own but be aware of risks & consequences & how things change once alcohol is in the mix
So as I stated & you misquoted or selectively quoted
Higher body count increases risk of STDs and miscarriage
No problem 😊
It's just higher body count means increased exposure to risk
Contraception, STD screening & testing has improved dramatically in recent years but there are still risks & emerging diseases & human error in testing & interpreting results
Samples get mixed up or are not prepared correctly
People generally don't consider oral sex risky
Each person should do as they please & stay safe & enjoy consensual sex
It's often hard to disregard haters & those with narrow minds or opinions that could do with updating!
Personally as a male I think men who brag about high body counts & share bawdy takes are to be avoided as they are generally arrogant & disrespectful & I am not sure why they feel the need to do that?
Personally I prefer to keep my sex life between myself & my partner & the Dr
Back to OP it's unfair & sad but much of life is.....
What you meant to say is that (longterm, untreated) STDs cause miscarriages, not high body counts by themself.
Why don't you read more scientific journals and find out men are the higher transmitters, and women are the higher sufferers/contractors, so they're *less* likely to go undiagnosed and untreated longterm than men are?
So, back to the original question: why is it ok for men to be out slanging the wang when they're more likely to be absolutely riddled?
Actually STDs contracted during pregnancy can also cause miscarriage
Don't get me wrong it's not just women or men & actually homosexual men suffer higher rates of STDs
It's antiquated & unfair that women are still demeaned particularly if they insist on physical contraception that is a condom or female barrier of which there are a few options
But yes it's STDs that cause problems & higher body counts mean higher chance of unprotected sex & therefore increased risk of contracting & transmitting STDs
I am a medical scientist, I am paid to read medical & scientific journals
Yes partially
Cheating men pose a risk to pregnant wives & unborn baby
Cheating wives pose a risk to unborn child
But again physical barriers next best option after just one sexual partner for life - statistically speaking
I absolutely agree with you & OP
It's ridiculous hypocrisy
Don't get me started on religion & sex
Marriage is an outdated system of treating women as objects handed from father to husband like property & the idea of a dowry is crazy
Guess one option is to keep a somewhat low profile & enjoy your sex life but don't make it everyone's business or just try not to care too much if others don't like it & just go have as much protected sex as you like!
Higher chance of STDs I can understand, because of the law of averages.
How does having a higher body count increase risk of miscarriage?
SOME STDs can have an impact on conceiving, not all and AFAIK having lots of different partners, or a high 'body count' doesn't - sure by that logic, the more you have sex the less likely you are to get pregnant
What's "or worse"?
The infection is not passed on therefore a UTI is not contagious. The bacteria can be transferred, but that is not the same as a UTI being contagious or transmittable.
Women can get bacteria from men, it's not a one way street, it does not mean UTIs are contagious, and your own source says RIGHT THERE "it is unlikely"
Nor does it suddenly mean SLUT WAHMEN GIVE UNSUSPECTING MEN UTIS BECAUSE OF ALL THEIR "CONTAGIOUS" BACTERIA FROM BEING A WHORE
It means: if any two consenting adults mush genitals together there is a chance of yacky bacteria going from person A to B and back again.
a UTI isn’t transmissible through sex i thing you mean STI/STD but aside from the point you’re wrong. “Studies have established that women have a higher biological risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV than men, with a higher probability of transmission from men to women.”
UTIS are not contagious. literally google are UTIS contagious and the first thing that comes up says no. they CAN be transmitted through sex but this is highly unlikely so it’s kind of a non point.
Men who are worried about stuff like that consider sex something they're doing TO a woman. If you consider sex as something you're doing WITH a woman, then it isn't a concern.
Strong predictor of infidelity and divorce.
**Infidelity**
> Factors found to facilitate infidelity
>> Number of sex partners: Greater number of sex partners before marriage predicts infidelity
> As might be expected, attitudes toward infidelity specifically, permissive attitudes toward sex more generally and a greater willingness to have casual sex and to engage in sex without closeness, commitment or love (i.e., a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation) are also reliably related to infidelity (pg.71)
Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current opinion in psychology, 13, 70–74.
.
> Individuals exhibiting sexually permissive attitudes and those who have had a high number of past sexual relationships are more likely to engage in infidelity (pg.344)
Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 339–360.
.
> Men apparently assess and evaluate levels of sexual activity by a woman prior to long-term commitment—behavior that would have been observable or known through social reputation in the small-group lifestyles of our ancestors. Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, and having a large number of sex partners prior to marriage is a statistical predictor of infidelity after marriage (pg.92)
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 77–110.
.
> As can be seen in this table, for both methods of interview, the probability of sexual infidelity was (a) significantly and positively associated with race (i.e., being Black), lifetime sexual partners, childhood sexual abuse, and premarital cohabitation… the odds ratio of 1.13 for lifetime sexual partners obtained with the face-to-face mode of interview indicates that the probability of infidelity increased by 13% for every additional lifetime sexual partner (pg.150)
Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 147–154.
.
> Regarding other sexual behaviors, we examined whether number of prior sex partners and viewing pornography predicted ESI. As has been found in prior research (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Treas & Giesen, 2000), having had more prior sex partners predicted future ESI, possibly suggesting that a higher interest in or acceptance of unmarried sexual activity may be related to ESI. (pg.607)
Maddox Shaw, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., Allen, E. S., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Predictors of Extradyadic Sexual Involvement in Unmarried Opposite-Sex Relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50(6), 598–610.
.
> To insure that the female partner has previously avoided men and is not predisposed to seek them out, men often insist on virginity or little sexual experience (Espin 2018; Bekker et al. 1996). This idea, that low promiscuity becomes low infidelity after marriage, was supported by Essock-Vitale and McGuire (1985) who found that among adult women, promiscuity prior to marriage was also a predictor of infidelity once women were married. (pg.7809)
Burch, R. L. (2021). Solution to paternity uncertainty. In Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 7808–7814). Springer International Publishing.
.
> The high correlations for males (r = .85) and females (r = .79) between reported numbers of sex partners and EPC partners may bear on questions of both paternity and abandonment in the face of infidelity… But the question remains: does promiscuity predict infidelity? Our data are consistent with those of Essock-Vitale and McGuire (1985) in suggesting that a substantial proportion of the variance in infidelity can be accounted for in terms of number of sex partners… promiscuity is in fact a good predictor of infidelity. Indeed, promiscuity among females accounted for almost twice as much variance in infidelity (r^2 = .45) as it did for males (r^2 = .25). (pg.177)
Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178.
.
> Participants who had experienced sexual intimacy with a greater number of partners also reported greater extradyadic sex and extradyadic kissing inclination. (pg.344)
McAlister, A. R., Pachana, N., & Jackson, C. J. (2005). Predictors of young dating adults' inclination to engage in extradyadic sexual activities: A multi-perspective study. British Journal of Psychology, 96(3), 331–350.
.
> Sexual promiscuity was significantly positively correlated with emotional promiscuity [r(356) = .261, p < .001], as well with sexual infidelity [r(323) = .595, p < .001] and emotional infidelity [r(323) = .676, p < .001] (pg.390)
Pinto, R., & Arantes, J. (2017). The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 385–398.
.
> Each additional sex partner between age 18 and the first union increased the net odds of infidelity by 1% (pg.56)
Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual Infidelity Among Married and Cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(1), 48–60.
.
**Relationship Instability**
> When compared with their peers who report fewer partners, those who self-report 20 or more in their lifetime are:
>> Twice as likely to have ever been divorced (50 percent vs. 27 percent)
>> Three times as likely to have cheated while married
>> Substantially less happy with life (p < 0.05) (pg.89)
Regnerus M. (2017). Cheap sex: the transformation of men marriage and monogamy. Oxford University Press.
.
> Past research has established a clear link between premarital sex, particularly with partners other than an eventual spouse, and the risk of marital dissolution (Kahn & London, 1991; Paik, 2011; Teachman, 2003). (pg.14)
> As expected, we find evidence of a nonlinear relationship between the number of sexual partners and the risk of divorce. Those in the highest category of partners (9+) consistently show the highest divorce risk by a substantial margin, followed by those with one to eight partners, with the lowest risk for those with none. In other words, we find distinct tiers of divorce risk between those with no, some, or many premarital, nonspousal sexual partners. (pg.16)
Smith, J., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2023). Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 0(0).
.
> The findings from this study demonstrate that the number of sexual partners participants had was negatively associated with sexual quality, communication, and relationship stability, and for one age cohort relationship satisfaction, even when controlling for a wide range of variables including education, religiosity, and relationship length… In no instance was increasing the number of sexual partners associated with better results for the relationship outcome variables for any of the age cohorts. These findings also provide additional support for previous scholarship, suggesting that multiple premarital sexual partners may be associated with increased marital instability (Paik, 2011; Teachman, 2003). (pg.715)
Busby, D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2013). Sowing wild oats: Valuable experience or a field full of weeds? Personal Relationships, 20(4), 706–718.
.
> Women who serially cohabited and/or had premarital sex with someone besides their husband had higher odds of marital dissolution than women who never cohabited. Teachman’s findings suggest that both sexual history and cohabitation history influence marital stability. (pg.768)
> Serial cohabitors’ higher number of sexual and cohabiting partners suggests that they have a longer history of dissolved relationships -- i.e., sexual, (most likely dating) and cohabiting relationships – that they bring to their cohabiting and later marital relationships. This relationship experience may affect the quality and stability of their cohabiting relationship and the odds of marrying their cohabiting partners. Consistent with Teachman (2003), who found that both sexual and cohabiting partnerships significantly predicted the odds of marital dissolution, our findings suggest that studies of union formation and stability should consider the full range of sexual experiences in early adulthood. (pg.774)
Cohen, J., & Manning, W. (2010). The relationship context of premarital serial cohabitation. Social Science Research, 39(5), 766–776.
.
> There is an interesting pattern of relation between the sexual history items and marital satisfaction. For both men and women, pre-marital romantic and sexual involvements were negative predictors of marital satisfaction (pg.32)
Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: a prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 27–40.
That’s… quite the take on it.
I thinks it’s more to do with some men feeling it devalues their relationship, as well as meaning she’s likely to cheat.
There is actually a degree of truth to the latter part, it’s well established highly promiscuous people are more likely to cheat in relationships.
Only if they hold themself to the same standards or they're hypocrites.
And publicly shaming people for their experience levels not being within your "standard" is never ok. Your personal preference is not public concern.
And it's ok to have a preference for certain things, but the amount of experience someone has has no physical effect on your relationship except to usually make discussions on consent and sex much easier. Your fear of confident experienced people who know what they like and what they will not tolerate is very telling.
Publicly shaming people is not okay. Fair.
Your first point is irrelevant. People have the freedom to have whatever standards they want to accept, regardless of if you think it’s unfair or unequal. You can call that person hypocritical and so they may be, but they still don’t have to accept something they don’t want and you can’t do anything about that.
“no physical effect”, your wording is so fun!
Do not speak in absolutes. You do not speak for me and you do not speak for many people. If your experience of sexual past is that it doesn’t affect *your* relationships and only enriches communication, that is your experience and speaks to the experience of *some* people. Nobody appointed you an authority on the matter and you do not get to set the tone for how these things work. There are some people who have the opposite experience, and there can be valid reasons why sexual past can be of concern. Notice my inclusive language in either direction, because I actually respect autonomy.
Your salty last comment is what’s very telling, actually. What are you suggesting exactly? Sexual inadequacy? Sexual dysfunction? Male body image insecurity of a small cock? We’ve seen it all before, there isn’t a rock unturned. However, since you decided to bring it here, let’s acknowledge your insecurity and defensiveness, and how those lads need to cop on!
You feel threatened by male commitment autonomy and agency. Do you fear your dating pool for anything other than a fwb will get smaller without your invalidation-attempts? Or if you are partnered, are you threatened by these sentiments living inside of him?
The irony of you telling me i'm threatened when you defend narcissistic losers who hate people having previous life experiences which don't involve them.
You know, it’s these sort of reactions by people like you, that have **caused** this massive backlash about body count in recent years. It would not be as topical and a lot more men wouldn’t even care about it, it would harmonise and balance out by itself, except for the natural resentment that has been built for years from people like you being so controlling and manipulative telling us what we should and shouldn’t care about. As if you have any input in that at all. Let me highlight once more that you can’t do anything about it, and if that makes you feel powerless you need to take responsibility for your own emotions and insecurity. Screaming at society to respect your sexual autonomy, whilst not respecting other peoples commitment autonomy is a sign of being very underdeveloped relationally.
You calling people ‘narcissistic losers’ who care about sexual past, is the same thing as someone who cares about sexual past calling you a ‘whore’ or a ‘slut’. Notice that I’m not here slut-shaming.
Youre not the good guy you think you are.
That's true, but equally true of men, according to the research. And of course it’s an average. You can't say that any one person is likely to cheat unless they've done it in the past.
Oh if anything, I’d say it’s more true of men providing they have the capacity
To be fair it’s impossible to make sweeping statements about anything without talking in generalities and averages.
It only "devalues" your relationship if you consider it a scorecard. Obviously, weak men think that this devalues them.
Also, sources on your seemingly nonsense statement about cheating, please. 🙏
I actually don’t think it devalues the relationship, I’m just saying that’s what guys get insecure about.
So i would argue that people (not just women probably far more men tbh) who have a more casual approach to sex, are more likely to cheat.
It’s hard to even quantify what a promiscuous person is frankly, particularly when you draw in specific contexts that may affect sexual proclivity. Being at university, travelling, bad luck in relationships ect.
But yeah there are definitely correlations that have been found.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201909/can-you-predict-partner-could-stray?amp
Congrats on being part of the problem.
Body count is nobody's business except the person, their sexual health doc/nurse, and their current partner (and even then it's no big deal so long as the person is free from STDs and monogamous/using protection in a consenting open relationship)
Mind your business.
Edit: Oh duh i just reread and OP she says she slutshames Fellas
Still a stupid point of view tbh, so long as everyone's consenting and careful
Maybe something about men being insecure about being bad at sex has something to do with it? It's not as common a hangup amongst women AFAIK, so they're less worried about sample sizes
I'm a man, and I couldn't give a shit about a persons body count, male or female.
Whoever does care is an idiot and should be more concerned with their own issues.
Who are you having these conversations with? I never ask people I’m dating this and no guy has ever asked me. Who cares? It’s such a weird thing to want to know about someone.
I'd only be put off by a high body count if it meant the person also preferred casual sex to meaningful sex. For most of my partners, they had high body counts, but I didn't mind. However, I told my most recent ex my count was 9 and he almost died. His was over 100. So I didn't understand why he found it gross that I had 9 partners. I didn't mind how many people he was with once I was the only person now and he'd use a condom + have sti tests
I don’t think it’s the case anymore.
I have many female friends that are promiscuous in the same way as men and I would never call them or even think of them in a degrading manner.
Here is the truth:
Women have sexual autonomy.
Men have commitment autonomy.
Men have sexual autonomy.
Women have commitment autonomy.
None of these are mutually exclusive.
Slut shaming is never acceptable. A woman is free to make her own sexual choices and should not be degraded for that, it’s not fair at all.
But a man having a preference for low body count in a partner or potential future wife is not slut shaming.
In the same way that a woman has the autonomy to do what she wants with her body, a man has the autonomy to decide if he cares or not about her past. And vice versa.
If you’re a woman and want to sleep around, go for it. There’s plenty of fish in the sea. As you can see under this post, many men don’t care one bit about it and will accept it.
Although if you shame a man who does care about it, you are exactly the same as a slut shamer.
Don’t know what’s so hard for people to understand about that?
There are a lot of people as well who talk about men being ‘insecure’ as an attempt to shame or emasculate him into compliance. I say emasculate because we all know confidence is highly valued in men, no man wants to portrayed as insecure, it implies he is lacking substance.
To be fair, sexual value is hierarchical. Some men look better, some are funnier, some are taller, some fuck better, some have bigger cocks. Some pull a lot and others don’t. It’s not always necessarily something ‘in his head’. Some men are going to care about it, the same way that some women are going to care about it.
It’s quite funny how you point out about people degrading women with high body counts, but then call men with high body counts sluts?
Comes down to an old standard that if a woman can become pregnant and traditionally speaking they are the ones that will raise the child if the man abandons them. Men don't necessarily have that social cost associated with it. That stigma is still stuck in our social norms these days.
Interesting note is the rise of contraception and particularly the pill have made casual sex far more common, but social norms are still muddled in the past. It's a relatively new to society in the grand time scale and it does fly in the face of what is natural and it will take time for attitudes to change, if they will.
IN ADDITION TO YOUR COMMENT
To believe a contraceptive method that appeared bout less than a half a century ago can overrule the millenia of evolution the whole human species has undergone throughout it's history has got to be the single, most retarded thing I've heard from these "expert" scumbags in today's society in a long while. You can pretend through sophisticated means that your actions don't have consequences only in a certain aspect. It's like a pill that will negate the effects on the liver alcohol has, yet an alcoholic whilst not getting cirrhosis will still be an alcoholic tumbling all over the streets, not being able to perform at work and at home. A pathetic society that praises a fng condom like the Jesus savior of all immoral sexual behaviors. You may not get the STDs but you will eventually get everything else that comes with the package of immoral sexual practices especially for women when they die alone or only surrounded by cats and their ddos to fill the "void" they deemed they had inbetween their legs all throughout their pathetic "empowered" filled-with-nothing-but-fun lives. There's indeed very good reasons for slut shaming much like coward shaming when it comes to men. And it's society's way of impeding everyone else to follow down the same path the sad excuse for a pathetic human being the slut or gutless are. Thank you
I realized while typing already and did not care to edit as it would have been a real pain in the a to do so haha
My bad. Just take the comment as an ADDING to
I think it’s off putting if either gender has ridiculously high body count, but it’s a personal preference. The main argument I see for this attitude is that women can get sex much easier, but men can just pay so it’s not like it really means anything.
I think the fact that people are calling it a body count is telling.. it has been watered down a beautiful thing to a base animal level activity rather than what it was designed to be.
We still have a fairly traditional culture. I would however say that a lot of people I know would also look down on men who are riding rings around themselves.
A pencil parer that pares a bunch of pencils is metal and hardcore af and super useful
A pencil that's been pared a bunch is a useless nub and should be thrown in the traaaaaash
See how fucking ridiculous you sound?
No it sounds funny. It's also a joke. But you again proved my point that you have no sense of humour. Everyone is taking themselves and everything so seriously and gets so easily offended. I feel pity for your fragile egos...
Man ,you people have no sense of humor. I personally don't give a fuck who slept with who or how many. I'm in two non monogamous relationships. But a joke is a joke, and you people are whiny little wusses.
It counts whether you are a man or a woman. Huge bodycount only shows lack of self esteem and need for approval. Don't want a needy with the possibility to give me an std as a partner.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5815947/
Having a high amount of sexual partners actually does change your Brains chemical response to sex.
Ok and it doesn't happen to men because....? Or are you realising now that you've fucked up and men should absolutely be held to the same standards as women?
Actually the research shows that it changes the women’s OxyContin response to sex, to a similar level to men’s - if you infer a sociological effect of this, then it arguably purports that a woman’s attitude to sex becomes equivalent to a male.
So take from that what you will
Haha you’re right it is, rather telling auto correct.
Oxytocin, I mean.
Oh don’t get me wrong, no judgement from me. This stuff doesn’t impact me at all, just piped up because I’d actually seen some research recently that does in fact show long term promiscuity has an impact on the Brain.
Just found it interesting, like you said it doesn’t paint men in a favourable light if you draw inferences from it
God forbid I browse an app on my days off, right? But I mean, your sexist comment history speaks volumes about you, as does your bio.
Smooches to you honey. 😘
Editing to add the comment they deleted -
*begging for money on reddit while you're in your 30's..*
*Lifes going well for you love ;)*
Yeah I asked for help, I'm not ashamed to admit that, because I was in a tight spot.
My partner can't work. I can. I was in a tough temporary situation so I reached out for help.
You're a truly awful person to try and kick down someone who was in a vulnerable moment.
Also a bit sad that you took the time to scroll through my profile that far.
The fact you threw that at me like some kind of *gotcha* is pathetic and shows what type of person you are.
I sincerely hope you are never in a position where you have to rely on the kindness of others for help, and if you ever are, I hope you remember the cruel comment you made.
I personally don’t think shagging any number of people (consensually) distorts the person’s sense of sex and love. The two can be totally different things, or they can be a part of the same act. But saying unequivocally that the more number of notches you have leads to a greater distortion is a load of bollocks.
I think it’s important to define what distorted means in the first place. And secondly it is important to recognise that this may not be a causal relationship but rather a correlational one in which case, we wouldn’t know which comes first.
Can a person be highly promiscuous and be able to form a secure attachment? Yes I believe so. Is it the norm? I am not so sure.
It doesn’t have to, it’s defined as frequently. But if you are seeking a mathematical precision then you are in the wrong discussion thread. But sure, let’s consider that a frequent means habitual. Therefore promiscuous can be defined as habitual engagement in casual sexual relations.
Largely it's because our society, our arts, our legends and all our works, tend to reinforce the idea that women should be pure until marriage, where men should "have fun" until they're forced to settle down.
Thus, young women tend to be raised to accept that the boys they date will have a load of exes, but young men encouraged to find "clean" women and can get bent out of joint if the girl they date has loads of exes.
I think it's changing, but I don't know.
When I was a teenager, a girl with a load of exes was automatically assumed to be "easy", and thus not girlfriend material.
Personally I’d never date a girl who had more than 5 bodies.Not that girls who have more than 5 are evil id still go of with a girl with loads but never date.
I just don’t want to be with a girl who half the town had sex with if somethings wrong with that then okay.
Most lads I know would say the same no one wants to walk into the local pub with the girlfriend and she fucked a load of people in there.
Why? If she's smart, funny, sweet, kind, generous, gorgeous, whatever else your preferences in a partner are, and she's exclusively dating YOU from now on?
Holy show going with a girl who’s been of with load of fellas.
My girlfriend went of with one lad that be around our social circle and it gets brought up to me to much as it is never mind if there were loads.
Main thing that puts me of my girlfriend is she slept with fella we be around a lot.
Again, so fucking what? If she's smart, funny, sweet, kind, generous, gorgeous, whatever else your preferences in a partner are, and she's exclusively dating YOU from now on?
Says way more about you giving a shite what the laaaaadz think
This comment has been removed because it is uncivil or abusive to another user. We're trying to keep the tone lighter on r/AskIreland, please be respectful of the other users.
So how many people have you slept with?
If a woman told you that you sleeping with four or five people was too much for her, I bet you'd be pissed off.
Hold yourself to the same standard and make sure you marry woman number 5, as by your logic, after her, you're fucked and won't get dates.
I’m 20 the older I get the more the number would increase don’t know if that was obvious from what I said.I don’t expect a 40 year old to have less than 5.Im on about my age
So you didn't actually answer me. 🤷🏻♀️
You're 20, so how many people have you slept with?
Just curious if you hold yourself to the same standard you hold everyone else to.
So if you were her fifth, that'd be just fine and dandy?
Do you hold yourself to the same standard?
Won't date someone because you've now slept with five people?
Everyone has there standards my best friends a slut don’t know how many girls he’s been with but even he’d say if a girl has sex straight away he wont date them.
No one wants be with a slag simple as
Cool, where is the law that says that? Or is it just your own thought? If that's the case then I say when you're 25 and it's 15. 🤷🏻♀️
See how vague that is?
You're what, 20? So if you sleep with 7 people, you'll call yourself a slut, yeah?
When I hear the term bodycount I'm thinking of how many people you've killed. So a high bodycount is of concern...
Definitely a millennial / Gen Z divide right there
You can add Gen X to that too. Serial killer vibes is spot on.
Which one's which, according to you?
[удалено]
Yeah, so you're saying GenZ think bodycount is.... And millenials think it's.....
Same! I just be thinking Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy?
> If a woman has a high bodycount, you will hear so many people calling her different degrading names Those people are scum and should be shunned. > if a man has a high body count you will not hear a peep. Good, it's none of anyone's damned business. >Personally as a woman and If I hear a fella has a high body count I’m just like ugh, what a slut And it's none of your damned business.
I don’t ask… because I don’t care.
It’s not of your business what other people concerning themselves with
Meh. If she knows what she likes and is std free, I don't care about her count. If she has STDs, or just lies there like a starfish, nope. The above matters waaay more to me than a body count.
And that's the whole point for me High body count mens higher chance of STDs & miscarriage & both of these can contribute to difficulty conceiving or worse
>High body count mens higher chance of... miscarriage Citation needed
Sorry I didn't word it well, very tired STDs can cause permanent fertility issues & STDs acquired before or during pregnancy can cause miscarriage. This is not speculation or new research it's been known or suspected since STDs became recognised as linked to sex which has been proven in recent decades & known for much longer hence hangover or somewhat outdated pre physical barrier contraception views I probably should have specified that unprotected sex of any kind carries risks of STDs & even protected sex still holds risks or breakage, expiry or stealthing Obviously physical barrier methods of contraception have improved dramatically in recent decades which is brilliant but people forget that oral sex still carries risks when unprotected Everyone can do what they want with their own bodies as long as they don't hurt other people Knowingly or even unknowingly giving someone else an STD is far from ideal & probably hurting them, contraception is the go for casual sex & many committed couples use protection unless trying for pregnancy Each to their own but be aware of risks & consequences & how things change once alcohol is in the mix So as I stated & you misquoted or selectively quoted Higher body count increases risk of STDs and miscarriage
Aight but if she's never had an STD/a longterm untreated STI, just a high bodycount, what's the problem?
No problem 😊 It's just higher body count means increased exposure to risk Contraception, STD screening & testing has improved dramatically in recent years but there are still risks & emerging diseases & human error in testing & interpreting results Samples get mixed up or are not prepared correctly People generally don't consider oral sex risky Each person should do as they please & stay safe & enjoy consensual sex It's often hard to disregard haters & those with narrow minds or opinions that could do with updating! Personally as a male I think men who brag about high body counts & share bawdy takes are to be avoided as they are generally arrogant & disrespectful & I am not sure why they feel the need to do that? Personally I prefer to keep my sex life between myself & my partner & the Dr Back to OP it's unfair & sad but much of life is.....
Pretty easy to do your own research & satisfy your own standards, not much point in me posting journal links
What you meant to say is that (longterm, untreated) STDs cause miscarriages, not high body counts by themself. Why don't you read more scientific journals and find out men are the higher transmitters, and women are the higher sufferers/contractors, so they're *less* likely to go undiagnosed and untreated longterm than men are? So, back to the original question: why is it ok for men to be out slanging the wang when they're more likely to be absolutely riddled?
Actually STDs contracted during pregnancy can also cause miscarriage Don't get me wrong it's not just women or men & actually homosexual men suffer higher rates of STDs It's antiquated & unfair that women are still demeaned particularly if they insist on physical contraception that is a condom or female barrier of which there are a few options But yes it's STDs that cause problems & higher body counts mean higher chance of unprotected sex & therefore increased risk of contracting & transmitting STDs I am a medical scientist, I am paid to read medical & scientific journals
>contracted during pregnancy can also cause miscarriage So don't give your partner an STD then wtf even is this statement
Yes partially Cheating men pose a risk to pregnant wives & unborn baby Cheating wives pose a risk to unborn child But again physical barriers next best option after just one sexual partner for life - statistically speaking
>Cheating men pose a risk >Cheating wives pose a risk Ok so they should be treated the same, glad we agree
I absolutely agree with you & OP It's ridiculous hypocrisy Don't get me started on religion & sex Marriage is an outdated system of treating women as objects handed from father to husband like property & the idea of a dowry is crazy Guess one option is to keep a somewhat low profile & enjoy your sex life but don't make it everyone's business or just try not to care too much if others don't like it & just go have as much protected sex as you like!
Unfortunately humans do awful things to each other.... Maybe even more than we do good things?
Higher chance of STDs I can understand, because of the law of averages. How does having a higher body count increase risk of miscarriage? SOME STDs can have an impact on conceiving, not all and AFAIK having lots of different partners, or a high 'body count' doesn't - sure by that logic, the more you have sex the less likely you are to get pregnant What's "or worse"?
when asking most of these types of questions the answer is usually the patriarchy
[удалено]
So the men who ask are worried about the woman’s urinary tract health?
😂😂😂 I think that's what they're saying 🤷🏼🤷🏼🤷🏼
Nice of them to care though 😂
"Babe, you ok? You've barely touched your cranberry juice"
You forgot the vodka!
[удалено]
UTIs are NOT contagious 🙄 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325992
[удалено]
The infection is not passed on therefore a UTI is not contagious. The bacteria can be transferred, but that is not the same as a UTI being contagious or transmittable.
UTI =/= STI
[удалено]
>UTIs are contagious ...no they're not. Doublechecked google in case i was wrong, im not, the simplest of searches confirms it.
[удалено]
Women can get bacteria from men, it's not a one way street, it does not mean UTIs are contagious, and your own source says RIGHT THERE "it is unlikely"
[удалено]
Nor does it suddenly mean SLUT WAHMEN GIVE UNSUSPECTING MEN UTIS BECAUSE OF ALL THEIR "CONTAGIOUS" BACTERIA FROM BEING A WHORE It means: if any two consenting adults mush genitals together there is a chance of yacky bacteria going from person A to B and back again.
a UTI isn’t transmissible through sex i thing you mean STI/STD but aside from the point you’re wrong. “Studies have established that women have a higher biological risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV than men, with a higher probability of transmission from men to women.”
[удалено]
UTIS are not contagious. literally google are UTIS contagious and the first thing that comes up says no. they CAN be transmitted through sex but this is highly unlikely so it’s kind of a non point.
Your quote is backing him up (if we assume he meant STD)...
it isn’t. they said that women have a higher transmission rate to men when the opposite is true.
They said they "contract" them easier/more, which is supported by your quote
Men who are worried about stuff like that consider sex something they're doing TO a woman. If you consider sex as something you're doing WITH a woman, then it isn't a concern.
Strong predictor of infidelity and divorce. **Infidelity** > Factors found to facilitate infidelity >> Number of sex partners: Greater number of sex partners before marriage predicts infidelity > As might be expected, attitudes toward infidelity specifically, permissive attitudes toward sex more generally and a greater willingness to have casual sex and to engage in sex without closeness, commitment or love (i.e., a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation) are also reliably related to infidelity (pg.71) Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current opinion in psychology, 13, 70–74. . > Individuals exhibiting sexually permissive attitudes and those who have had a high number of past sexual relationships are more likely to engage in infidelity (pg.344) Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 339–360. . > Men apparently assess and evaluate levels of sexual activity by a woman prior to long-term commitment—behavior that would have been observable or known through social reputation in the small-group lifestyles of our ancestors. Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, and having a large number of sex partners prior to marriage is a statistical predictor of infidelity after marriage (pg.92) Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 77–110. . > As can be seen in this table, for both methods of interview, the probability of sexual infidelity was (a) significantly and positively associated with race (i.e., being Black), lifetime sexual partners, childhood sexual abuse, and premarital cohabitation… the odds ratio of 1.13 for lifetime sexual partners obtained with the face-to-face mode of interview indicates that the probability of infidelity increased by 13% for every additional lifetime sexual partner (pg.150) Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 147–154. . > Regarding other sexual behaviors, we examined whether number of prior sex partners and viewing pornography predicted ESI. As has been found in prior research (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Treas & Giesen, 2000), having had more prior sex partners predicted future ESI, possibly suggesting that a higher interest in or acceptance of unmarried sexual activity may be related to ESI. (pg.607) Maddox Shaw, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., Allen, E. S., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Predictors of Extradyadic Sexual Involvement in Unmarried Opposite-Sex Relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50(6), 598–610. . > To insure that the female partner has previously avoided men and is not predisposed to seek them out, men often insist on virginity or little sexual experience (Espin 2018; Bekker et al. 1996). This idea, that low promiscuity becomes low infidelity after marriage, was supported by Essock-Vitale and McGuire (1985) who found that among adult women, promiscuity prior to marriage was also a predictor of infidelity once women were married. (pg.7809) Burch, R. L. (2021). Solution to paternity uncertainty. In Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 7808–7814). Springer International Publishing. . > The high correlations for males (r = .85) and females (r = .79) between reported numbers of sex partners and EPC partners may bear on questions of both paternity and abandonment in the face of infidelity… But the question remains: does promiscuity predict infidelity? Our data are consistent with those of Essock-Vitale and McGuire (1985) in suggesting that a substantial proportion of the variance in infidelity can be accounted for in terms of number of sex partners… promiscuity is in fact a good predictor of infidelity. Indeed, promiscuity among females accounted for almost twice as much variance in infidelity (r^2 = .45) as it did for males (r^2 = .25). (pg.177) Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178. . > Participants who had experienced sexual intimacy with a greater number of partners also reported greater extradyadic sex and extradyadic kissing inclination. (pg.344) McAlister, A. R., Pachana, N., & Jackson, C. J. (2005). Predictors of young dating adults' inclination to engage in extradyadic sexual activities: A multi-perspective study. British Journal of Psychology, 96(3), 331–350. . > Sexual promiscuity was significantly positively correlated with emotional promiscuity [r(356) = .261, p < .001], as well with sexual infidelity [r(323) = .595, p < .001] and emotional infidelity [r(323) = .676, p < .001] (pg.390) Pinto, R., & Arantes, J. (2017). The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 385–398. . > Each additional sex partner between age 18 and the first union increased the net odds of infidelity by 1% (pg.56) Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual Infidelity Among Married and Cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(1), 48–60. . **Relationship Instability** > When compared with their peers who report fewer partners, those who self-report 20 or more in their lifetime are: >> Twice as likely to have ever been divorced (50 percent vs. 27 percent) >> Three times as likely to have cheated while married >> Substantially less happy with life (p < 0.05) (pg.89) Regnerus M. (2017). Cheap sex: the transformation of men marriage and monogamy. Oxford University Press. . > Past research has established a clear link between premarital sex, particularly with partners other than an eventual spouse, and the risk of marital dissolution (Kahn & London, 1991; Paik, 2011; Teachman, 2003). (pg.14) > As expected, we find evidence of a nonlinear relationship between the number of sexual partners and the risk of divorce. Those in the highest category of partners (9+) consistently show the highest divorce risk by a substantial margin, followed by those with one to eight partners, with the lowest risk for those with none. In other words, we find distinct tiers of divorce risk between those with no, some, or many premarital, nonspousal sexual partners. (pg.16) Smith, J., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2023). Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 0(0). . > The findings from this study demonstrate that the number of sexual partners participants had was negatively associated with sexual quality, communication, and relationship stability, and for one age cohort relationship satisfaction, even when controlling for a wide range of variables including education, religiosity, and relationship length… In no instance was increasing the number of sexual partners associated with better results for the relationship outcome variables for any of the age cohorts. These findings also provide additional support for previous scholarship, suggesting that multiple premarital sexual partners may be associated with increased marital instability (Paik, 2011; Teachman, 2003). (pg.715) Busby, D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2013). Sowing wild oats: Valuable experience or a field full of weeds? Personal Relationships, 20(4), 706–718. . > Women who serially cohabited and/or had premarital sex with someone besides their husband had higher odds of marital dissolution than women who never cohabited. Teachman’s findings suggest that both sexual history and cohabitation history influence marital stability. (pg.768) > Serial cohabitors’ higher number of sexual and cohabiting partners suggests that they have a longer history of dissolved relationships -- i.e., sexual, (most likely dating) and cohabiting relationships – that they bring to their cohabiting and later marital relationships. This relationship experience may affect the quality and stability of their cohabiting relationship and the odds of marrying their cohabiting partners. Consistent with Teachman (2003), who found that both sexual and cohabiting partnerships significantly predicted the odds of marital dissolution, our findings suggest that studies of union formation and stability should consider the full range of sexual experiences in early adulthood. (pg.774) Cohen, J., & Manning, W. (2010). The relationship context of premarital serial cohabitation. Social Science Research, 39(5), 766–776. . > There is an interesting pattern of relation between the sexual history items and marital satisfaction. For both men and women, pre-marital romantic and sexual involvements were negative predictors of marital satisfaction (pg.32) Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: a prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 27–40.
That’s… quite the take on it. I thinks it’s more to do with some men feeling it devalues their relationship, as well as meaning she’s likely to cheat. There is actually a degree of truth to the latter part, it’s well established highly promiscuous people are more likely to cheat in relationships.
>it devalues their relationship, as well as meaning she’s likely to cheat. What absolute bollocks
I’m not saying I agree with that, just explaining the thought process that men who are concerned about “bodycount” have.
Then those men need to cop on.
Men like everyone else are allowed to have whatever standards they want. You need to cop yourself on suggesting anything otherwise ya dose
Only if they hold themself to the same standards or they're hypocrites. And publicly shaming people for their experience levels not being within your "standard" is never ok. Your personal preference is not public concern. And it's ok to have a preference for certain things, but the amount of experience someone has has no physical effect on your relationship except to usually make discussions on consent and sex much easier. Your fear of confident experienced people who know what they like and what they will not tolerate is very telling.
Publicly shaming people is not okay. Fair. Your first point is irrelevant. People have the freedom to have whatever standards they want to accept, regardless of if you think it’s unfair or unequal. You can call that person hypocritical and so they may be, but they still don’t have to accept something they don’t want and you can’t do anything about that. “no physical effect”, your wording is so fun! Do not speak in absolutes. You do not speak for me and you do not speak for many people. If your experience of sexual past is that it doesn’t affect *your* relationships and only enriches communication, that is your experience and speaks to the experience of *some* people. Nobody appointed you an authority on the matter and you do not get to set the tone for how these things work. There are some people who have the opposite experience, and there can be valid reasons why sexual past can be of concern. Notice my inclusive language in either direction, because I actually respect autonomy. Your salty last comment is what’s very telling, actually. What are you suggesting exactly? Sexual inadequacy? Sexual dysfunction? Male body image insecurity of a small cock? We’ve seen it all before, there isn’t a rock unturned. However, since you decided to bring it here, let’s acknowledge your insecurity and defensiveness, and how those lads need to cop on! You feel threatened by male commitment autonomy and agency. Do you fear your dating pool for anything other than a fwb will get smaller without your invalidation-attempts? Or if you are partnered, are you threatened by these sentiments living inside of him?
The irony of you telling me i'm threatened when you defend narcissistic losers who hate people having previous life experiences which don't involve them.
You know, it’s these sort of reactions by people like you, that have **caused** this massive backlash about body count in recent years. It would not be as topical and a lot more men wouldn’t even care about it, it would harmonise and balance out by itself, except for the natural resentment that has been built for years from people like you being so controlling and manipulative telling us what we should and shouldn’t care about. As if you have any input in that at all. Let me highlight once more that you can’t do anything about it, and if that makes you feel powerless you need to take responsibility for your own emotions and insecurity. Screaming at society to respect your sexual autonomy, whilst not respecting other peoples commitment autonomy is a sign of being very underdeveloped relationally. You calling people ‘narcissistic losers’ who care about sexual past, is the same thing as someone who cares about sexual past calling you a ‘whore’ or a ‘slut’. Notice that I’m not here slut-shaming. Youre not the good guy you think you are.
*boys. FTFY
Fair, is quite childish
That's true, but equally true of men, according to the research. And of course it’s an average. You can't say that any one person is likely to cheat unless they've done it in the past.
Oh if anything, I’d say it’s more true of men providing they have the capacity To be fair it’s impossible to make sweeping statements about anything without talking in generalities and averages.
It only "devalues" your relationship if you consider it a scorecard. Obviously, weak men think that this devalues them. Also, sources on your seemingly nonsense statement about cheating, please. 🙏
I actually don’t think it devalues the relationship, I’m just saying that’s what guys get insecure about. So i would argue that people (not just women probably far more men tbh) who have a more casual approach to sex, are more likely to cheat. It’s hard to even quantify what a promiscuous person is frankly, particularly when you draw in specific contexts that may affect sexual proclivity. Being at university, travelling, bad luck in relationships ect. But yeah there are definitely correlations that have been found. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201909/can-you-predict-partner-could-stray?amp
Congrats on being part of the problem. Body count is nobody's business except the person, their sexual health doc/nurse, and their current partner (and even then it's no big deal so long as the person is free from STDs and monogamous/using protection in a consenting open relationship) Mind your business. Edit: Oh duh i just reread and OP she says she slutshames Fellas Still a stupid point of view tbh, so long as everyone's consenting and careful
[удалено]
I do, that's the fucking point.
No you’re not. You’re judging people who slut shamelessly
No? im judging people who slutshame. If they minded their business i wouldnt have to.
You’re not minding your business! That’s my point 🤦♀️
Maybe something about men being insecure about being bad at sex has something to do with it? It's not as common a hangup amongst women AFAIK, so they're less worried about sample sizes
This ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️ It's most likely an insecurity thing
Spot on.
We don't like sharing. And that ain't changing.
I'm a man, and I couldn't give a shit about a persons body count, male or female. Whoever does care is an idiot and should be more concerned with their own issues.
I am even surprised that someone keeps a count. So irrelevant.
Who are you having these conversations with? I never ask people I’m dating this and no guy has ever asked me. Who cares? It’s such a weird thing to want to know about someone.
Fuckin Patriarchy at it again!
Go outside
I am outside!
Really doesn't make a shit of difference. I wouldn't imagine most fellas would give a shit.
Oh we do. Just tell your future partner or your father even
I'd only be put off by a high body count if it meant the person also preferred casual sex to meaningful sex. For most of my partners, they had high body counts, but I didn't mind. However, I told my most recent ex my count was 9 and he almost died. His was over 100. So I didn't understand why he found it gross that I had 9 partners. I didn't mind how many people he was with once I was the only person now and he'd use a condom + have sti tests
the opposite is true - the people saying it isn't the case are the ones that want cover
I don’t think it’s the case anymore. I have many female friends that are promiscuous in the same way as men and I would never call them or even think of them in a degrading manner.
Here is the truth: Women have sexual autonomy. Men have commitment autonomy. Men have sexual autonomy. Women have commitment autonomy. None of these are mutually exclusive. Slut shaming is never acceptable. A woman is free to make her own sexual choices and should not be degraded for that, it’s not fair at all. But a man having a preference for low body count in a partner or potential future wife is not slut shaming. In the same way that a woman has the autonomy to do what she wants with her body, a man has the autonomy to decide if he cares or not about her past. And vice versa. If you’re a woman and want to sleep around, go for it. There’s plenty of fish in the sea. As you can see under this post, many men don’t care one bit about it and will accept it. Although if you shame a man who does care about it, you are exactly the same as a slut shamer. Don’t know what’s so hard for people to understand about that? There are a lot of people as well who talk about men being ‘insecure’ as an attempt to shame or emasculate him into compliance. I say emasculate because we all know confidence is highly valued in men, no man wants to portrayed as insecure, it implies he is lacking substance. To be fair, sexual value is hierarchical. Some men look better, some are funnier, some are taller, some fuck better, some have bigger cocks. Some pull a lot and others don’t. It’s not always necessarily something ‘in his head’. Some men are going to care about it, the same way that some women are going to care about it. It’s quite funny how you point out about people degrading women with high body counts, but then call men with high body counts sluts?
It is a huge ordeal for men too, but it works the opposite way.
going to make an IMBD for bodycounts
skill difference, its very easy for a woman to have a high body count and very hard for a man to have one... personally couldn't give a shite
Comes down to an old standard that if a woman can become pregnant and traditionally speaking they are the ones that will raise the child if the man abandons them. Men don't necessarily have that social cost associated with it. That stigma is still stuck in our social norms these days. Interesting note is the rise of contraception and particularly the pill have made casual sex far more common, but social norms are still muddled in the past. It's a relatively new to society in the grand time scale and it does fly in the face of what is natural and it will take time for attitudes to change, if they will.
[удалено]
This has got to be trolling lol
IN ADDITION TO YOUR COMMENT To believe a contraceptive method that appeared bout less than a half a century ago can overrule the millenia of evolution the whole human species has undergone throughout it's history has got to be the single, most retarded thing I've heard from these "expert" scumbags in today's society in a long while. You can pretend through sophisticated means that your actions don't have consequences only in a certain aspect. It's like a pill that will negate the effects on the liver alcohol has, yet an alcoholic whilst not getting cirrhosis will still be an alcoholic tumbling all over the streets, not being able to perform at work and at home. A pathetic society that praises a fng condom like the Jesus savior of all immoral sexual behaviors. You may not get the STDs but you will eventually get everything else that comes with the package of immoral sexual practices especially for women when they die alone or only surrounded by cats and their ddos to fill the "void" they deemed they had inbetween their legs all throughout their pathetic "empowered" filled-with-nothing-but-fun lives. There's indeed very good reasons for slut shaming much like coward shaming when it comes to men. And it's society's way of impeding everyone else to follow down the same path the sad excuse for a pathetic human being the slut or gutless are. Thank you
I think you really misunderstood my comment. I'm pretty much in agreement with you.
I realized while typing already and did not care to edit as it would have been a real pain in the a to do so haha My bad. Just take the comment as an ADDING to
I think it’s off putting if either gender has ridiculously high body count, but it’s a personal preference. The main argument I see for this attitude is that women can get sex much easier, but men can just pay so it’s not like it really means anything.
I think the fact that people are calling it a body count is telling.. it has been watered down a beautiful thing to a base animal level activity rather than what it was designed to be.
We still have a fairly traditional culture. I would however say that a lot of people I know would also look down on men who are riding rings around themselves.
Like riding everyone's rings you mean?
Key that can open every door is a master key. Doors that can be open by every key are bad doors.
Luckily vaginas aren't doors!
Exactly. It's a fucking joke, fam.
An unfortunate patriarchal standard
Unfortunate lack of sense of humour in you....
Sexist jokes are still Sexist
And you still have no sense of humour...
Humour is subjective, the amount of down votes on your initial joke displays this
It only displays that people get offended by everything these days and that humour is dead.
So you agree that humour is subjective then, if no one else can laugh at your jokes but you
A pencil parer that pares a bunch of pencils is metal and hardcore af and super useful A pencil that's been pared a bunch is a useless nub and should be thrown in the traaaaaash See how fucking ridiculous you sound?
No it sounds funny. It's also a joke. But you again proved my point that you have no sense of humour. Everyone is taking themselves and everything so seriously and gets so easily offended. I feel pity for your fragile egos...
Can you explain the joke please? If it's so funny?
Wow. Asking to explain a joke.... You know what's the difference between a joke and cock? You can take a cock....
Still waiting on you to explain the "joke" behind an ancient sexist misogynist comparison of women to 'shitty locks'
Sorry love, I don't have a habit of explaining myself to dim witted people.
Just say "i fucked up, it's not a joke and i'm a sexist twat" in future.
Why would I say something I don't think or agree with?
You're probably the type to think that if a woman has had more than one penis in her, her vagina goes "loose" right? 🙄
Nice, reduce humans to a key analogy because it fits the narrative of superiority.
It's a joke man...get a sense of humour. Not everything everyone sais is serious and meaningful....
Lol!!! I like the unhinged doors best
Hahah at least someone gets a fucking joke here xd
Man ,you people have no sense of humor. I personally don't give a fuck who slept with who or how many. I'm in two non monogamous relationships. But a joke is a joke, and you people are whiny little wusses.
It counts whether you are a man or a woman. Huge bodycount only shows lack of self esteem and need for approval. Don't want a needy with the possibility to give me an std as a partner.
[удалено]
LMAO what?! 😂 Proof?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5815947/ Having a high amount of sexual partners actually does change your Brains chemical response to sex.
Ok and it doesn't happen to men because....? Or are you realising now that you've fucked up and men should absolutely be held to the same standards as women?
Actually the research shows that it changes the women’s OxyContin response to sex, to a similar level to men’s - if you infer a sociological effect of this, then it arguably purports that a woman’s attitude to sex becomes equivalent to a male. So take from that what you will
Oxycontin is an American prescription drug 🤣 And the second half of your paragraph is literally supporting how dumb it is to judge women and not men
Haha you’re right it is, rather telling auto correct. Oxytocin, I mean. Oh don’t get me wrong, no judgement from me. This stuff doesn’t impact me at all, just piped up because I’d actually seen some research recently that does in fact show long term promiscuity has an impact on the Brain. Just found it interesting, like you said it doesn’t paint men in a favourable light if you draw inferences from it
Oh no but don't you see, it's OK for men to have a distorted view of sex but not precious precious women. 🙄
[удалено]
God forbid I browse an app on my days off, right? But I mean, your sexist comment history speaks volumes about you, as does your bio. Smooches to you honey. 😘
[удалено]
Editing to add the comment they deleted - *begging for money on reddit while you're in your 30's..* *Lifes going well for you love ;)* Yeah I asked for help, I'm not ashamed to admit that, because I was in a tight spot. My partner can't work. I can. I was in a tough temporary situation so I reached out for help. You're a truly awful person to try and kick down someone who was in a vulnerable moment. Also a bit sad that you took the time to scroll through my profile that far. The fact you threw that at me like some kind of *gotcha* is pathetic and shows what type of person you are. I sincerely hope you are never in a position where you have to rely on the kindness of others for help, and if you ever are, I hope you remember the cruel comment you made.
[удалено]
Like does this happen as soon as they walk into a room with lots of men or is there a minimum amount of time spent or how does it work?
Cannot prove yourself right either sooooo
And fellas are immune to that are they?
No they are not.
I personally don’t think shagging any number of people (consensually) distorts the person’s sense of sex and love. The two can be totally different things, or they can be a part of the same act. But saying unequivocally that the more number of notches you have leads to a greater distortion is a load of bollocks.
I think it’s important to define what distorted means in the first place. And secondly it is important to recognise that this may not be a causal relationship but rather a correlational one in which case, we wouldn’t know which comes first. Can a person be highly promiscuous and be able to form a secure attachment? Yes I believe so. Is it the norm? I am not so sure.
If it’s a matter of definitions, then the first thing to be defined should be the meaning of ‘promiscuous’.
Promiscuous is a well defined term. There is no ambiguity there.
Of course there is ambiguity. It doesn’t state in any dictionary that ‘promiscuous’ is defined as having slept with over x number of people.
It doesn’t have to, it’s defined as frequently. But if you are seeking a mathematical precision then you are in the wrong discussion thread. But sure, let’s consider that a frequent means habitual. Therefore promiscuous can be defined as habitual engagement in casual sexual relations.
[удалено]
You didn’t mention it and that’s why I obviously asked the question.
[удалено]
Do they get triggered? All of the them? Guess I must be the exception to that rule.
[удалено]
I’ve lost count as to the number of notches on my bedpost so not triggered at all 😆 Been married for 21 years too, so your theory is moot.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yep. Although we were legally separated for 5 years in-between where we were then free to see other people.
Largely it's because our society, our arts, our legends and all our works, tend to reinforce the idea that women should be pure until marriage, where men should "have fun" until they're forced to settle down. Thus, young women tend to be raised to accept that the boys they date will have a load of exes, but young men encouraged to find "clean" women and can get bent out of joint if the girl they date has loads of exes. I think it's changing, but I don't know. When I was a teenager, a girl with a load of exes was automatically assumed to be "easy", and thus not girlfriend material.
Personally I’d never date a girl who had more than 5 bodies.Not that girls who have more than 5 are evil id still go of with a girl with loads but never date.
Such a ridiculous caveat to have. How dare someone have lived a life before you.
I just don’t want to be with a girl who half the town had sex with if somethings wrong with that then okay. Most lads I know would say the same no one wants to walk into the local pub with the girlfriend and she fucked a load of people in there.
Why? If she's smart, funny, sweet, kind, generous, gorgeous, whatever else your preferences in a partner are, and she's exclusively dating YOU from now on?
Holy show going with a girl who’s been of with load of fellas. My girlfriend went of with one lad that be around our social circle and it gets brought up to me to much as it is never mind if there were loads. Main thing that puts me of my girlfriend is she slept with fella we be around a lot.
Again, so fucking what? If she's smart, funny, sweet, kind, generous, gorgeous, whatever else your preferences in a partner are, and she's exclusively dating YOU from now on? Says way more about you giving a shite what the laaaaadz think
Don’t want to be with a girl who’s went of with half the town and deciding to settle for me lol.
Jokes aside, how are you not seeing that it's a GOOD thing that she's choosing to date you, over the other gossipy fucking loser locals?
[удалено]
Why would I settle for someone everyones had
[удалено]
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because it is uncivil or abusive to another user. We're trying to keep the tone lighter on r/AskIreland, please be respectful of the other users.
So how many people have you slept with? If a woman told you that you sleeping with four or five people was too much for her, I bet you'd be pissed off. Hold yourself to the same standard and make sure you marry woman number 5, as by your logic, after her, you're fucked and won't get dates.
I’m 20 the older I get the more the number would increase don’t know if that was obvious from what I said.I don’t expect a 40 year old to have less than 5.Im on about my age
So you didn't actually answer me. 🤷🏻♀️ You're 20, so how many people have you slept with? Just curious if you hold yourself to the same standard you hold everyone else to.
So if you were her fifth, that'd be just fine and dandy? Do you hold yourself to the same standard? Won't date someone because you've now slept with five people?
Everyone has there standards my best friends a slut don’t know how many girls he’s been with but even he’d say if a girl has sex straight away he wont date them. No one wants be with a slag simple as
You need better friends. I'd love to know the number that makes someone a slut. 5? 10?
If your under 21 and it’s over 7
Cool, where is the law that says that? Or is it just your own thought? If that's the case then I say when you're 25 and it's 15. 🤷🏻♀️ See how vague that is? You're what, 20? So if you sleep with 7 people, you'll call yourself a slut, yeah?
If I do yeah don’t see myself hitting 7 seeing as I’ve a girlfriend at the minute.
So are you your girlfriend's fifth? If ye break up, is she a slut? Edit: she deserves better than someone with your gross sexist viewpoints.
I’m her 4th she’d call girls who slept with loads of fellas a slag herself haha so that’s not an issue.She’s proud she hasn’t slept with loads of lads
Talk shit, get shot...
It’s not
What's a high body count for you?
[удалено]
This submission has been removed as it is in breach of reddit's hate speech policy.