Do you care how many partners your girlfriend/wife had before you? If so, where's the limit on number

This is very common, women care so much more about a man's emotional past whereas men care all about a woman's sexual past.

I think I read once that it's because men find their intimacy in sex whereas women find it in a range of other places?

>man's emotional past

the fuck is that

Based and probably the best position to take overall

Jeez, the more I discover about women the more contemptuous I grow. Of course it doesn’t bother women if they’re dating a literal manwhore. Of course what bothers them is how committed and true he was to his exes. It makes total sense in context and what little respect I have for the gender continues to evaporate under the light of truth

Only non incel answer. Incels get jealous because they insecure about their sex performance and are possessive of women (she's not yours!!!). Only a real man will take a BBC slut and treat her good. Incels can seetue.

Because sex isn't just like going out for a burger to us. That's an entirely female point of view, and a good reason why I collectively hate you. Sex is a sacred bond of intimacy.

>Because sex isn't just like going out for a burger to us. That's an entirely female point of view

it is literally a stereotype and generally the reality that men are completely thirsty and driven for sex and detach after, and women want relationships, commitment and intimacy.

This is true for a minority of players who got used to fucking around since high school. Otherwise women rack up bodycounts an average man cannot even fully comprehend.

It was before you, if you're too insecure about yourself to realize this and start doubting their intentions over whether someone has explored a little then you're not ready for a relationship.

Who the fuck cares, sometimes you find out you're not compatible with someone, and everyone has needs so sometimes you just have a pump n dump.

Only narcissistic fucks can't see past that.

Guessing you haven't been to college, its just as easy for guys to get laid on random college/university nights out as it is for girls. Its all about bubbles.

I know you're just throwing around words to guilt trip dudes into believing your point of view, but you're making no sense to anyone who critically analyzes what you just wrote. Maybe rethink your lines for next time.

I'm at a college and I'm not fucking around nor am I trying to (and I could). I guess I can't speak on the behalf of all men, and they probably ARE worse than women, but they don't concern me. Women should be complaining about the state of men today. I'll be complaining about women.

>a woman that embraces all man, doesn’t feel special once she embraces you
>a woman who more reserve makes you feel like a king, once she gives herself up to only you

I been with both kinds of women and the more sexually active ones are burnt out for sex, and don’t want to try new things.
Girl I’m dating now who only been with one man, other then me. Enjoys sex, and wants to try everything with me. Her being inexperience and the joy of teaching her new things in bed

Attached: 498B05EB-7B15-4FDD-B746-4779810D12FC.jpg (637x627, 111.15K)

You couldn't handle a real wamen!!!

Men care about sex, women care about feelings.

>Because sex isn't just like going out for a burger to us.

Beta male simp logic

>women
>care
Pick one
Women care about valuation, that’s why they have sex so much, but they only want to be told their pretty by Chad, so it means something to them.

>You couldn't handle a Woman with mental illness
Fix that for you

Nah dude, you’re just a manwhore whose been perverted by the lies. Fucking sad that you don’t even know yourself

25M, body count probably around 30-40? I can’t remember everyone I’ve slept with as I fucked all those people within a span of two and a half years and it’s all a blur.

I’d date a girl who has also fucked a lot of people. Wouldn’t be a big thing for me. However, I would never seek to build a long term relationship / marriage with somebody with a high body count. As an attractive woman, it’s easy to get laid. As an attractive man, you’ll still face hurdles and getting pussy might still be a challenge.

Basically what I’m saying is, men and women can both be “sluts”, but it’s different for most men as they have to have a lot of social / seductive skill to get high numbers.

As the saying goes, “You can’t make a wife out of a hoe.”

>a woman that embraces all man, doesn’t feel special once she embraces you
Finally somebody with common sense

Nta but a guy who thinks they're right.
You can't measure up so you take it out on women who are more sexually accomplished than you.

>a woman who tasted many men, will always want more
That’s the fear of dating a woman with high body count. Don’t expect her to be faithful.
Her ability to pair bond has been destroyed

Or in better terms: Men feel intimacy during sex, to women it's just like taking a dump.

Lol but you do. I wish i could have a hard time getting sex lmao

>u cryin like a bitch

I won't argue with you on that one. Being a romantic is a level of beta simpdom. If I were an alpha Chad women would be just fleshlights for me.

lmao if this post is real. I could go on to fuck a bunch of tinder sloots or whores atleast, but that wouldn't make me "accomplished". LMAO. "Sexually accomplished". What a fucked up mind comes up with this sort of shit.

Sounds like your dick action is weak af.

Did you read everything I said? I’m not dating a slutty girl cause I want a healthy fruitful relationship. I’m dating her cause she’s a nice piece of ass and I’ll move on to the next when the time comes.

On the other hand, I think there are exceptions in that some women really just feel like they have to get shit out of their system in the same way that men do. People can change, mainly if they have this phase when they’re much younger. But women who are going into their mid-late 20s and still feel like they have to fuck a bunch of dudes probably won’t ever change.

I'm a virgin and my dick is well above average in proportions. Quit thinking with your dick.

You can tell all the simps and unwrapped meat are all over this thread. We live in such a misandrist society. My count is 2. I would only consider long term with someone who has a count of 0. Though I don't really have much interest in dating and Ive stopped pursuing women, because sex to them is completely meaningless and I dont need them or it to be happy.

Lol then how the fuck would you know how women feel about sex or intimacy?
Im basically right

Nigger I know men enough to know that the only ones who whore themselves out are deeply insecure, totally out of touch with themselves, and perverted to the core. It’s sad

>Im a strong independent man who don't need no women

More for me

>women don't care about sex
>women think sex is an intimate experience
Pick one retard

This video will answer everything
youtu.be/IcAkTpaon9M

But you're in touch with yourself, lol every night.

With that sort of wit, I can only imagine the gutter trash you’re picking up. Nice job user, because it’s so hard to be a whore

Noo you are an incel and he's a "sexually accomplished" man who fucks around like a gypsy.

This post is sarcastic FYI.

This thread is full of simps, and bitter women

Fucking kek is that really what it comes down to?
>le incel
Just pathetic, nigger.

...

Your average Dab Forums thread

Physical gratification (sex) and emotional gratification (intimacy).

You worry about her ability to maintain a commitment, she worries about your ability to maintain a relationship.

To come to the conclusion women see sex like taking a shit is pretty much only something an incel would do. I bet that femanon is the relationship type too lol.

It's probably even easier to be in touch with myself, but I prefer women jus sayin.

Fuck, you're stupid. You just admitted sex is not an emotional experience to you, while telling me I'm wrong somehow. Also saying incel outs you as an imbecile.

You're a virgin dude, no wonder why you still view sex as an emotional thing. You probably still believe in santa.

fuck guys, you are overthinking this shit

I already admitted this shit: Yeah I can't just fuck around for fun. I wanted to, but I felt like I'm no longer a human, but an animal instead for even trying. You can fuck around like it's nothing and that's on you, I and people like me have different views on sexuality. This sums up the "virginity worship" question. We just want women who take it as seriously as we do.

he thinks sex is special, aww that is so cute

Ok jokes aside how can you honestly ask for that with presumptions like ?

Can you elaborate your question?

That men care about intimacy and women don't.

Its not even the other way around on average. Like says. Women and men have always fucked around. Just because YOU feel like an animal doesn't mean you, me, or women are for enjoying themselves.

I think has the right answer. Because sex comes to women they often seek intimacy through relationships and they know men generally won't open up emotionally until they open up physically.
This is why women usually complain about guys pumpin and dumpin while men complain about girls friendzoning.

>inb4 bump limit
Yes. Anything other than zero is degenerate. Arbitrary counts are also unenforceable limits because they don't offer any guidance on behavior, so they're worthless metrics.
I think you can guess my count.

This is the only guy in this thread who's
1) ever touched a pussy
2) has hair on his balls

The rest of you need to grow the fuck up. Stop crying because other people don't think like you do. To some people, having sex with 2 people is loads, to others having sex with 20 people is loads, who gives a fuck. Just do you and let people enjoy themselves if thats what they're into.

I'm not talking about those men and women. I don't care what they do. I'm talking about us who care about chastity. That's what this thread is about. And yes, it absolutely concerns me what a woman I am supposed to love has done in terms of love in her life. If she fucked around I'll feel like I'm wasting my love on someone who could never appreciate it the same way I do.

>Just do you and let people enjoy themselves if thats what they're into.
What if doing me involves rejecting women because of their past? Then, suddenly, all your tolerance and acceptance is lost and I need to "grow up".

No, I don't care. Seek out all the quiet girls who have only slept with 1 or 2 people, I couldn't give a fuck.

I do care if you're going to go after 17/18 year old virgins as a man in your mid-late twenties though. These girls don't need to be fucked up mentally by someone who is too immature to strike relationships with women their own age.

I remember being 17/18 and seeing all these girls my age getting manipulated into relationships with these older guys because the girls were slightly more emotionally/physically mature than their peers. Everyone thought it was creepy then and I couldn't understand why these older dudes weren't just fucking with women their own age and leaving the teens for the teens. Now I've actually seen what these guys are like it makes sense.

But if you're just looking for a woman who hasn't been with any men and they're closer to your age, who cares, everyone has preferences.

If you have a count of say 30 though and you'd shun a woman for having sex with more than 5+ people, you've got other problems going on.

True love is unconditional.

youtube.com/watch?v=8iruzIEQsL4

Love is all there is, it makes the world go 'round
Love and only love, it can't be denied
No matter what you think about it
You just won't be able to do without it
Take a tip from one who's tried
So if you find someone that gives you all of her love
Take it to your heart, don't let it stray
For one thing that's certain
You will surely be a-hurtin'
If you throw it all away

>Seek out all the quiet girls who have only slept with 1 or 2 people
I'm thinking about those with a 0.

And your age discrepancy intolerance is also intolerance. It's perfectly normal for a 26 year old to be with a 19 year old. I'm not that old yet but I don't think I'll stumble upon a 25 year old virgin if I'm still single at that age. But you have no right to judge people on that account. They are consenting adults and it doesn't concern you, hypocrite.

>True love is unconditional
no such thing, then

>No because I'm not an insecure neurotic 15 year old
>No limit
>My count: 6

Best meme is to say bodycount matters only to teens. I never even thought about anything but sex for what it is as a teen. It's adulthood that made me value chastity.

Are you also a virgin? If you are also a virgin, I don't think there's any issue with this at all.

it's only a meme to insecure neurotic 15 year old like you user who never grew up

>t. retarded degenerate with no self-control

Of course. I thought about losing virginity casually, but I couldn't do it. That's why I have strict standards.

Can't you read? I didn't give a shit when I was 15. At 21 I started really thinking it through.

Always 0. I am high value, work hard and have a lot to offer. I value what others have to offer but I will not compromise on baggage. Convincing me to settle is pointless, I'd rather be alone but successful than in a relationship with someone who has baggage. Their drama has no place in my life and no matter what cope you convince yourself at some point you're going to have to deal with it one way or another. Not to mention that the bottom line is there is no law preventing me either so your shaming falls on deaf ears.

If I and others have the confidence to enjoy sex with people casually, why shouldn't I be allowed? Just because sex is really special, pure and sacred to you doesn't mean it has to be for everyone else?

I'd rather not convince insecure teens that body count matters. It just perpetuates a toxic attitude toward your self worth.

I love sex too much to give it up, but to each their own I suppose

No hint that there is any insecure teenager here, friend.

Okay well, I don't think there's anything wrong in you also looking for a virgin user. I think its a problem when a guy has a body count himself and thinks he deserves an 'untouched woman'.

>virgin bully victim detected

Don't care who fucked my girlfriend... just kinda stuck in my mind that her brother fucked her

kek, this.

Yeah, I agree. It's hypocritical. Neither should people attack others for having different value systems, like a lot of anons do. I understand the disgust, but tolerance should be practiced when something doesn't concern you.

>allowed
Of course you should be allowed (pic semi related), but a healthy society would impose consequences to make sure it doesn't proliferate. For people who just NEED to be degenerates, they won't care about those consequences, but most people who could be pushed one way or another will be prevented from engaging in that undesirable behavior.

Your choices don't occur in a vacuum, and one of the most potent drivers of decisions is peer pressure. Any abstract talk of "live and let live" ignores the reality that directly contradicts the principle. Different value sets cannot ever coexist in the same society. Something has to give. For all the tolerance someone like you may show, that isn't the norm, and even if every single person categorically refused to judge, their aggregate behavior itself constitutes a form of pressure driving the decisions of others. A lack of judgement in this case is just a veiled acceptance of a different value set.

Attached: quote-prostitution-in-the-towns-is-like-the-cesspool-in-the-palace-take-away-the-cesspool-thomas-aquinas-134-47-26.jpg (850x400, 64.04K)

I should have clarified in my initial reply that I only find it weird when those dudes in their mid/late twenties that are constantly hunting out virgins again and again are what I have a problem with. They're exploiting young women's minds who want to commit.

Like I said in my last reply, if you're also a virgin yourself and have those same values, I don't see it as weird at all.

>if you don't want to mindlessly fuck everything that moves you must have been bullied
Try again.

That makes sense, then. They are definitely exploiters and I don't have anything in common with them.

Why does casual sex make someone a degenerate if you do it within reason?

I fucked around a lot from the ages of 16-19, just thought with my dick. I got it out my system and when I got to my 20s, I now want to find someone who I can spend the rest of my life with. I know a lot of my friends did the same, that's guys and girls. I think it's a problem when someone carries on that behaviour all through their 20s. It's just teens being teens.

>mindlessly fuck
Why do people always say this about casual sex? You realise you can still put your mind in it? You can focus on enjoying sensations, the excitement of being inside someone, or having them inside you, being naughty/dirty with someone.

Those redpill videos you watch on youtube won't cure your autism, friend

>why does casual sex make someone a degenerate
Because it's a direct assault on the principle of monogamy, of stability in relationships. In other words, that action represents a degeneration of a fundamental value.
>if you do it within reason
That's nonsense. You either act morally or you don't. There is no "within reason" for wrong, only mitigating circumstances which affect judgement of the person rather than the action. The action is wrong regardless of when you do it or how many times you did it.
Acting "within reason" means behaving morally from start to finish. Or just not caring about the morals at all--being either amoral or actively immoral. Either way, being a degenerate is deserving of judgement and consequences. The former because you yourself acknowledge what you did wrong, and the latter because you openly declare yourself to be a threat to the moral order.

Because that's literal hedonism, and you turds tend to call anyone who disapproves some variant of "insecure" for bringing up (read: thinking about) myriad problems with that kind of behavior.

>le youtube redpill
try again
>autism
try again

Over 50% of monogamous marriages end in a divorce, so you can drop the stability meme.

I can't imagine being this autistic so as to prescribe morality to casual sex. "Degeneracy" is one of the biggest giveaways that you're stuck in the mgtow bubble

its a really interesting topic

its engrained in each genders biology to seek opposite attributes. i find it cool to learn about it. girls want a guy who owns territory and guys want a girl who he can mark as his territory

I honestly wouldn't call it an insecurity on each side. like your not insecure if your a virgin and you want to lose it to a virgin. your just unrealistic.
women seek hypergamy like they seek the future and men seek the opposite. not calling you a red pill whore or any incel point its just interesting :).

, infact every man has an issue with it
100% of men do not like it if there gf had a bad past, i dont think even 1

Personally i dont care about body count if were dating or gf
but if were married, yeah i need to know.. not the amount of bodies but the experiences
like 5 boyfriends and 1 hook-up. can count as 6
but it could be 6 hook-ups.

or even ive had a person who had a body count of 3, turns out she fucked 3 guys in 1 night. 2 at once 0_0

dont judge peoples past? thats a pretty retarded concept. the same person who told me this wouldnt let my uncle who had a criminal record of assault drive his wife to work

>Over 50% of monogamous marriages end in a divorce
Wrong. Among people who are actually monogamous--those who save themselves for marriage with the intent of having one lifetime partner--the divorce rate is less than half that.
The meme is that one's past and one's behavior don't impact stability--when they demonstrably do.
>I can't imagine...morality
You could have saved yourself the trouble of typing that vacuous filler. This is what you mean. It is plainly obvious why someone who cares about things like exclusivity or, yes, stability and happiness would have a problem with casual sex which flies in the face of the former two and indirectly undermines the latter. YOU don't value those things, and that's why you can't possibly conceive of moral standards. That is why any sane society with such standards would recognize you as the threat that you are.

>mgtow
They're literal degenerates who espouse hedonism on the retarded grounds that "everyone else is doing it".

I think I heard once that men show their love through loyalty and women show their love through emotional intimacy. Which, as a femanon, I actually agree with. Not that I don’t value loyalty but I just don’t actively think about it much. It’s something on the back burner that isn’t on the mind unless it needs to be. But, I find men tend to have it way towards the front and base their identities as partners around it. So, they think a lot more about sexual histories, past relationships, and how safe of an investment it is that their partner is going to stick around

And before you come in vigorously tipping a fedora about 'muh religion', its impact is relatively minor. Sexual restraint in general (of which no sex outside of marriage is the strongest and most consistent form), even controlling for religion, is a net positive on relationship stability and happiness.

Or MAYBE marriage means less and less as religion is declining More and more year by year?

No because I don't have a gf/wife

You clearly don't have the prerequisite maturity to have this discussion, seeing as how you desperately try to stitch morality, casual sex, and divorce rates to prescribe some juvenile opinion on these complicated issues.

If marriage is a possibility she has to be a virgin no exception. If just dating with no future a few partners like 3 is my limit.

Very simple, men want to own the woman's sexuality and not be cuckholded. Sure there are paternity tests now but there's a long ingrained preference for a woman who will ensure the child is yours and not cheat(ie good girl virgin for marriage). Women have no reason to care, in fact they sometimes shared a man so the focus is entirely on how much attention is being given to them. If he fucks another girl once but doesn't care about her or give her any resources many women don't mind. But a girl having a past is a problem for men. The dynamic is not the same. I don't mean to excuse fuckboy behavior they should be punished but it's a lot more okay for a man to hookup with the town whore because he's not really stealing anything.

This, it's always the same whenever sex comes into the conversation with your types. It instantly becomes a conversation on morality, divorce rates and statistics. Imagine being so insecure in yourself and ability to keep someone's interest in you that you allow your future to be dictated by statistics. I use the term statistics very fucking loosely too seeing as these are often surveys done on past generations or carried out by fucking condom companies, it's hardly representative.

Oh, please. Take your inflated ego and blow it out your ass. Go ahead, describe what you think "morality" is and then explain how someone is necessarily immature if they dare to prescribe rules of conduct for relationships. You haven't done that, only smugly chide any sort of standard as 'immature' while conveniently pretending that this automatic dismissal of opposing views is somehow the hallmark of an intellectual.
I find it laughable how you pretend to be qualified for discussion when you clearly don't have any grasp of the available data (instead ignorantly bringing up absolute divorce rates as if they mean anything without being broken down by behavior) or on morality itself.

If anyone has a juvenile, underdeveloped mind, it would be you, the person who openly claims not to understand his opponents or why anyone could possibly care about another's behavior in relationships when searching for a partner.

>complicated issues
How much do you expect to go over within 2000 character posts, you pseud? We can comb through data until we keel over from old age, but suffice it to say, casual sex--which is *defined* by a lack of commitment--is not conducive to a value of stability, or morals of commitment. This is a direct consequence of its definition, and if you can't see how someone could make the connection, you're either willfully obtuse or just retarded.

tl;dr get off of your delusional high horse.

> comb through data
there it is again, it's literally like a broken record, I'm starting to think your kind are NPCs at this point.

>delusional high horse
Says the autist filing casual sex under "retarded degeneracy" you fucking lunatic.
I'd be embarrassed too if the only publications that support my unsubstantiated opinions on sex and relationships came from Christian blogs. I'm sure your local community college offers classes on critical thinking and data analysis. The only question is whether your minimum wage warehouse gig helps you afford said classes

>I'd be embarrassed too if the only publications that support my unsubstantiated opinions on sex and relationships came from Christian blogs

Attached: xsqzds8fyjk21.jpg (639x526, 21.97K)

How convenient. You barge into a discussion about morality saying "lmao you have no reason to believe what you do", then someone gives you statistics and reasoning, and then start wallowing in your own shit shouting
>LOL STATS NPC STATS NPC
Room temperature IQ is being generous.

>unsubstantiated opinions
How can you type this with a straight face when you have come in here with no data whatsoever and then ignorantly dismiss any and all data as "autistic" and from "christian blogs"
These stats come either directly from nationally representative sources like the GSS and NSFG, or were part of peer-reviewed publications.
Go throg wild:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00996.x/abstract
>Bivariate results suggested that delaying sexual involvement was associated with higher relationship quality across several dimensions. The multivariate results indicated that the speed of entry into sexual relationships was negatively associated with marital quality, but only among women."

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract
>"I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution."

psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-25811-011
>"Both structural equation and group comparison analyses demonstrated that sexual restraint was associated with better relationship outcomes, even when controlling for education, the number of sexual partners, religiosity, and relationship length."

The sheer amount of hypocrisy and delusion from you hedonists is unbelievable. Oh, and don't think that this predictability is a one-way street: I know that if you're of the ten percent or so of your ilk who even bothers to open up the sources, you're going to start arguing with each one individually.

Yeah dude, I base all my opinions on everything in life on stats because I am cripplingly autistic.

Didn't read any of your links, NPC.

Did none if you have a father or something. He told me when I was like 14 that I can sleep with a girl if I use a condom but not to be giving them any gifts or anything unless she's a virgin and I think I might want to stay with her. This seems like just basic knowledge why all the statistics?

Let me remind you and any lurkers, while you gloat about my supposedly "unsubstatiated beliefs":
-You came in here calling people who cared about a person's past "insecure teenage virgins", "autistic", "bullying victims", "immature", and "fucking lunatics". Which is literally baseless conjecture pulled straight out of your ass.
You have not a single shred of data to support either those assertions or your supposed beliefs, besides repeating the aggregate divorce rate for all of society, and then laughed away being corrected when it was mentioned that divorce rates are lower among those who follow moral standards of the kind being discussed.

Which is it, fag? Do you want "baseless", "unsubstantiated opinions", or do you want data to support my beliefs? I can give you and have given you both, but you don't get to switch between the two just because you're a mental midget incapable of confronting or absorbing either head-on.
And no, this isn't "opinions on everything in life". It is specific data to support a specific belief and claim, in direct response to a drooling retard shitting himself and pretending there's no evidence to support my position.

You're very angry, life is about more than stats, you'd know that if you socialised and had some female friends maybe. These stats are always a case of saying "60%" or some shit too. Why are you so self-deprecating that you don't assume you'd be in the successful 40%?

Wow, just as I predicted. I guess we're both NPCs. The thing is, the arguments stands on their own regardless of the neckbeard or self-professed doctor of philosophy sitting behind the screen, and the fact is that every single one of your points has been a baseless deflection or just a flatly incorrect assertion. I could be a "cripplingly autistic incel neckbeard manchild basement dwelling insecure virgin", or whatever asinine label you want to slap on me to pretend it invalidates the argument. The fact is you made claims which were unfounded and easily countered in a response. I don't have evidence or support for my beliefs? I do, and I posted them, which is far more than you can say.

>You have not a single shred of data to support either those assertions or your supposed beliefs, besides repeating the aggregate divorce rate for all of society, and then laughed away being corrected when it was mentioned that divorce rates are lower among those who follow moral standards of the kind being discussed.
I can't engage with you because I'd have to backtrack so far and cover so much ground. Like I said earlier, you lack the prerequisite maturity to discuss these complicated issues. I don't even have to read your cherry-picked studies to recognize that you're still prescribing unsubstantiated opinions to data that doesn't support your claims. There is plenty of data out there that supports what I say, I don't care if you bother to look them up or not because I'm not the one having an aneurysm over casual sex

Because morality doesn't work on raw chance, that's fatalistic idiocy. Nobody questions someone saying "diversify your portfolio to lower risk", neither do they think the 'success' stories of some goober getting millions off of one lucky bet justifies everyone going all-in on random penny stocks without research.
The idea behind morality is the same, socially speaking. The fact that SOME people can thrive =under any arbitrary set of conditions does not invalidate the very basic and simple concept that some conditions are better than others in terms of the proportion of success. To enact a given value, moral rules exist which maximize its potential.

>You're very angry
Gee, I wonder why. Maybe the prideful ignorance and immorality of corrupted fucks like you and the predominance of such stupidity in society has something to do with it.

Still repeating yourself, huh? Again, do tell me how posting sources is "unsubstatiated", and how a data-driven argument is more immature than your half-dozen posts of name-calling.
> There is plenty of data out there that supports what I say,
You would be the first in almost 4 years to post anything supporting the idea that casual sex is good or even neutral for relationship stability. Let that sink in: I have argued with dipshits like you for 4 years, and NOT A SINGLE ONE of you has every managed to conjure up their phantom studies that were "cherry picked" to counter what I have posted. Not. A. Single. One.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you're full of shit, and deep down you know you're full of shit, so you concoct elaborate delusions of mental superiority to justify never having to spend any effort trying to back up your pitiful beliefs.

Smug, unthinking shits like you are truly the lowest tier of subhumanity.

What were my claims?

>Nobody questions someone saying "diversify your portfolio to lower risk"
loool this guys clearly never been on Dab Forums.

You just sound like a big pussy.

You have 2 options in life
- Take some risks for a much higher pay off
- Live in constant fear of things going wrong long term so play all of your life and relationship decisions extremely cautiously and tentatively

This is genuinely the virgin vs chad meme personified.

You'll forgive me if your posts blend in with the other guy's, considerating that neither of you had anything worthwhile to say, but here is a sampling of your statements that were either groundless, unprovable, or irrelevant (and could be dismissed as such); or those which were directly countered with data or arguments of my own:
Part 1: shitflinging in the hopes that something will stick and magically invalidate an argument
>insecure neurotic immature teenager
>virgin bully victim
>youtube redpill and autism
Part 2: Baseless or refuted claims made by a person who claims his opposition has no support
>over 50% of monogamous marriages [sic, monogamy of a lifetime partner is not the same as serial monogamy and then getting married after having fucked around] end in divorce, lmao stability btfo
>also pulled out the big boy mgtow label, again incorrectly
Next post: stability of marriages is positively associated with monogamous behavior.
>only publications that support my unsubstantiated opinions on sex and relationships came from Christian blogs
>btw you're uneducated too! (also false, grad student in STEM)
Next post: sources to substantiate my opinions, not from "Christian blogs"

Literally every post you make is chock full of irrelevant or easily refuted bullshit, and then you strut around like you're the 'mature and refined' paragon of reason. It's just sad. I may be a colloquial autist for taking this seriously, but at least I have a fucking argument.

Are you seriously going to argue against the maxim "don't invest more than you're willing to lose" just because the other guys said it and you need to contradict him?

Literally got one (you) from this.

Other guy is doing a great job on educating you why you're a loser though.

I don't really care, in the sense I'm not thinking about it, nor will I seethe over it. Preference maybe, I guess, but I would like to at least know.
I wouldn't want to be with anyone who's had over 10 different partners, that seems like way too high a number for anyone to be a stable, caring partner. Like, there has to be a reason they've slept with that many people, you know? Then again that's framed in my age group (mid 20s). That young, that many people, seems like a red flag to me personally.
3 myself.

i think you could be stable and caring at 10, I think 15+ is when it gets questionable.

I'm just a wishful thinker, I suppose. I like to hope that girls I date with that many partners have at least spent 6-12 months with someone if they were sleeping with them. Maybe delusional, even. I've never enjoyed the purely sexual aspect of sex, I can just jerk off if I want feel good. I like the emotional attachment and intensity of sharing a special moment with someone I'm spending a lot of time with.

True I feel ya, I think you know when you find a girl if she's right or wrong for you anyway, despite her past.

As I said, pardon me for not being able to distinguish between you two. The fact remains that I summed up your intellectual non-contributions, and the conclusive result is "Argument: Not Found".

I'll be sure to add in "loser" to the list of pointless invectives next time.

>You would be the first in almost 4 years to post anything supporting the idea that casual sex is good or even neutral for relationship stability. Let that sink in: I have argued with dipshits like you for 4 years, and NOT A SINGLE ONE of you has every managed to conjure up their phantom studies that were "cherry picked" to counter what I have posted. Not. A. Single. One.
Doesn't matter and that's not a point, just useless fluff to inflate your bruised ego.

Let's see...
>constantly running back to unsubstantiated prescriptions for data that doesn't support your claims
Check!
>bloviating while crying about said unsubstantiated prescriptions
Check!
>posts data that's behind a paywall and uses this as his only tool of defense
Check!

For the umpteenth time, you lack the maturity to discuss this. I'd say those community college courses might help you, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to have casual sex while you hyperventilate in your bedroom about the morality of sex

Yeah, that's what I was trying to drive at with my first point. I like to know but it's not like a huge dealbreaker. Of course if I'm meeting some girl and she's saying "yeah well I've slept with 10 guys" and we're both the same age, I'm gonna immediately think less of the chances of any sort of happy relationship. But that's just me, nothing against them, I just have my own preferences.

its all relative to your own score right? youd probably feel different if you sleep with a few thotties in the next year. I'd say as long as your partner is within maybe 5 or so of your count, you're in the same ballpark.

by that I mean, if you had 5 bodies, a girl with 10 would be far less intimidating.

>Doesn't matter and that's not a point
I think it does. You claimed that you have support for your beliefs, which I have yet to see through the combined effort of dozens if not hundreds of people just like you. And just like every single person before you, you have shit on posted sources while hiding behind sources you claim exist but never post. How is that not relevant? If you don't want to be called out, don't make stupid or hasty claims that you can't back up. If you want your evidence to be taken seriously, perhaps you should actually have some.

>unsubstantiated prescriptions for data
Don't think I wouldn't notice. First you call my positions unsubstantiated (let's ignore for the moment the hypocrisy that your own positions remain so), now you've moved onto the next goalpost of calling the APPLICATION of the sources unsubstantiated. What do you expect now, pray tell? More sources from McDick's university explaining in a controlled and peer reviewed study that yes, it turns out statistics can be used to inform a discussion?

By all means, start arguing about the specific applicability of my sources. That's already a step closer towards my position, when you had previously screeched about a supposed lack of support invalidating any basis for discussion. And once you get onto the ground of debate with evidence rather than the existence of evidence, you WILL lose, because the fact of the matter is and remains that your "side" of hedonist pseud larpers doesn't have the support of data.

It's not really about some sort of insecurity, every girl I've slept with I've dated for at least 2 years. I don't want to just sleep with some random thottie, like I said I get very little out of sex, it doesn't feel any better than jerking off, to me. I want a relationship, sex is a part of that, and I enjoy sex with people I love and care about, and it's because I love and care about them. Not because I'm getting my dick wet.

I want someone who feels the same, not necessarily about sex in general, but the concept of the relationship making sex worthwhile. If someone enjoys sex, more power to them, it's just not who I am, and I don't think we'd be compatible, and I notice most people who feel that way tend to have double digit bodycounts.

Why do you think it is that you only want to have sex with people you love? What exactly is it that makes it so sacred/special to you?

>why do men get more iffy about women having one night stands but less iffy if previous sex partners were in context of long term relationships?
One is a whore who spreads legs with zero remorse or need for emotional attachment.
Other is trying to find someone and make it work but fails, there's no shame in that.
The west is truly doomed if you didn't figure out this yourself.

It's not "sacred", again, I just get way less out of sex unless I'm emotionally invested in the person and the relationship. I personally am incapable of forming a connection that would make sex worthwhile to me in any time less than a couple weeks. I'll have sex before then if she's really asking for it, or it feels right, but that's not been the case so far.
As for why, it's because it's the only time sex really feels good to me. The actual physical act doesn't do much for me, the first girl I ever slept with, it was the first date, I was 16, she was 16, and it just did nothing for me. The entire time all I could think of was "this is worse than just using KY jelly and jerking off". As we grew closer and I learned more about her and we spent more time together, it started to feel better, because I could tell she was more invested, and I was more invested. I wanted to make her happier, she wanted to make me happier, and it was just more passionate in general. That trend has continued on. First time with a girl, I usually get absolutely nothing out of it, and have to actively TRY to finish, otherwise I'll just not be able to.

I understand I'm not the norm in that regard, and again I don't mind if people have one night stands, go for it. I just don't think we'd be compatible if you enjoy them, because I know I don't. I like slow burns, lots of romance, lots of buildup.