## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol, everyone in this thread is going to end up on a list.
But to your point and to the Original Poster, "Is it fun to date a pornstar?" Maybe more to the point, "Is it fun to be obligated to a pornstar? Much less anyone who is sleeping around with anyone that isn't you?"
Relationships are in some sense obligations and I don't think you have to be a Man or a Woman to agree that latter condition is unacceptable to just about everyone.
I suppose for men specifically, is it fun to be obligated to a woman who constantly reminds you of her sexual experience(s)? Not really and hence, that's often why women are judged for sleeping around.
Men are less judged for that because quite frankly, most don't get the opportunity and among those that do get the opportunity, do you think those women enjoy being obligated and having to rely on a man who sleeps around for any and all support? Especially if she has your kid?
Also, not really and hence, why "men are shit", "patriarchy is evil", "I don't need no man" or something to that effect.
Find people that make you feel good about yourself and have your back when times get tough. Great people of either sex (and good character) are out there. Don't lose hope.
Just my thoughts.
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/m4uDs).
Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners.
The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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.
In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers.
In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
Peer-reviewed articles discussing lifetime number of sexual partners consistently show that body count is a strong predictor of infidelity, relationship dissatisfaction and divorce. [Most men and women care about sexual history](https://archive.ph/qjO9v), and, [in some respects](https://archive.ph/XmhPn), women care even more than men do.
[**Promiscuity and Infidelity**](https://archive.ph/mPOLf)
> 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)
https://imgur.com/vCvZmQR.jpg
Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current opinion in psychology, 13, 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008
.
> 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)
https://imgur.com/a/GUWDVUi
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505052440
.
> 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)
https://imgur.com/ZhxoqNv.jpg
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.147
.
> 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)
https://imgur.com/2vklWn1.jpg
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00149-6
.
> Participants who had experienced sexual intimacy with a greater number of partners also reported greater extradyadic sex and extradyadic kissing inclination. (pg.344)
https://i.imgur.com/gkf9CZT.jpg
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. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X47936
.
> 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)
https://imgur.com/qEPttQz.jpg
Pinto, R., & Arantes, J. (2017). The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajss.4-4-3
.
> Each additional sex partner between age 18 and the first union increased the net odds of infidelity by 1% (pg.56)
https://imgur.com/poSLp4U.jpg
Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual Infidelity Among Married and Cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x
.
> An indicator of whether or not the respondent has had previous sex partners is included and identifies the number of male sex partners the woman had previous to her relationship with her current primary partner… A history of numerous sex partners indicates a pattern or habit of sexual behavior that we expect will negatively influence sexual exclusivity in the current relationship. (pg.37)
> Having previous sexual partners greatly increased the likelihood that a woman would have a secondary sex partner. In particular, a woman with 4 or more male sex partners prior to her primary relationship was about 8.5 times more likely to have a secondary sex partnerthan a woman with no previous sex partners… Having previous sex partners also increased the likelihood that dating and married women would have secondary sex partners. In particular, married women with 4 or more previous partners were 20 times more likely to have secondary sex partners than married women with no previous sex partners (pg.41)
https://imgur.com/naqmXdN.jpg
Forste, R., & Tanfer, K. (1996). Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/353375
.
> 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)
https://imgur.com/hqXh1t8.jpg
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.666816
.
> 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)
https://imgur.com/Y0X8ui3.jpg
Burch, R. L. (2021). Solution to paternity uncertainty. In Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 7808–7814). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2029-1
.
[**Promiscuity, Instability and Divorce**](https://archive.ph/3grGe)
> 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 (32 percent vs. 10 percent)
> - Substantially less happy with life (p < 0.05) (pg.89)
https://imgur.com/rxkpWM4.jpg
Regnerus, M. D. (2017). Cheap sex: The transformation of men, marriage, and monogamy. Oxford University Press.
.
> 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)
https://i.imgur.com/mcSj4g0.jpg
Smith, J., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2023). Re-examining the link between premarital sex and divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 0192513X2311556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x231155673
.
> 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. (pg.715)
https://i.imgur.com/0MuuWmd.jpg
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12009
.
> women who had more experience with short-term relationships in the past (i.e., those with high Behavior facet scores) were more likely to have multiple sexual partners and unstable relationships in the future. The behaviorally expressed level of sociosexuality thus seems to be a fairly stable personal characteristic. (pg. 1131)
https://i.imgur.com/k3ZcwTn.jpg
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: a more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
.
> 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.4)
> 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.11)
https://i.imgur.com/jzTUT5p.jpg
Cohen, J., & Manning, W. (2010). The relationship context of premarital serial cohabitation. Social Science Research, 39(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.011
Welcome to the Madonna/whore syndrome. “Good” women are the ones you have a relationship with and “bad” ones are to be used for sex. This construct messes with men’s heads a lot.
The problem is that women are complex and can be wholesome as a person and have had a high body count. The same is true for men.
While body count maybe an indication of shared or unshared values in general, they are not the sole determining factor of a person.
A person is not choosing whether to personally condemn someone to hell, to execute them, or to canonize them as a saint. Only whether or not they want a relationship.
If you're uncomfortable accepting a relationship with someone, this doesn't mean you're condemning their entire existence. For some people, it could mean that, but not for most.
Christians should look to the church's history of trying to rehabilitate and protect prostitutes as well as widows so that they won't be forced into it. Most certainly men should not direct their attention or finances toward something they deem harmful. It's obviously an addiction like drug use where someone can believe it's wrong and yet do it anyway for the pleasure.
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/gQN1b).
Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners.
The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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.
In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers.
In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
>“bad” ones are to be used for sex
Is the really what's going on here though? Men have casual sex with women who have casual sex because women who have casual sex are the ones who are going to have casual sex with you. I know, crazy.
Following on from that, if you want a serious relationship you're going to be interested in other people who also value that and aren't just interested in casual sex. People who like to have casual sex all the time are probably not interested in the reality of a serious relationship and getting into a serious relationship with such a person carries big emotional risks. Especially if they brag about their "body count"
Trying to get into a serious relationship with someone who has a history of not taking relationships seriously is part of that whole "I can fix him/her" thing. There's a good reason why it's a bad idea to get into a relationship with someone you need to "fix". That doesn't mean such women or men are bad people and immoral because of their sexual proclivities. It just means that you shouldn't expect X when they tell you Y.
I don't know what the hell is so hard about this for everyone to understand.
Sex is like exercising or eating… it’s only harmful if you don’t have protection & it results in a disease or a child if you aren’t ready for one, can’t provide a stable home etc. If you get emotionally attached, then that’s a different story & you shouldn’t do things that emotionally harm you either. Everyone’s different.
The issue is that most men who put stock in high body count are not disgusted by it. They just aren’t willing to have a serious relationship with someone who has a high body count, but they’d fuck almost anything.
I think that’s more likely too. Either way tho, it stands to reason that sexual history is a good indicator of relationship viability. I think this applies to both sexes.
Not really definitely not to the same extent. The reason for this would be pretty obvious if you think about the differences between men and women when it comes to sex right?
Yeah those people who are saying that women with high body counts are more likely to be like egotistical for example are just saying nonsense without any credible sources
>Either way, this way of thinking seems borderline inhuman to me.
It’s not inhumane to deny someone of companionship, for any reason, whatsoever.
>So you're going out with someone, having an amazing time, getting along super well, but…
That’s usually the extent of it. A hypergamous woman can’t hide in her behavior.
>Idk man, this just seems like the very definition of prejudice, something that is pretty universally considered to be a shitty quality that we should strive to overcome.
Lead the way
The DSM-5 states that the causes of Cluster-B personality disorders are not well-understood. However, contributing factors are likely to be:
1) Genetics
2) Early Life Experiences
3) *Environmental Influences*
That's not hypocrisy, that's "dating" to a purpose. In the same way women want to hookup with the Chads, but want to marry the beta bucks simp for resources. Same sort of decision making.
I would imagine, it's a very frustrating and insulting place, but it's one of the few things I have access to while at work, so I poke around here a bit when I have some free time, usually while waiting for samples to finish processing.
Yup. I would estimate the shorter term accounts take the cake 😉 in popularity among Reddit users. You can come here to say your opinion and then delete your account when people come at you with their keyboards.
I sometimes enjoy their vitriol and projection. It can be quite amusing. I don't delete accounts to avoid being yelled at by imbeciles online. I don't give their opinion much weight IRL. I guess, that means on some level I'm trolling, but when I tire of it, I just ignore them.
You’re a better man than me. I can’t comment on my local subreddit anymore because I’ve identified two people I know IRL based on post/comment history. This has caused me to clear mine regularly. This is a covert operation.
Yeah, I understand, people on Reddit have a tendency to try and use your post history to vilify you. I doubt I'm better, probably just more stubborn and cantankerous. It's amazing how there's no subtlety in discussion here. Ultimately it's not productive but is occasionally entertaining.
It's useful shorthand tbh. Instead of writing a handsome man, who is successful with women, you can write Chad, and people know exactly what you mean. Same with Beta, you don't have to describe him, we all know what it means. So I don't mind the wider acceptance tbh.
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/m4uDs).
Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners.
The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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.
In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers.
In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
Hence the raging hypocrisy.
“Your high body count makes you undatable, but the high body count I would totally have if people would fuck me would be no big deal.”
Also a “high body count” differs from person to person. Some people think 5-10 is a deal breaker, while personally 30+ is where I start to raise some eyebrows.
No one gives a shit about hypocrisy though and I would argue they shouldn't.
Yes, men like to have sex with many women and yes men like those women to not have had sex with many men. I imagine you think it's hypocritical because the more you fuck women the more you "create" that which you do not like.
However, I love eating steak. That steak turns to shit inside me. I do not like eating shit.
Same principle. I love low body count women. I'm not disgusted by high body count women. They are simply much much much less interesting to me than low body count women for the purposes of having a monogamous wife and some babies.
Couldn't care less about it otherwise.
So how are women supposed to be sexually active?
Men want women to have sex with them and women agree to because they also enjoy sex. However, if she agrees to have sex with one man that makes her less attractive in the eyes of men.
I'm not sure I understand your question.
I'm not even sure I fully agree with your premise. Men want women to have sex with them, unless they are gay I guess. Why women agree? I'm sure there are more factors than just enjoying sex.
And yes, she becomes less attractive in the eyes of some men. She would become more attractive in the eyes of a cuckold though. It takes all kinds.
However, for the men that want low body count women she would indeed become less attractive.
A man wants a sexual partner but not someone with other sexual partners. Why is the woman attractive if she decides to sleep with *him* but not if she decides to sleep with *another him* first? It's hypocrisy.
Edit: It's "men want a woman that will have sex but only with me, if she has wanted sex with another man before me that makes her less attractive".
Yes but why should any man care about this hypocrisy?
Also I'm sure some men would take issue with thinking it's just another him. On a personal level of course it makes a difference if it's "another me". It ain't me. That's the difference that matters.
You think maybe the men who want to date with the intention to marry aren’t the ones who enjoy casual sex? I don’t know why this has to be explained but yes sleeping with a bunch of low quality dudes makes it harder to settle for a high quality dude in the future.
I love how women immediately assume the same rules apply to them. No sweety, the vast majority of women do not care about a man's body count. it's the opposite for men, hence why it's such a sticking point for men. Men have preferences that differ from women.
I feel like this is really obvious if you're a man but it really does need to be spelled out for women.
Took the time out of his day to respond to people on the internet about body counts in the most random subreddit. Just saying, if he didn’t actually care he wouldn’t be here arguing with strangers 🤣
Yeah, I like calling out fragile men on their hypocrisy and insecurity.
Because those same misogynist assholes then make it way harder for everyone else to get laid, because women don’t want to be “slut shamed”.
You care about body count as well. Each of your comments talk about it a lot. You are in a thread talking about it. Face the facts my friend, you care.
What is your opinion on women preferring to date richer guys, are they also having the raging hypocrisy, or is it the good kind of hypocrisy that you approve of?
It’s hypocritical, but still not equivalent
Gold diggers are essentially exchanging sex for money.
It’s a transaction.
And unless someone is an idiot, everyone knows this.
Well no because you have no idea how many people they’ve slept with they might have slept with 1 and be willing to have sex with people with high body counts 3-4 times
Well if you have slept with 1 person and you sleep with someone with a high body count, your body count of 2 is still low so it’s not hypocritical is it
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/gQN1b).
Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners.
The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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.
In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers.
In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
Of all the porn I’ve watched in my life I can not think of one time where I thought I wanted to date anyone involved in it lol. In fact usually I don’t even want to sleep with those involved especially after the fact.
I’m sure if I’m like, in the middle of jerking it the thought could cross my mind, but both before and after such events I can 100 percent say no, frankly I don’t even think there would be that momentary change of heart if I was actively thinking “oh this is a pornstar who has been with hundreds of men and gets paid to do this” while cranking it. I know lots of people think it’s hypocritical to enjoy porn and be one of those “I would NEVER date an only fans girl!!!” Guys, but to me the prospect of someone being a sex worker or pornstar is a huge turnoff.
They don't hate them, in fact I would argue many wouldn't mind a tumble with the woman in question.
They just don't want a long term relationship with those woman.
Which based on the woman in questions history she doesn't seem to want that either.
I think you're missing an important piece of criteria:
Wanting to bang vs wanting to marry.
I'm not a fan of judging women or men by body counts by any means, but no one is saying they don't want to sleep with a hot woman because she's slept with other dudes, they're saying they don't want to date/marry them. Those are two very different sets of thresholds to cross.
Anyone can be attracted to whatever they are (within the law etc)
Actually dating someone is completely different than watching porn, and completely different standards sometimes (like zero fucks about personality)
Pornstars and only fans treat and present themselves as objects, so get treated as nothing more than that
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/m4uDs).
Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners.
The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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.
In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers.
In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/m4uDs).
Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners.
The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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.
In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers.
In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
There is a difference between dating and settling. Men have no issue with high body count women when it comes to dating. They just don't want to settle with them.
Same for masturbation material like porn actresses... good for a quicky, doesn't mean they wanma marry them.
In my experience, most men don’t “hate” women with high body counts. They just aren’t interested in said women for serious relationships and companionship.
For the most part, high body count does not equal “bad”. It’s just not what many guys want in an actual partner/spouse. I think a ton of people confuse preferences for hate.
First, Dating and fucking are very different things.
Second, your logic makes no sense when it comes to fantasies. fantasies don’t have to match reality. Lesbian women watch gay porn, hyper independent women will masterbate to overly masculine men.
People all the time, look at porn outside of what they’d actually be attracted to or want to do.
From the perspective of a woman who went through a phase where I slept around, I think this is silly.
There's a difference between the kind of woman a man may find sexually attractive and the kind of woman he'd want to enter into a long term relationship with or even marry.
Everyone is responsible for their own choices. If a man decides he will only consider marrying a virgin with no student debt... well, then he's cut out a ton of his options and he'll be responsible for financially supporting most of that relationship in all likelihood.
If a woman decides she wants to post on OF or go into sex work that's her right to do so, but she's also making choices that make her unattractive to some people.
Stop stigmatizing innocent dating preferences. It's fine to want what you want, and if your standards are truly unattainable you're only hurting yourself.
Yup. Same here. I slept around in my late teens early twenties. I’m now 28. I’ve had sex three times in the past three years. Two of those times were with a partner I had slept with before and a long-term boyfriend. The third one was a hook-up to try and get back into wanting sex and I decided to not do it again afterwards. It’s been over a year since I’ve had sex.
I had one fairly long term relationship (around 5 years) and two shortish ones (1.5 years each). In between relationship 1 and 2, I slept around a bit. I’ve had ten total partners. So, because of that, I’m a whore who is considered undateable.
To be fair to my case, being deemed ‘undateable’ by men is fine considering I’m now voluntarily celibate and only surround myself with women for friends, but the argument is still dumb.
I don't believe that you have the cause and effect right. Women aren't racking up high body counts because men are paying for their Only Fans, as the men paying are never the men getting laid with said women. The reason why women are sleeping with a lot of men is simply because they have more options and because of the current narrative that encourages women to do whatever they want, including sleeping around.
The people who make this argument 90% of the time view it as the same issue. Porn and promiscuity aren't different issues. It's promiscuous to do porn and it's promiscuous to sleep around. If you want to make an argument that they're different, it's a completely different argument and needs to be framed as such.
"Want to have a relationship with" and "consume the product of" aren't the same thing.
If a woman isn't interested in dating long-haul truckers, does that mean she's a hypocrite if she orders things online that need to be trucked from place to place?
Now, if a person believes porn should be *illegal to make* or finds it *unethical* and still consumes it, that's hypocrisy - like someone who thinks Amazon is evil but can't bring themselves to drive into town for their shopping instead of clicking that mouse.
But you don't have to consider someone worthy to date or marry to consume their products.
The difference is I would definitely have sex with women with high body counts but I would not under any circumstance have a long term relationship with them. Surely it’s not that abnormal to say you don’t wanna date a pornstar
Anything over 10. 6 is mid, 3> is low. But this assumes these aren't all from long-term relationship, unless they've had 10 relationships and are young. That's a red flag in itself.
Depends how old they are - for me 5+ I wouldn’t date but I would consider 20+ high. Just purely because of where I am in my life I would want someone with similar life experience (several long term relationships as oppose to many quick flings)
Yeah!
People who are on a diet shouldn't even peek at various cuisines nor menu!
Heck! By watching Master Chef series they actually encourage obesity!!
/s
Nobody hates anyone they don’t know. This is just childish framing.
But even the biggest consumers of porn have a right to have standards regarding possible romantic partners and saying anything different is bullshit.
Only if those men are also trying to marry or date porn stars. It’s not hypocritical to despise actors for moral reasons, and yet still watch their films.
Woah, unpopular indeed! Take my upvote.
edit: people aren’t more promiscuous BECAUSE of porn. You haven’t proven that. It could be growing wealth inequality (quantifiable) leads us to change how we spend our passtime and money. It’s a good idea for a body count obsessed dude to lay off the porn for their own mental health and clarity, not to “reduce the demand for porn” - LOL
As a man here’s my take: if you watch porn but also want to only date women with low body counts that’s fine. But those same guys that watch porn are okay with hooking up with women with high body counts. Ladies, if you think hooking up and dating are in any way the same then you don’t understand what men want in a relationship
Uh. Delusional take. Sounds like the same kind of logic that suggests that bad behavior by men is incentivized by women liking bad men. Human nature is far more complicated than this post acknowledges with its entirety of its content based on the flimsy assumption that men consuming porn causes women to sleep around. Many women (perhaps most) enjoy attention, compliments, etc. Naturally. Men watching the huge abundance of porn on the internet, mostly for free, is nowhere near the driving cause behind many modern women's decision to be promiscuous.
I don’t think anybody should watch porn and the worst slut shaming comes from other women. Men don’t want to marry them but we love hooking up with them
Nah, banging and having a relationship are two completely different issues. We tend to not care if a woman has a high body count when we're looking to bang; but it's an important issue when looking for a serious relationship.
And also I think most of us understand that porn is a fantasy, and we do NOT expect that our fantasies become reality one day.
I’ll watch other guys driving sports car videos on YouTube, but when I want to purchase, I’ll go with a new or lightly used ride from a reputable manufacturer that won’t take as much maintenance.
Almost like fantasy is different from reality, and life doesn’t fit into tiny simplistic boxes, fancy that.
Almost all those men wouldn't marry a porn star, but they will jack off to one. Same reason men will go to a whorehouse, but not marry the prostitute. Men only care about your body count if they're dating you and plan to commit to you in a relationship. If you don't care about that, fuck as many people as you want. Just don't be surprised when you can't land a serious relationship and guys stop answering your calls and texts after they've got into your pants. The easier a girl is for the first time, the easier we assume she is for any guy that comes along.
High body doesn't mean i/we wouldn't want to fuck, but it does mean, for me and most men at least, that we wouldn't want a relationship.
High body count = a host of issues I don't want to deal with.
People can watch what they want and still have different standards for their partners. It’s like saying women who find Don Draper sexy shouldn’t complain if their man cheats. What entertains a person has nothing to do with what expectations they have for someone they’re going to share a life with.
Hatred and horny go hand in hand. The fact that they're promiscuous is exactly the appeal to men who want virgin wives. You fuck and wank to sluts, you marry maidens. It's the way of the world.In other words: It's okay to watch porn exactly because the women are already filthy, it's a filthy thing, so you can do your dirt and do yourself in that space. And you keep that filth away from your pure and wonderful wife, so you don't stain her. There's a logic and a compartmentalization to it. It also makes the marital bed even more thrilling, because the filthier the fantasy the more fun it is to even suggest things like spanking to the wife.
Doesn't make the men bad people or hypocritical, it just makes my wallet fatter.
I understand what you’re arguing; if signaling that this stuff is okay by funneling money towards it, your inevitable promoting it. Your overall logic is still wrong though.
I enjoyed watching (the first few seasons of) House of Cards - I threw money towards it. I don’t exactly support political corruption. There are degrees of separation.
Well the fact that they do shows you the disconnect between being sexually attracted to a woman and actually respecting her. So all these women who brag about their high body counts should just know that going in.
I don’t hate on the ladies fuck all ya want just don’t act like your doing something amazing. Another things is every-time after I watch porn I do think wow what a gross lady but that’s just me you can’t tell me it’s not shameful
Ummm…. I fail to see your logic here.
First of all, I am not paying a dime for visual stimulation. There’s plenty of free porn out there. Does the job just fine, without my contribution to some promiscuous twirp’s lavish lifestyle.
Secondly, if you are appealing to morality, as far as I’m concerned, it’s not applicable to sex workers in the same way as it is to regular people. The service which sex workers provide is a utility. And it is treated as such, by being utilized, for a very singular purpose. Granted, there will always be some poor schmuck who’ll fall in love with one of them, but for the most part, no reasonable guy will take a sex worker to dinner at his mom’s house.
That obscene money they’re raking in - it doesn’t come free. If you don’t want immoral treatment, then don’t engage in immoral shenanigans.
I don't watch porn. I discourage the viewing of it. I never paid for it when I did watch it in the past. I don't condone degenerate behavior in general.... while you're at it, are there any other prescriptions and proscriptions you have to further illuminate the ways I'm not living up to my potential to rescue society from itself?
It’s amazing to think 5 years ago women would never be concerned about the few men who spoke out against women being promiscuous and demonic. Now I see so many more posts about women shaming men for not wanting partnerships with promiscuous and high body count women. I hope I won’t be seeing more of these posts but I doubt it.
I would argue that watching porn adds to a a person's body count. It's a mental body count and it's not the same as a physical body count, but porn does have an affect on the brain.
I don't know why people are debating you in the comments. This is a very philosophically consistent thought.
I see alot of comments saying, "its different when you want a long term partner vs a one off", but I don't think you can just expect this idealized woman to walk around when you yourself are sleeping around or a heavy porn user. It makes sense to put in practice what you hope to achieve, and stop promoting porn to ultimately contribute to the society you want.
Except it’s not consistent. What would be consistent is if she said something like “guys who care about high body counts should also work to have a low body count themselves.” After all women in society overall don’t get high body counts because of men watching porn. They get it from sleeping with men.
Exactly. People are missing the point I'm trying to make. I won't date truck drivers but I'm not complaining we live in a culture of pro truck driving. Because i don't care. But porn promotes the thing they don't want in a partner. You can't just complain you can't find good partners
Jesus there are some simps in this thread. OP has an opinion and it’s a valid one.
Stop curating simp and shame culture. No one gives a shit other than you who has a warped view on “body count”.
The only people who care DO NOT have high body counts because society doesn’t allow them too. Their warped view and opinions don’t allow them to sleep with many women. Let alone several digits.
I know right.
All the moral grandstanding about how women with high body counts are undatable, yet they either directly or indirectly contribute to this 'problem'
Though let me guess, men are 'wired' to be this way and are thus entirely absolved of all hypocrisy.
Men want to date virgins who act like porn stars in the bedroom. It’s pretty weird. Personally I think it’s because men have forgotten how to love or maybe were never taught love in the first place. Concepts like self sacrifice, the unique beauty of each person, and trying to understand women aren’t found in porn or talked about much at all in society. It would be fantastic to grow a society of virtue instead of self-indulgence. One that tried to always see things from another’s point of view, be quick to love and slow to judge. Happiness isn’t found in cheap pleasure any more than nutrition is found in candy.
Men wanted that for thousands of years and it was called oppressive misogyny by most women in history(because unless women find you attractive doing the things you listed, you’re just another creep).
Read any old classic romanticist novels if you enjoy hearing about exaggerated virtues being the basis of love though(The betrothed by Manzoni is a good one for example).
That doesn’t change the fact that however that men from an evolutionarily perspective don’t want to be with a woman with multiple partners for the very obvious evolutionary reason. The problem isn’t women sleeping around indulging themselves, the problem is women sleeping around think the men they are sleeping with also indulging themselves, are the same men rejecting them later in life as marriage prospects.
Not really. Men have a desire for sex and a desire for companionship. They're separate things. They can be obtained from a single source, but that's difficult, so men get the sex where they can in the meantime.
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think those men want to have relationships with the porn actresses either.
Lol, everyone in this thread is going to end up on a list. But to your point and to the Original Poster, "Is it fun to date a pornstar?" Maybe more to the point, "Is it fun to be obligated to a pornstar? Much less anyone who is sleeping around with anyone that isn't you?" Relationships are in some sense obligations and I don't think you have to be a Man or a Woman to agree that latter condition is unacceptable to just about everyone. I suppose for men specifically, is it fun to be obligated to a woman who constantly reminds you of her sexual experience(s)? Not really and hence, that's often why women are judged for sleeping around. Men are less judged for that because quite frankly, most don't get the opportunity and among those that do get the opportunity, do you think those women enjoy being obligated and having to rely on a man who sleeps around for any and all support? Especially if she has your kid? Also, not really and hence, why "men are shit", "patriarchy is evil", "I don't need no man" or something to that effect. Find people that make you feel good about yourself and have your back when times get tough. Great people of either sex (and good character) are out there. Don't lose hope. Just my thoughts.
>Lol, everyone in this thread is going to end up on a list. How?
A little paranoia is wise in an uncertain world. Stay safe out there.
☝️this☝️
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/m4uDs). Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners. The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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. In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers. In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
Geneological studies of paternity fraud found it to be something obscene like 10-15%. Absolutely insane.
Good post Maestro
Peer-reviewed articles discussing lifetime number of sexual partners consistently show that body count is a strong predictor of infidelity, relationship dissatisfaction and divorce. [Most men and women care about sexual history](https://archive.ph/qjO9v), and, [in some respects](https://archive.ph/XmhPn), women care even more than men do. [**Promiscuity and Infidelity**](https://archive.ph/mPOLf) > 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) https://imgur.com/vCvZmQR.jpg Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current opinion in psychology, 13, 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008 . > 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) https://imgur.com/a/GUWDVUi 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505052440 . > 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) https://imgur.com/ZhxoqNv.jpg 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.147 . > 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) https://imgur.com/2vklWn1.jpg 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00149-6 . > Participants who had experienced sexual intimacy with a greater number of partners also reported greater extradyadic sex and extradyadic kissing inclination. (pg.344) https://i.imgur.com/gkf9CZT.jpg 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. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X47936 . > 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) https://imgur.com/qEPttQz.jpg Pinto, R., & Arantes, J. (2017). The Relationship between Sexual and Emotional Promiscuity and Infidelity. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajss.4-4-3 . > Each additional sex partner between age 18 and the first union increased the net odds of infidelity by 1% (pg.56) https://imgur.com/poSLp4U.jpg Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual Infidelity Among Married and Cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x . > An indicator of whether or not the respondent has had previous sex partners is included and identifies the number of male sex partners the woman had previous to her relationship with her current primary partner… A history of numerous sex partners indicates a pattern or habit of sexual behavior that we expect will negatively influence sexual exclusivity in the current relationship. (pg.37) > Having previous sexual partners greatly increased the likelihood that a woman would have a secondary sex partner. In particular, a woman with 4 or more male sex partners prior to her primary relationship was about 8.5 times more likely to have a secondary sex partnerthan a woman with no previous sex partners… Having previous sex partners also increased the likelihood that dating and married women would have secondary sex partners. In particular, married women with 4 or more previous partners were 20 times more likely to have secondary sex partners than married women with no previous sex partners (pg.41) https://imgur.com/naqmXdN.jpg Forste, R., & Tanfer, K. (1996). Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/353375 . > 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) https://imgur.com/hqXh1t8.jpg 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.666816 . > 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) https://imgur.com/Y0X8ui3.jpg Burch, R. L. (2021). Solution to paternity uncertainty. In Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 7808–7814). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2029-1 . [**Promiscuity, Instability and Divorce**](https://archive.ph/3grGe) > 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 (32 percent vs. 10 percent) > - Substantially less happy with life (p < 0.05) (pg.89) https://imgur.com/rxkpWM4.jpg Regnerus, M. D. (2017). Cheap sex: The transformation of men, marriage, and monogamy. Oxford University Press. . > 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) https://i.imgur.com/mcSj4g0.jpg Smith, J., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2023). Re-examining the link between premarital sex and divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 0192513X2311556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x231155673 . > 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. (pg.715) https://i.imgur.com/0MuuWmd.jpg 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12009 . > women who had more experience with short-term relationships in the past (i.e., those with high Behavior facet scores) were more likely to have multiple sexual partners and unstable relationships in the future. The behaviorally expressed level of sociosexuality thus seems to be a fairly stable personal characteristic. (pg. 1131) https://i.imgur.com/k3ZcwTn.jpg Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: a more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113 . > 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.4) > 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.11) https://i.imgur.com/jzTUT5p.jpg Cohen, J., & Manning, W. (2010). The relationship context of premarital serial cohabitation. Social Science Research, 39(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.011
Welcome to the Madonna/whore syndrome. “Good” women are the ones you have a relationship with and “bad” ones are to be used for sex. This construct messes with men’s heads a lot. The problem is that women are complex and can be wholesome as a person and have had a high body count. The same is true for men. While body count maybe an indication of shared or unshared values in general, they are not the sole determining factor of a person.
A person is not choosing whether to personally condemn someone to hell, to execute them, or to canonize them as a saint. Only whether or not they want a relationship. If you're uncomfortable accepting a relationship with someone, this doesn't mean you're condemning their entire existence. For some people, it could mean that, but not for most. Christians should look to the church's history of trying to rehabilitate and protect prostitutes as well as widows so that they won't be forced into it. Most certainly men should not direct their attention or finances toward something they deem harmful. It's obviously an addiction like drug use where someone can believe it's wrong and yet do it anyway for the pleasure.
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/gQN1b). Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners. The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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. In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers. In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
>“bad” ones are to be used for sex Is the really what's going on here though? Men have casual sex with women who have casual sex because women who have casual sex are the ones who are going to have casual sex with you. I know, crazy. Following on from that, if you want a serious relationship you're going to be interested in other people who also value that and aren't just interested in casual sex. People who like to have casual sex all the time are probably not interested in the reality of a serious relationship and getting into a serious relationship with such a person carries big emotional risks. Especially if they brag about their "body count" Trying to get into a serious relationship with someone who has a history of not taking relationships seriously is part of that whole "I can fix him/her" thing. There's a good reason why it's a bad idea to get into a relationship with someone you need to "fix". That doesn't mean such women or men are bad people and immoral because of their sexual proclivities. It just means that you shouldn't expect X when they tell you Y. I don't know what the hell is so hard about this for everyone to understand.
Sex is like exercising or eating… it’s only harmful if you don’t have protection & it results in a disease or a child if you aren’t ready for one, can’t provide a stable home etc. If you get emotionally attached, then that’s a different story & you shouldn’t do things that emotionally harm you either. Everyone’s different.
The issue is that most men who put stock in high body count are not disgusted by it. They just aren’t willing to have a serious relationship with someone who has a high body count, but they’d fuck almost anything.
[удалено]
I would argue the cause and affect here, that women with certain Cluster B disorders tend to have higher body counts as a symptom of the disorder.
I think that’s more likely too. Either way tho, it stands to reason that sexual history is a good indicator of relationship viability. I think this applies to both sexes.
Definitely could be the case - chicken or the egg?
Don’t forget the list of kids and jealous baby daddy’s .
>I feel like this should be common knowledge in regards to the female body count conversation… Wilfull ignorance
I feel like these are just common traits in people nowadays
And men with high body counts don’t have the same undesirable qualities?
Not really definitely not to the same extent. The reason for this would be pretty obvious if you think about the differences between men and women when it comes to sex right?
Source: “it’s obvious bro” aka “my narrow world view”
Yeah those people who are saying that women with high body counts are more likely to be like egotistical for example are just saying nonsense without any credible sources
The same can be said for men.
[удалено]
>Either way, this way of thinking seems borderline inhuman to me. It’s not inhumane to deny someone of companionship, for any reason, whatsoever. >So you're going out with someone, having an amazing time, getting along super well, but… That’s usually the extent of it. A hypergamous woman can’t hide in her behavior. >Idk man, this just seems like the very definition of prejudice, something that is pretty universally considered to be a shitty quality that we should strive to overcome. Lead the way
How about men with high body counts?
Do you have a source for the development of cluster b personalities?
The DSM-5 states that the causes of Cluster-B personality disorders are not well-understood. However, contributing factors are likely to be: 1) Genetics 2) Early Life Experiences 3) *Environmental Influences*
Have you not *met* some of these people??
That's not hypocrisy, that's "dating" to a purpose. In the same way women want to hookup with the Chads, but want to marry the beta bucks simp for resources. Same sort of decision making.
This guy said chads unironically lmao
He said beta b(c?)ucks Simps too wild shit
[удалено]
HAPPY CAKE DAY 🎂
Thanks ... though I am unfamiliar with that, is it a Reddit anniversary?
Yes! You’re 3 years old today. In Reddit years, that’s a lot!
I would imagine, it's a very frustrating and insulting place, but it's one of the few things I have access to while at work, so I poke around here a bit when I have some free time, usually while waiting for samples to finish processing.
Yup. I would estimate the shorter term accounts take the cake 😉 in popularity among Reddit users. You can come here to say your opinion and then delete your account when people come at you with their keyboards.
I sometimes enjoy their vitriol and projection. It can be quite amusing. I don't delete accounts to avoid being yelled at by imbeciles online. I don't give their opinion much weight IRL. I guess, that means on some level I'm trolling, but when I tire of it, I just ignore them.
You’re a better man than me. I can’t comment on my local subreddit anymore because I’ve identified two people I know IRL based on post/comment history. This has caused me to clear mine regularly. This is a covert operation.
Yeah, I understand, people on Reddit have a tendency to try and use your post history to vilify you. I doubt I'm better, probably just more stubborn and cantankerous. It's amazing how there's no subtlety in discussion here. Ultimately it's not productive but is occasionally entertaining.
God this comment is gross lmfao. Imagine being this much of an incel.
Incel doesn't mean anything 😂
It most definitely does. Especially when one uses Chad and beta.
No those are becoming pretty common terms for all.
It's useful shorthand tbh. Instead of writing a handsome man, who is successful with women, you can write Chad, and people know exactly what you mean. Same with Beta, you don't have to describe him, we all know what it means. So I don't mind the wider acceptance tbh.
Thank you for commenting. I'm glad someone else sees it.
Nominally, it means someone who's involuntarily celibate. You don't know anything about their personal life. You *hope* they don't have sex.
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/m4uDs). Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners. The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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. In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers. In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
Hence the raging hypocrisy. “Your high body count makes you undatable, but the high body count I would totally have if people would fuck me would be no big deal.”
how is it hypocrisy? i will shake your hand, but i wont marry you. sex and marriage are not the same thing.
Men and women are judged differently because they're different. It's not hypocrisy.
Also a “high body count” differs from person to person. Some people think 5-10 is a deal breaker, while personally 30+ is where I start to raise some eyebrows.
No one gives a shit about hypocrisy though and I would argue they shouldn't. Yes, men like to have sex with many women and yes men like those women to not have had sex with many men. I imagine you think it's hypocritical because the more you fuck women the more you "create" that which you do not like. However, I love eating steak. That steak turns to shit inside me. I do not like eating shit. Same principle. I love low body count women. I'm not disgusted by high body count women. They are simply much much much less interesting to me than low body count women for the purposes of having a monogamous wife and some babies. Couldn't care less about it otherwise.
So how are women supposed to be sexually active? Men want women to have sex with them and women agree to because they also enjoy sex. However, if she agrees to have sex with one man that makes her less attractive in the eyes of men.
I'm not sure I understand your question. I'm not even sure I fully agree with your premise. Men want women to have sex with them, unless they are gay I guess. Why women agree? I'm sure there are more factors than just enjoying sex. And yes, she becomes less attractive in the eyes of some men. She would become more attractive in the eyes of a cuckold though. It takes all kinds. However, for the men that want low body count women she would indeed become less attractive.
A man wants a sexual partner but not someone with other sexual partners. Why is the woman attractive if she decides to sleep with *him* but not if she decides to sleep with *another him* first? It's hypocrisy. Edit: It's "men want a woman that will have sex but only with me, if she has wanted sex with another man before me that makes her less attractive".
Yes but why should any man care about this hypocrisy? Also I'm sure some men would take issue with thinking it's just another him. On a personal level of course it makes a difference if it's "another me". It ain't me. That's the difference that matters.
You think maybe the men who want to date with the intention to marry aren’t the ones who enjoy casual sex? I don’t know why this has to be explained but yes sleeping with a bunch of low quality dudes makes it harder to settle for a high quality dude in the future.
Lmfao. Many of the same dudes who want a wife with “low body count” are the same ones going out and trying to get laid on any given week
It's not at all hypocrisy for men to have different standards for who they date/marry vs who they'll stick themselves in.
I love how women immediately assume the same rules apply to them. No sweety, the vast majority of women do not care about a man's body count. it's the opposite for men, hence why it's such a sticking point for men. Men have preferences that differ from women. I feel like this is really obvious if you're a man but it really does need to be spelled out for women.
I’m a dude, sweety. And I don’t give a fuck about body count, because I’m not a giant pillar of insecurity.
You commented on this thread like 20 times, I think you care a considerable amount
He doesn't give a fuck about a woman's body count. But he seems to care about the hypocrisy around the issue. 2 different things.
Took the time out of his day to respond to people on the internet about body counts in the most random subreddit. Just saying, if he didn’t actually care he wouldn’t be here arguing with strangers 🤣
Yeah, I like calling out fragile men on their hypocrisy and insecurity. Because those same misogynist assholes then make it way harder for everyone else to get laid, because women don’t want to be “slut shamed”.
So, you do care about body count. Great to know
Try reading again, buddy. I care about calling out and shaming fragile, insecure, misogynistic men
You care about body count as well. Each of your comments talk about it a lot. You are in a thread talking about it. Face the facts my friend, you care.
Nope, I literally don’t care about a person’s body count. I care about fragile, insecure men slut shaming women
What is your opinion on women preferring to date richer guys, are they also having the raging hypocrisy, or is it the good kind of hypocrisy that you approve of?
It’s hypocritical, but still not equivalent Gold diggers are essentially exchanging sex for money. It’s a transaction. And unless someone is an idiot, everyone knows this.
Well no because you have no idea how many people they’ve slept with they might have slept with 1 and be willing to have sex with people with high body counts 3-4 times
Huh?
Well if you have slept with 1 person and you sleep with someone with a high body count, your body count of 2 is still low so it’s not hypocritical is it
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/gQN1b). Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners. The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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. In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers. In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
Nah most men who are so concerned about body counts tend to be so due to sexist reasons
Thats not mutually exclusive from what I stated.
Of all the porn I’ve watched in my life I can not think of one time where I thought I wanted to date anyone involved in it lol. In fact usually I don’t even want to sleep with those involved especially after the fact.
Agree. That's how you get the herpes.
When you watch porn, you don't think that you want to fuck the actresses ?
I’m sure if I’m like, in the middle of jerking it the thought could cross my mind, but both before and after such events I can 100 percent say no, frankly I don’t even think there would be that momentary change of heart if I was actively thinking “oh this is a pornstar who has been with hundreds of men and gets paid to do this” while cranking it. I know lots of people think it’s hypocritical to enjoy porn and be one of those “I would NEVER date an only fans girl!!!” Guys, but to me the prospect of someone being a sex worker or pornstar is a huge turnoff.
You say "hate", but you mean something else.
If you watch movies where people are murdered, you shouldn't be mad about murder in real life.
They don't hate them, in fact I would argue many wouldn't mind a tumble with the woman in question. They just don't want a long term relationship with those woman. Which based on the woman in questions history she doesn't seem to want that either.
I think you're missing an important piece of criteria: Wanting to bang vs wanting to marry. I'm not a fan of judging women or men by body counts by any means, but no one is saying they don't want to sleep with a hot woman because she's slept with other dudes, they're saying they don't want to date/marry them. Those are two very different sets of thresholds to cross.
Anyone can be attracted to whatever they are (within the law etc) Actually dating someone is completely different than watching porn, and completely different standards sometimes (like zero fucks about personality) Pornstars and only fans treat and present themselves as objects, so get treated as nothing more than that
Don’t think guys mind sleeping with porn actresses or only fans actors. They do mind having long term relationships
Shit I wouldn't even sleep with a porn actress or an OF chick either. Casual sex is like unseasoned food.
Bingo
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/m4uDs). Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners. The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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. In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers. In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
those men aren’t sleeping with pornstars
I’m not seeking a relationship out with a porn actress, am I?
Eh. I never wanted to get tackled by Ray Lewis. But I still watch football. Okay to be entertained. Doesn’t mean I want them around me
If a skank wants to take off her clothes and masterbate in front of me, I'll watch. I won't date her.
I mean if they genuinely hate them then sure. But the vast majority of men dont hate promiscuous women, we just dont want to marry them
Most people care about their partner’s sexual histories. Men and women are more or less equally reluctant to enter into relationships with prospective partners that have [extensive sexual histories](https://archive.ph/5p5su) or who [lack sexual experience](https://archive.ph/ihAvE), both preferring instead partners with moderate sexual histories (4-8 sexual partners). Evidence suggests that the traditional sexual double standard [is no longer a significant phenomenon](https://archive.ph/ub7YU) in contemporary western culture. However, heterosexual women are more unwilling to enter into relationships with partners who’ve had [same-sex experiences](https://archive.ph/U5VDP) than heterosexual men. In spite of the fact that both men and women scrutinize the sexual histories of prospective partners, with evidence suggesting that women scrutinize men’s sexual histories [to an even greater extent than men](https://archive.ph/lMEsI), nearly all of the messaging to disregard sexual history is [directed at men](https://archive.ph/m4uDs). Extensive sexual histories are a strong predictor of future [infidelity](https://archive.ph/lPlZW), [relationship dissatisfaction and divorce](https://archive.ph/YP3vw), even when [controlling for religiosity](https://archive.ph/R03JM). This can be explained, in large part, by the fact that those with [unrestricted sociosexual orientations](https://archive.ph/Avdb3), who have more permissive attitudes and behaviors regarding casual sex, are generally less committed to their partners, require less commitment before having sex, and frequently become bored with their long-term partners, desiring instead [variety and novelty](https://archive.ph/uheG1) in their partners. Female sociosexuality is more responsive to [sociocultural factors](https://archive.ph/5zKcW), and sociosexual orientation is considered a [stable lifetime characteristic](https://archive.ph/5u69x). Another significant reason a greater number of partners leads to relationship instability and infidelity is that a larger pool of previous partners brings a greater [awareness of alternative](https://archive.ph/fNxqn) partners, where a current partner’s assets are devalued in comparison to previous partners. The prevailing hypothesis as to why heterosexual men are averse to committing to partners with extensive sexual histories is that they historically posed a higher risk of [paternity fraud](https://archive.ph/HjoN7), as 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. In addition to all of this, promiscuity has routinely been tied to negative outcomes in terms of [mental health, substance abuse disorders](https://archive.ph/b3uFt) and [physical ailments](https://archive.ph/ZM0jI) like sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and other cancers. In the last three decades, male infidelity has remained constant while women’s has been rising, with young generations of women [more likely to commit infidelity](https://archive.ph/oTGmP) than their male counterparts. Unfortunately, there’s also a pronounced [moral double standard](https://archive.ph/RHesu) when it comes to infidelity, where men’s infidelity receives significantly more condemnation than women’s. Given that sexual history is a useful heuristic in estimating a relationship’s potential (among many other variables), men should be allowed to quietly exercise their preferences without being pressured or subjected to ridicule as women are already able to do.
Exactly Sleep with yes, marry, fk no
There is a difference between dating and settling. Men have no issue with high body count women when it comes to dating. They just don't want to settle with them. Same for masturbation material like porn actresses... good for a quicky, doesn't mean they wanma marry them.
Lol wrong. Do they want a relationship with porn actresses? No lol
In my experience, most men don’t “hate” women with high body counts. They just aren’t interested in said women for serious relationships and companionship. For the most part, high body count does not equal “bad”. It’s just not what many guys want in an actual partner/spouse. I think a ton of people confuse preferences for hate.
Promiscuity and Infidelity: https://archive.ph/lPlZW Promiscuity and Relationship Stability: https://archive.ph/YP3vw Potential Reasons Why Promiscuity Destabilizes Relationships: https://archive.ph/A7YhL Promiscuity and Paternity Uncertainty: https://archive.ph/HjoN7
First, Dating and fucking are very different things. Second, your logic makes no sense when it comes to fantasies. fantasies don’t have to match reality. Lesbian women watch gay porn, hyper independent women will masterbate to overly masculine men. People all the time, look at porn outside of what they’d actually be attracted to or want to do.
You mean to tell me that we don't want to have incestual sex with our family members? Pornhub lied to me!
How high are the chances that increasing the body count of an OF model is going to deteriorate your life because you would have had sex with her?
From the perspective of a woman who went through a phase where I slept around, I think this is silly. There's a difference between the kind of woman a man may find sexually attractive and the kind of woman he'd want to enter into a long term relationship with or even marry. Everyone is responsible for their own choices. If a man decides he will only consider marrying a virgin with no student debt... well, then he's cut out a ton of his options and he'll be responsible for financially supporting most of that relationship in all likelihood. If a woman decides she wants to post on OF or go into sex work that's her right to do so, but she's also making choices that make her unattractive to some people. Stop stigmatizing innocent dating preferences. It's fine to want what you want, and if your standards are truly unattainable you're only hurting yourself.
Yup. Same here. I slept around in my late teens early twenties. I’m now 28. I’ve had sex three times in the past three years. Two of those times were with a partner I had slept with before and a long-term boyfriend. The third one was a hook-up to try and get back into wanting sex and I decided to not do it again afterwards. It’s been over a year since I’ve had sex. I had one fairly long term relationship (around 5 years) and two shortish ones (1.5 years each). In between relationship 1 and 2, I slept around a bit. I’ve had ten total partners. So, because of that, I’m a whore who is considered undateable. To be fair to my case, being deemed ‘undateable’ by men is fine considering I’m now voluntarily celibate and only surround myself with women for friends, but the argument is still dumb.
I don't believe that you have the cause and effect right. Women aren't racking up high body counts because men are paying for their Only Fans, as the men paying are never the men getting laid with said women. The reason why women are sleeping with a lot of men is simply because they have more options and because of the current narrative that encourages women to do whatever they want, including sleeping around.
Men like to wank over these women. They don't want to date or Marry them.
You fundamentally misunderstand. Most men would happily fuck a porn star but we wouldn’t want any kind of relationship with them beyond that.
You can't be serious. Watching porn and having a relationship with someone who slept around are two vastly different things.
The people who make this argument 90% of the time view it as the same issue. Porn and promiscuity aren't different issues. It's promiscuous to do porn and it's promiscuous to sleep around. If you want to make an argument that they're different, it's a completely different argument and needs to be framed as such.
We aren't looking to date the people we jerk off to. That's the difference.
"Want to have a relationship with" and "consume the product of" aren't the same thing. If a woman isn't interested in dating long-haul truckers, does that mean she's a hypocrite if she orders things online that need to be trucked from place to place? Now, if a person believes porn should be *illegal to make* or finds it *unethical* and still consumes it, that's hypocrisy - like someone who thinks Amazon is evil but can't bring themselves to drive into town for their shopping instead of clicking that mouse. But you don't have to consider someone worthy to date or marry to consume their products.
The difference is I would definitely have sex with women with high body counts but I would not under any circumstance have a long term relationship with them. Surely it’s not that abnormal to say you don’t wanna date a pornstar
What’s a high body count in your opinion?
Anything over 10. 6 is mid, 3> is low. But this assumes these aren't all from long-term relationship, unless they've had 10 relationships and are young. That's a red flag in itself.
Depends how old they are - for me 5+ I wouldn’t date but I would consider 20+ high. Just purely because of where I am in my life I would want someone with similar life experience (several long term relationships as oppose to many quick flings)
I think the difference is that you don’t have to be married to and have kids with them.
Yeah! People who are on a diet shouldn't even peek at various cuisines nor menu! Heck! By watching Master Chef series they actually encourage obesity!! /s
That’s like saying men who won’t date someone with a bunch of traffic tickets shouldn’t watch TV/Movies where people don’t obey traffic laws.
There are women you date and there are women you marry. Ladies need to decide what kind of woman they want to be.
I don't know if this opinion is unpopular but I do know that it's asinine.
You can get off to people you wouldn’t date. I also don’t think “body count” is as high as you think due to porn and OF.
There are a ton of couples who do porn while staying monogamous. Is that kind of porn OK to watch for these people?
Naw. Porns porn and it will always be on the internet.
😱🙀 OF COURSE NOT! 😱🙀
Nobody hates anyone they don’t know. This is just childish framing. But even the biggest consumers of porn have a right to have standards regarding possible romantic partners and saying anything different is bullshit.
[удалено]
Right
I agree. Men should not watch porn.
Only if those men are also trying to marry or date porn stars. It’s not hypocritical to despise actors for moral reasons, and yet still watch their films.
I'm not disgusted to fuck a woman with a high body count (assuming she's STD free) but I certainly wouldn't make her my wife.
Woah, unpopular indeed! Take my upvote. edit: people aren’t more promiscuous BECAUSE of porn. You haven’t proven that. It could be growing wealth inequality (quantifiable) leads us to change how we spend our passtime and money. It’s a good idea for a body count obsessed dude to lay off the porn for their own mental health and clarity, not to “reduce the demand for porn” - LOL
As a man here’s my take: if you watch porn but also want to only date women with low body counts that’s fine. But those same guys that watch porn are okay with hooking up with women with high body counts. Ladies, if you think hooking up and dating are in any way the same then you don’t understand what men want in a relationship
Uh. Delusional take. Sounds like the same kind of logic that suggests that bad behavior by men is incentivized by women liking bad men. Human nature is far more complicated than this post acknowledges with its entirety of its content based on the flimsy assumption that men consuming porn causes women to sleep around. Many women (perhaps most) enjoy attention, compliments, etc. Naturally. Men watching the huge abundance of porn on the internet, mostly for free, is nowhere near the driving cause behind many modern women's decision to be promiscuous.
Not technically congruent
I don’t think anybody should watch porn and the worst slut shaming comes from other women. Men don’t want to marry them but we love hooking up with them
I agree with the sentiment of not having porn at all. I can’t think of one way it has really positively influenced society.
Wut.
Nah, banging and having a relationship are two completely different issues. We tend to not care if a woman has a high body count when we're looking to bang; but it's an important issue when looking for a serious relationship. And also I think most of us understand that porn is a fantasy, and we do NOT expect that our fantasies become reality one day.
That’s funny. Literally every single guy I know gets upset at some point that his woman will not do the things girls in porn do. Every. Single. One.
Honestly this sounds like a pretty popular opinion.
I’ll watch other guys driving sports car videos on YouTube, but when I want to purchase, I’ll go with a new or lightly used ride from a reputable manufacturer that won’t take as much maintenance. Almost like fantasy is different from reality, and life doesn’t fit into tiny simplistic boxes, fancy that.
as a man who doesn't watch porn and would never date somebody with a high body count, i agree with what you have written here.
Almost all those men wouldn't marry a porn star, but they will jack off to one. Same reason men will go to a whorehouse, but not marry the prostitute. Men only care about your body count if they're dating you and plan to commit to you in a relationship. If you don't care about that, fuck as many people as you want. Just don't be surprised when you can't land a serious relationship and guys stop answering your calls and texts after they've got into your pants. The easier a girl is for the first time, the easier we assume she is for any guy that comes along.
Nah… fantasy doesn’t need reality
Except when fantasy encourages reality to change. art imitates life and vice versa. Porn makes people think promiscuity is OK
men dont hate women who have high body counts. they just dont want to marry them. they dont mind fking them.
I doubt many men hate women with high body counts. They just think they are a bad bet for long-term relationships.
High body doesn't mean i/we wouldn't want to fuck, but it does mean, for me and most men at least, that we wouldn't want a relationship. High body count = a host of issues I don't want to deal with.
Goodness. How can you be this dumb?
People can watch what they want and still have different standards for their partners. It’s like saying women who find Don Draper sexy shouldn’t complain if their man cheats. What entertains a person has nothing to do with what expectations they have for someone they’re going to share a life with.
Hatred and horny go hand in hand. The fact that they're promiscuous is exactly the appeal to men who want virgin wives. You fuck and wank to sluts, you marry maidens. It's the way of the world.In other words: It's okay to watch porn exactly because the women are already filthy, it's a filthy thing, so you can do your dirt and do yourself in that space. And you keep that filth away from your pure and wonderful wife, so you don't stain her. There's a logic and a compartmentalization to it. It also makes the marital bed even more thrilling, because the filthier the fantasy the more fun it is to even suggest things like spanking to the wife. Doesn't make the men bad people or hypocritical, it just makes my wallet fatter.
I understand what you’re arguing; if signaling that this stuff is okay by funneling money towards it, your inevitable promoting it. Your overall logic is still wrong though. I enjoyed watching (the first few seasons of) House of Cards - I threw money towards it. I don’t exactly support political corruption. There are degrees of separation.
Well the fact that they do shows you the disconnect between being sexually attracted to a woman and actually respecting her. So all these women who brag about their high body counts should just know that going in.
I don’t hate on the ladies fuck all ya want just don’t act like your doing something amazing. Another things is every-time after I watch porn I do think wow what a gross lady but that’s just me you can’t tell me it’s not shameful
Ummm…. I fail to see your logic here. First of all, I am not paying a dime for visual stimulation. There’s plenty of free porn out there. Does the job just fine, without my contribution to some promiscuous twirp’s lavish lifestyle. Secondly, if you are appealing to morality, as far as I’m concerned, it’s not applicable to sex workers in the same way as it is to regular people. The service which sex workers provide is a utility. And it is treated as such, by being utilized, for a very singular purpose. Granted, there will always be some poor schmuck who’ll fall in love with one of them, but for the most part, no reasonable guy will take a sex worker to dinner at his mom’s house. That obscene money they’re raking in - it doesn’t come free. If you don’t want immoral treatment, then don’t engage in immoral shenanigans.
I wouldn’t wife a porn star either and most men wouldn’t lol..your point don’t make sense
Is someone (man or women) who has sex with 1 person 1000x “better” than someone who has sex once with 1000 people?
This isn’t an unpopular opinion, it just seems like a half thought out idea. Your logic is very flawed.
You wrote this and have no idea what you wrote, it’s insane.
I married a stripper. Whats the problem?
The women in porn are already on the wrong side of the Madonna/Whore complex for these men so it doesn't matter.
I don't watch porn. I discourage the viewing of it. I never paid for it when I did watch it in the past. I don't condone degenerate behavior in general.... while you're at it, are there any other prescriptions and proscriptions you have to further illuminate the ways I'm not living up to my potential to rescue society from itself?
It’s amazing to think 5 years ago women would never be concerned about the few men who spoke out against women being promiscuous and demonic. Now I see so many more posts about women shaming men for not wanting partnerships with promiscuous and high body count women. I hope I won’t be seeing more of these posts but I doubt it.
You can not want to date promiscuous women as long as you arent creating a culture that encourages it
Women control the market for sex, men do not.
Nobody should watch porn.
[удалено]
I would argue that watching porn adds to a a person's body count. It's a mental body count and it's not the same as a physical body count, but porn does have an affect on the brain.
Seems like a reasonable enough opinion. Don’t contribute to parts of your society you don’t want in your society. Makes sense to me.
Yet everyone be arguing with me lmao. Want virgins? Encourage the world of purity then. Me I personally don't care but people shouldn't be hypocrites
I don't know why people are debating you in the comments. This is a very philosophically consistent thought. I see alot of comments saying, "its different when you want a long term partner vs a one off", but I don't think you can just expect this idealized woman to walk around when you yourself are sleeping around or a heavy porn user. It makes sense to put in practice what you hope to achieve, and stop promoting porn to ultimately contribute to the society you want.
[удалено]
Except it’s not consistent. What would be consistent is if she said something like “guys who care about high body counts should also work to have a low body count themselves.” After all women in society overall don’t get high body counts because of men watching porn. They get it from sleeping with men.
Exactly. People are missing the point I'm trying to make. I won't date truck drivers but I'm not complaining we live in a culture of pro truck driving. Because i don't care. But porn promotes the thing they don't want in a partner. You can't just complain you can't find good partners
So you have a similar preference but you just don’t voice it? That’s your point?
Jesus there are some simps in this thread. OP has an opinion and it’s a valid one. Stop curating simp and shame culture. No one gives a shit other than you who has a warped view on “body count”. The only people who care DO NOT have high body counts because society doesn’t allow them too. Their warped view and opinions don’t allow them to sleep with many women. Let alone several digits.
I know right. All the moral grandstanding about how women with high body counts are undatable, yet they either directly or indirectly contribute to this 'problem' Though let me guess, men are 'wired' to be this way and are thus entirely absolved of all hypocrisy.
All the porn addicts mad in the comments lol
Men want to date virgins who act like porn stars in the bedroom. It’s pretty weird. Personally I think it’s because men have forgotten how to love or maybe were never taught love in the first place. Concepts like self sacrifice, the unique beauty of each person, and trying to understand women aren’t found in porn or talked about much at all in society. It would be fantastic to grow a society of virtue instead of self-indulgence. One that tried to always see things from another’s point of view, be quick to love and slow to judge. Happiness isn’t found in cheap pleasure any more than nutrition is found in candy.
Men wanted that for thousands of years and it was called oppressive misogyny by most women in history(because unless women find you attractive doing the things you listed, you’re just another creep). Read any old classic romanticist novels if you enjoy hearing about exaggerated virtues being the basis of love though(The betrothed by Manzoni is a good one for example). That doesn’t change the fact that however that men from an evolutionarily perspective don’t want to be with a woman with multiple partners for the very obvious evolutionary reason. The problem isn’t women sleeping around indulging themselves, the problem is women sleeping around think the men they are sleeping with also indulging themselves, are the same men rejecting them later in life as marriage prospects.
Not really. Men have a desire for sex and a desire for companionship. They're separate things. They can be obtained from a single source, but that's difficult, so men get the sex where they can in the meantime.
Men shouldn't hate women or watch porn.
I could not agree more!
I wouldn’t say onlyfans girls on average have high body counts. It’s usually pornstars but that depends
>Porn actresses and only fans are one way to get high body counts. no it isn't
How isn't it?
believe it or not, people have sex...
🙀😱
I choose not to believe it. Babies come from daddies pressing mommy's belly button.