You are applying studies that examine sexual practices of broken people as if they imply sex breaks people. This is faulty logic and an illegitimate view. Much like using the disease of alcoholism to define parameters for healthy people.
I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that virtually 0 adults are virgins before marriage, yet the majority of people are healthy, comparatively happy and well adjusted despite varying numbers of sexual partners. If you need a study to tell you this, I’m not sure what to say.
So, define “too many”. I’m still waiting. When and where does body count begin to matter?
These threads always blow up. I want to catch up on this when I have time.
I think there’s a correlation between interest in this topic and whether or not it matters kind of stresses the point. If it didn’t matter we wouldn’t all feel so damn strongly about it enough to discuss it over and over again.
That is not how sex partner/promiscuity studies are done. In many cases, researchers follow individuals from their teen years into adulthood across different demographics. What they consistently find is those with higher numbers are worst off. Especially females.
Ok. Have you seen statistics on physical and mental health? Especially the youth. It has been on the decline for decades.
@OTay@zecarlo@NickViar
Podcast of possible interest. I viewed this when it came out. Chris Williamson is one of my favorite podcasts and he has numerous times had episodes about what you’ve both mentioned.
The STEM in me says there is no meaningful “too many” apart from an extremely small number.
A MSA needs done on determining the actual number your perspective “mate” has had. If you are expected to pick a precise number as your “too many”, then you must know precisely how many your perspective “mate” has had.
We must define what “body count” actually means. Or as Clinton says, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
Then you could use: “Just ask her. She wouldn’t lie.” The truth is, she might not even know the precise number. Maybe that is the “too many” number.
But to determine a precise empirical number, without knowing the precise “body count” is of no value.
This thread is about personal philosophy in subject terms. To make it empirical a Measurement System Analysis on the data is required.
Exactly. There currently is not an answer to the question. It’s all purely subjective conjecture, so no. It doesn’t matter. Your perceptions do, to a subjective extent.
Considering societies the world over, historically regulated sex more or less, in varying ways (and a few still do), is it personal?
Obviously for an individual man’s judgment of a prospective mate it’s personal. I don’t know what context specifically the title of the thread addresses.
That would be hypocritical but not at all harmful to a woman a hypocrite doesn’t want association with, in the same way no one is harmed by rejection for any other reason.
So such a hypocrite could ask a prospective woman about her past, dislike it, and choose not to even go on a first date. No relationship started, no harm.
Similarly, a woman can ask what a man’s profession is, not like it, and move on. She can reject a man because of his height, low status, family, or whatever. All the guy gets is a “No”. He might be disappointed, but he is not harmed. This same woman might herself be homely and come from a low-income. So that would be hypocritical too while nothing bad happened to anyone.
The first time I asked a girl out, I was rejected because of my ethnicity. She said, “You’re not Greek.” I got over that quickly.
Just a side note, but I wonder how many women think about what they would think of themselves if they were born as a male. Most short women still prefer tall guys. They would reject the male version of themselves. I started to think about this when I heard a very short woman talk about what she thought it would be like if she was a guy. She was saying she would go and be with lots of girls, and not have to deal with shame / judgement. That she’d just go on Tinder and slay type of thing. I was thinking, no, you’d hate being a male. You’d be a 5’3" man living in an area with a lot of taller than average men. You’d be pretty much invisible to women, and completely invisible to them for casual sex.
I’m interested in what sort of posts would wind up here if a thread aimed at women’s input titled, “Does status matter?” were created with a considerable amount of female posters.
Would people respond to high-status-seeking women and say, “Come on, that’s not fair. Don’t you know a low-status man can also be a loving husband and father? Why does height, power, family background, income, and so on count?”
Haven’t gotten through too much, but what it really empowered was governments(and those that control them). That’s the winner in all of feminism.
Obligatory disclaimer: Of course, as we all know, men and women only differ in the form of their sex organs…so the reason for the above is totally unknown and unexplainable
You wouldn’t get any (or very very few) women making posts saying they are seeking a high status attributes in a man. It would be posts along the lines of I want a kind, funny, caring man, and those are true things. But, those things leave off the part of wanting those things in a man that is attractive (for whatever reasons she has) to the woman.
I think why those things relating to status are left off is they are often subconscious. Attraction isn’t typically listing out pro / cons of a potential partner in a logical manner. It is instinctive. Those things are harder to realize as things you want in a partner, but when you see it, you know it. It isn’t even that I like a man with wide shoulders, it is more a feeling of safety that is attractive.
