Does Body Count Matter?

Off Topic
41

There we go, you were quoting a different post earlier.

So the context I was replying to in the post above was an assertion that sex isn’t a pleasurable act for other mammals specifically as it relates to placing limitations on an undefined “prolific” amount of sexual partners for humans.

Many studies are beginning to show that animals do, in fact, derive pleasure from sex and even seek it out for pleasure itself. Even if it does serve other purposes for them as well. Still no anthropomorphizing here.

And, in keeping context, still doesn’t address the “right” number of sexual partners for a human, which is a definition that will be largely subjective to chosen or engrained belief systems.

Maybe you know the answer?

1 Like
42

You made that inference if you were commenting on my statement below:

“How little” does not equate to “sex isn’t a pleasurable act for other mammals.” If nothing else, “how little” could be inferred that they all do find sex pleasurable. I chose my words carefully. “How little” is anywhere from zero to significantly less than humans.

43

That was never asserted and so…

Says you. Chicken/egg. Success leaves clues.

44

“ [quote=“OTay, post:43, topic:286748”]
That was never asserted and so…
[/quote]

Sure it was. Go back and read for context again.

So we do agree. I will not argue that the answer is subjective to a persons chosen belief. This was actually my original point and we’ve come full circle.

Your implied assertion that a religion (or belief system) holds the right answer requires you to twist context, assert premise and dodge questions. This is the typical defense of a religion, unfortunately. And it’s ok, believe what you want to believe regardless of any objective reasoning. Faith is your prerogative.

Regarding success and clues, casual sex for pleasure has been around longer than any currently practiced religion, exists alongside them and is even practiced by those who believe in them. You could say sex is more powerful than religion.

So in holding context, what is the objective, correct answer for an acceptable number of partners?

1 Like
45

Do you disagree that we are mammals, or that we have an innate reproductive drive? Likely one that has existed since before recorded history and through various moral codes around it?

1 Like
46

Science describes mammals to include Homo Sapiens, therefore we are mammals. No dispute there.

I wouldn’t call it an innate reproductive drive. I would call it a strong attraction for the opposite sex. It just happens that sexual intercourse could yield children. Genesis 8:22 says, “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest,…shall not cease.”

Noah, was aware that planted seeds could yield a harvest, as he was told in Genesis 8:22. This is way before most all of civilizations moral codes.

1 Like
47

Re: #s,
Ive had relationships with women with low and high numbers of former partners. The number didnt matter, the woman did.

Re: male dynamics,
Always thought a real man didn’t worry about other men if he had what he wanted. I dont really look on the internet to see if some anonymous person wants to audit my “alpha status,” an entire concept debunked by its influencer and followed by men who want to feel powerful.

Re: daughters,
I also think it’s extremely weird to have an interest in one’s daughter’s number of sexual partners before marriage. Makes more sense to want one’s daughter safe and happy on her own direction.

3 Likes
48

Agreed. In my experience, the people who are ultra opposed to promiscuity are either legitimately religious and choosing to live a learned ideal, or they’re insecure in some way/intimidated by a woman with a strong sexuality.

1 Like
49

Yep. Big significance from post-modernism Sociology “everything is relative, even what I’ve learned” to post-post-modernism “But what do I believe is correct and how prescribed should that be?”

50

I think there is a difference between so-called body count and promiscuity. Body count is relative to things like age and what would be considered high will vary by individual men. Promiscuity relates to how one thinks about sex and how one thinks about one’s self. It brings up questions about intimacy. Does someone view sex as a special act between people who love one another or is it just a form of entertainment or a distraction from reality? Can it be one or the other depending on the circumstances or will someone who gives it away easily and frequently struggle with intimacy?

This is faulty as the question was about number of sex partners and promiscuity. I don’t think it’s about men being intimidated by a woman with a strong sexual presence as much as it’s about being turned off, disgusted even, by a woman who will sleep with anyone. I mean, if a woman has a high body count you know there was a large number of men who were, to put it nicely, below average. There was also a high likelihood of drugs and alcohol playing a part. Promiscuity is a high risk behavior. It’s not like she would have been meeting these guys at the library.

In my opinion, you don’t need to know how many men a woman slept with because a woman who is promiscuous will give signs that she probably isn’t the one you want to settle down with.

1 Like
51

In response to the thread title, no.

52

Yes, it matters.

1 Like
53

Some food for thought. You’ve gone into history here and your screen name is Njord. Why do you think your pagan (pre-Christian) Germanic ancestors did not take a casual stance on sex?

They encouraged monogamy, large families, and abstinence until post- puberty, criminalized abortion, were selective in the mating process, and allowed men to take the law into their own hands for punishing adulterous wives and male home-wreckers, including public flogging and death.

Even most top guys had one wife and polygamy was limited.

Can we perhaps think this sexual regulation, which has nothing to with how wild or “vanilla” a couple wants to be in the sack, strengthened their communities versus what “sexual liberation” provides?

Was all this done out of each individual man’s insecurity?

Have you ever looked into or thought about what promiscuity does to a society or community rather than some individual persons insecurity, which you’ve mentioned repeatedly?

I say this as someone who had a fair amount of casual sex before marriage and some experiences some men would envy, though I think they’re nothing to brag about, including some women with sexual presences.

Though I have a small sample size I’ve never met a man with a dim view on promiscuity who was intimidated by any woman. They were the opposite, unfazed. I can’t even relate to some intimidated feeling. I’m around women all day.

By the way, I think by now you know my posting style. So going forward I don’t have to make disclaimers like, “serious questions”.

54

I can spot a woman who was what my friend and I call a “professional girlfriend”. There is no need to ask for a number.

Perhaps interest in some specific number is odd. Some of us might have witnessed or heard about the sexual abuse or dangerous positions of defenseless females as young as thirteen years in a “liberated” environment.

We have an idea of exactly why some shit head is orbiting a pretty young daughter. And some of us don’t just want anyone entering a family bloodline. And we don’t feel like cleaning up the mess of an “unwanted” pregnancy and dealing with a neglected grandkid. You know, we want good things for our family.

1 Like
55

Now I’ll address the question of the OP.

Does it matter for an individual man? Well, if it’s important to him, then yes, it matters. If it’s not important, it doesn’t matter.

To me it’s important because of my observations and life experience. If people think that this is because of “insecurity” then they are 1) stating something false, and 2) dismissing my life experiences generally and stating what I’ve seen over and over and over again.

Just as an aside, hardly any women are promiscuous in the literal sense, which is screwing at random.

What I’ve observed:

  1. All professional girlfriends, women who’ve spent an inordinate amount of time around males since very young ages I’ve known are divorced. I don’t need studies when I observe things in real life, but research does show women with hefty partner counts have an increased likelihood of divorce.
  2. The professional girlfriend might actually dabble in a “relationship” with a man who is not exciting or doesn’t have characteristics that have any practicality in a marriage and then start comparing him to previous men and criticizing him for this. “He’s a good man but he’s not like Johnny.”
  3. Orbiting exes want to “see” or “talk to” the professional girlfriend.
  4. The professional girlfriend often times has all sorts of hangups, previous trauma, attention mongering, and other crap in her head.
  5. As related to point 2, the professional girlfriend needs undue entertainment and thrills. Man needs to be court jester and MC during non-work hours. If this stops, she will “get bored” and will no-fault divorce.
  6. Some professional girlfriends have histories with thrilling men. That is, men who are violent and dangerous. So, in a sense, an ordinary guy cannot “compete” with this thrill factor and would be sensible to avoid such competition as he is not going to be violent and dangerous. Most violent men I grew up with, met, or have known if were never without a professional girlfriend.

The professional girlfriend is an archetype I’ve observed in my own life. Tammy Wynette, Kim Kardashian, Pamela Anderson, and some others represent the extreme and famous form of the professional girlfriend.

Now, some might say, “The guys who get left by your examples of so-called professional girlfriends were left by their women because they were weak and insecure and boring men. Maybe they got left in favor of a real man.”

Well, consider this. Some of the most desirable men on earth were left or publicly punked by their women: Brad Pitt, Will Smith, Mel Gibson, Johnny Depp, Tom Brady, Ben Affleck, and other “alpha” males. I’m not sure who can improve oneself to out-entertain and out-provide and out-thrill such men.

Finally, a man can vet a woman by any standards he pleases, whether they are rational or irrational, and the same goes for women with men. No one is being mistreated because some guy doesn’t want to be involved with a woman with many sexual partners, including that specific woman. Like a woman can have a laundry list of characteristics of what they want in a man, some of them having no bearing for the practicality of family formation (“I want a guy who’s funny”), a man can too.

Getting back the protection of daughters, not particularly some specific number. Again from life experience, my observation is that a young pretty daughter without strong paternal guidance will invariably go with a low life, abuser, or a man way too old for her who wants some easy action (eg, a seventh grade classmate of mine, 12 years old, screwed around with a man). Low lives get many women, and I don’t say that sarcastically. It’s as if it was a default pipeline I observed over and over.

I’m surprised the protection of female family members or ones bloodline is not implied when some here discuss numbers.

3 Likes
56

What if all of this contemporary black pill, red pill, body count stuff is a social media campaign perpetrated by a couple of major players in the porn industry to weaponize confirmation bias and insecurity in order to drive people to their product?

In essence, a bunch of people with millions of dollars and a vested interest in creating a self perpetuating customer base pulling innate strings through social media.

Like “if you don’t make x dollars, you might as well give up.”.

“If you don’t look like So & So, why bother”

“These hot women/chicks are all fucked out by the time they’re [40, 35, 30…], its like putting you pecker into a beaker full of ebola.”.

I wouldn’t entertain an idea like this except that I’ve seen so many large media companies admit to weaponizing confirmation bias and various other psychological devices in so many other areas I can’t imagine that porn was overlooked.

:man_shrugging:t2:. Just a thot. Er, thought.

1 Like
57

Much of the BP and RP stuff is stupid—like very fucking stupid— highly destructive and driven by spite, ill will, vengeance, envy and resentment.

2 Likes
58

That perfectly describes the ideal porn consumer.

1 Like
59

Another question. For a long, long time, courtship and slut-shaming were in effect. So male suitors had to get permission from a women’s dads. So in effect fathers were making sexual decisions for daughters. And before government could play daddy, men (including sons and uncles) were permitted to deal with men intruding upon families, and yes surveil female family members.

So were billions of fathers throughout history “weird”?

1 Like
60

This only happened in the upper classes.

Men also used their daughters as pawns for monetary and political gain. Marrying them off to old men and gays and known abusers. Were these fathers solid? Because it happened a lot.

The daughters were objects to be used. Property. This is why they were surveilled. Do you think the mothers grieved these alliances? I would bet yes, very deeply.