>Say you don’t like nonvirgin women>Get called a bitter incel who needs to "let go of the past" Why has there been such a huge push lately to get men to just "forget the past" and settle down with women with unnaturally high body counts? Before the invention of the birth control pill, a woman being a virgin WAS the norm. But no, I am in the wrong for thinking the thing we’ve been doing for all human history is better than the hypergamous polyamory circles we have today. I am starting to think it’s a psy op. Now that boomers have had their fun whoring out millennial women, they need them to reproduce so they can whore out the next generation of girls. So sending the message that a nonvirgin woman’s past "isn’t a big deal" ensures that their neverending orgy can keep going. It’s sickening.
>>34489084Because a body count of like 3/4 is pretty normal and has been for much longer than we have been alive. The word wasn't perfect prim and proper until 2000 and *then* people started having sex before marriage; it just got talked about more because of the internet. Think of the 90s, the free love movement the 60s through the 70s and 80s, the entirety of the jazz age and the roaring 20s; these are major sexual revolutions in broad daylight. Body counts above 10 and casual sex should be looked down upon yes, but if you expect every girl to be a virgin and think they're wretched harlots for having had sex with longtime partners who didn't work out, you are absolutely a bitter incel who needs to "let go of the past".
>>34489180This cuts both ways then. Women need to accept men’s homosexual phases of the past. It’s pretty normal and has been for much longer than we have been alive.
>>34489257>women care if a man had gay sexThat's an assumption you're making.
>>34489084>Say you don’t like nonvirgin womenNo. We'll say *you* don't like them and that this makes you a retarded, bitter incel, if you like.>Why has there been such a huge push lately to get men to just "forget the past" Because they will be happier if they stop being bitter, retarded incels. >and settle down with women with unnaturally high body counts?No one is encouraging you to settle down with a woman who has a body count in the hundreds; anything less than that is not unnatural.>Before the invention of the birth control pill, a woman being a virgin WAS the norm. No, it wasn't. Condoms were invented a long time before that, and people have been pulling out for millennia. What's more, to the extent that this is true, it simply meant there were an awful lot of hand jobs, blow jobs, and anal going on; if a woman has taken dozens of men in her mouth and ass but everyone in her cunt pulled out before coming, is that really preferable to what we have now?>But no, I am in the wrong for thinking the thing we’ve been doing for all human history is better than the hypergamous polyamory circles we have today.Yes, you are. Your argument is about as valid as saying that we should go back to people constantly dying of smallpox just because that's how we lived for centuries. Things are better now; only an idiot would try to turn back the clock.>I am starting to think it’s a psy op. The fact that you are thinking this says a lot about you. >Now that boomers have had their fun whoring out millennial women, What? When? >they need them to reproduce so they can whore out the next generation of girls. How old are the boomers in this deranged scenario? >So sending the message that a nonvirgin woman’s past "isn’t a big deal" ensures that their neverending orgy can keep going.Clearly it isn't a big deal, otherwise the people on in charge of the conspiracy would ensure that women remain virgins.>It’s sickening.That's your problem, and yours alone.
>>34489257>Women need to accept men’s homosexual phases of the past.NTA...Do men regularly have homosexual phases? Anon, do you have something you need to confess?
You are deliberately being dishonest. You are also either lying through your teeth or completely ignorant of history.Either way, many of us thought like you when we were 15 years old. You will mature and be an adult one day.
>>34489257No, that's an entirely different stigma. If you want to be apples to apples it would be that women don't care if a man has been with 3/4 women; which is a widely accepted belief.Idk what your fixation is on girls turning you down for your gay phase but I'm sure some out there wouldn't care.
>>34489297I *think* his point was that homosexuality was far more common in the past than it is now, so if you're going to nostalgically yearn for the way things used to be, that will have to include men getting it on with other men.
>the same bait thread that will get 300+ replies from angry hedonistsAh, Saturdays...>>34489180>Because a body count of like 3/4 is pretty normal and has been for much longer than we have been alive.Even Kinsey's selection-bias-riddled studies didn't claim this.> the free love movement the 60s through the 70s and 80sA fringe group of degenerates who only took off (instead of sputtering out like past generations of libertines) because the pill and effective treatment of STD's removed the most immediate consequences for their behavior. Premarital sex has only become a social norm since then, and regardless of its frequency, it has never been good for the stability and happiness of relationships.And if you yourself admit a problem with what you call "excessive" promiscuity, surely you must realize that the most effective bulwark against it is a simple, repeatable, and objective standard. I.e. not having sex outside of marriage. You will NEVER be able to enforce a squishy norm against "too many" sex partners or "casual" sex, because everyone will interpret it to suit themselves, and thus it has no bearing on how they actually act. All promiscuity stems from the basic idea that commitment isn't necessary for sex. Whether it's a "long-term" relationship where one party hopes commitment will follow, or a hookup where both parties insist there are no strings, they all share the premise of commitment being an afterthought. So yes, a woman (or man, for that matter, but OP was talking about women) who has sex outside of marriage is promiscuous. Any differences with bar sluts are merely ones of degree, not substance.>>34489266>history started with bohemian drug addicts in the 60s
>>34489793Your opinions don't matter if you don't get to have children to pass them down to chud.
>>34489263Why would a woman let a penis that has been in a butthole into her vaginaI can respect a woman who had vaginal 100 times more than one who had anal once
>>34489898Kind of a self-own, given leftist fertility rates
>>34489793>history started with bohemian drug addicts in the 60sTry to be just a *little* less retarded. That's not remotely what I said.
>>34489942I'm conservative, married to a beautiful woman who was a virgin before me and our sinful premarital sex, and we're planning on 2/3 children depending on where life takes us. It must be tough living with the delusion that everyone who disagrees with you MUST have a worse life. Probably isn't helping your odds in the dating pool.
>>34489180>>34489266Why does society hate men who want pure females so much? All these replies are full of hate for no reason. Who programmed you to hate incels and purityfags so much?
>>34490072NTABeing criticized isn't hate anon. Quit your victim complex.
Virginchads rise up
>>34489084why do you want validation of others? find a virgin woman or keep single, it's not that deep.
>>34490087Yes, who doesn't want validation? Are you a robot?
>>34490093then why are you complaining? just do the things that will earn you validation.
>>34490072>Why does society hate men who want pure females so much?Because they're stupid children. It's like demanding that your food be served on a plate that no one has ever eaten off before: any sane person has no problem with a plate not being brand new from the factory, so long as it has been washed and is perfectly clean. Someone who isn't okay with this shouldn't be indulged in their stupidity.
>>34490146>It's like demanding that your food be served on a plate that no one has ever eaten off before:More like asking for a plate and it’s cracked, has broken glass jutting out, mold, and another man’s spoon and leftovers in it. Prior sex and relationships changes a woman retard. She bonds to the man and starts taking up his mannerisms, his politics, and his identity. That’s irreversible.
>>34490060>conservative>spends time arguing against conservative valuesChecks out.>It must be tough living with the delusion that everyone who disagrees with you MUST have a worse lifeI've only ever seen leftists say "chud" as an insult. Conversely, are you really claiming you've only ever seen "chuds" oppose premarital sex? But either way, apply your own standard: you're assuming that anyone who cares about what you mock is a loser.>>34490072Incels have nothing to do with sexual conservatism. Hence "involuntary" celibate. They treat their virginity as a curse. People who get assmad at standards like "no sex outside of marriage" just smear anyone who cares as an incel, but it has no bearing on reality.
>>34489978Mate, your idea of what people did instead of "regular" sex is just pornsick. You're the extrapolating the most promiscuous behaviors of the most promiscuous people backwards in time as if it's universal--which is completely unsubstantiated horseshit.Even oral was categorized and seen as sodomy "back in the day". Anal was seen even worse, meriting the death penalty. You're out of your mind if you think half the population was doing that. They don't even do that now.Were there *some* people who did that? Sure. Was it remotely the norm? Absolutely not, and it's deranged to pretend otherwise.
>>34490086sauce?
>>34489084>Why has there been such a huge push lately to get men to just "forget the past" and settle down with women with unnaturally high body counts?because those types of couples have a very high rate of divorcehigher divorce rates undermine family structure, create weaker people, more susceptible to brainwashing/ societal control it's not really some grand conspiracy, it's just business rootless cattle are easier to manage
>>34489266melty alert
>>34490750>>spends time arguing against conservative values I can't imagine being so obsessed with a political affiliation that you mould every aspect of your beleif system to it, that thinking is toxic and lead to the identity politics that fucked the world.I can value a nuclear family and hold traditional beleifs without subscribing to the whole gambit, such is the joys of being an individual.>you're assuming that anyone who cares about what you mock is a loser. I don't, I actually highly value constructive discourse and enjoy speaking with people who have different opinions than I do, it's just that this specific topic is a really pathetic hill to die on.>I've only ever seen leftists say "chud" as an insult.You assume so, it's also pretty common slang these days.>Conversely, are you really claiming you've only ever seen "chuds" oppose premarital sexNo, but they are the vast majority of the people making that argument and everything I've acertained about you screams "chud".
>>34490838>I can value a nuclear family and hold traditional beleifs without subscribing to the whole gambitWhat are you on about? Sexual morality is at the center of the traditional family. It's hardly some random belief that just gets lumped together under a given label. If you value the stability and happiness of marriage, too, then it's *objectively* better to oppose sex outside of marriage. Even controlling for religion, both of those things consistently correlate with sexual restraint. I encourage you to look it up for yourself.>inb4 correlation, not causationDoesn't mean the correlation is spurious, so it's not an excuse to ignore evidence.>it's just that this specific topic is a really pathetic hill to die on.How? Don't give me more word vomit, actually give me a reason why you think it's intrinsically pathetic to value sexual restraint.>but they are the vast majority of the people making that argument and everything I've acertained about you screams "chud".Congrats, now you also understand why I called you a leftist, and why your accusation about why I did wasn't true.
>>34489084virginity was never the norm, ever. it's impossible. the problem was always pregnancy and (for the wealthy) the existence of semi-legitimate offspring. daughters are a financial liability so an unmarriageable one you're stuck paying for until she dies, potentially disastrous for the middle class. the elite could simply pack a bastard off to an orphanage etc. the working classes rarely cared about it at all because the women had their own wages.
>>34491876The data we have from the fucking 50s say it was 50%ish married the first person they fucked. This is in industrial-post enlightenment society as well. Marrying a virgin was very feasible cmon
>>34490146>It's like demanding that your food be served on a plate that no one has ever eaten off beforeCan we use a different analogy? How about demanding that your food be served on a plate that has never had a guy cum in it before. Seems like a way better description IMO
>>34489084I just don't get why you care about the opinions of others. Dating a virgin or not is entirely up to you, and no one can make you date used goods if you don't want to. I would say the fact that non-virgins are accepted these days is even a positive thing, girls will never lie that they're virgins because they don't expect you to care. Sure, they'll say a fake body count of 3-4 even when it's higher, but they'll never say it's 0. So just ask them. "Have you been in a relationship before?", a fairly innocent question. If she says yes, don't date her. If she says no, date her. Simple. No one is forcing you to date whores dude, lol. You honestly don't even need to ask, it's usually obvious, and you'll always know when you have sex for the first time.
>>34492282Pretty much this. Women don't lie about being virgins unless you make it really obvious that you have a hard filter on that questions
>>34489084>Before the invention of the birth control pill, a woman being a virgin WAS the normanon...
>>34492271If it's been through the dishwasher, it's good.
>>34492282Look at this underaged virgin thinking he can give advice about adult relationships.
>>34493509And what's your advice anon?
>>34493513That you should not listen to incel memes. The truth is that people these days are less promiscuous than previous generations. Zoomers have less sexual partners and lose their virginities later.
>>34493527And how is that contrary to the advice I gave?
Summer started early this year. You get called a "bitter incel" because you don't understand that sex is a form of social communication to normal people, not an elusive goal. Teenagers typically find people they kind of like, their brains make them like them more because our brains will fall in love with fucking ANYTHING, then they have sex for the first time. YOU didn't, stewed in your own thoughts for several years after highschool, then became this socially atypical weirdo who obviously never had a chance. That's why people insult you. You missed the boat, and unless you're willing to do whatever highscoolers and (dorky) college girls do to get some fresh puss, then you'll settle for scraps and be happy. Sex is putting your penis in a vagina; dojinshi isn't real. >>34490146>Just drink out of the chipped, musty, cloudy diner cup anon. Make sure to use a straw so you don't get sick.>>34492011>from the fucking 50sso seventy years ago? History has been going on a lot longer than that. Also that was due to people fucking when they were younger. Fucking usually led to marriage because marriage was whatever back then>>34493501more like a paper plate that's been through the dishwasher, all of its history stained into it
>>34493556Those statistics that incels quote are completely made up bullshit.
>>34493561>Those statistics that incels quote are completely made up bullshit.They aren't. Access incel wiki and you'll see.
>>34493561statistics are usually whatever. They exist in the eyes of the statician>>34493571>incel wikiWhy would I want to commiserate with people who aren't trying to help me with my issue?In the same amount of time it takes to browse that site you could be well on your way to finding a girl you like If you actually like them, that is)
>>34490293Except that it's absolutely nothing like that at all, because there is no detectable physical change that happens in a person as a result of having sex for the first time. If there were actually a detectable change, you might have a point; but there isn't. A team of world-leading medical experts with state-of-the-art diagnostic equipment cannot reliably determine whether someone is a virgin or not because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.You virgin-chasers are literally as bad as trannies. You expect everyone else to humour you in your delusions. We won't, because, just as with trannies, the problem only exists in your imagination, and we are not going to reinforce your mental illness.
>>34493584It's literally common sense and backed by statistics that non-virgins are less loyal and less capable of being loving partners. You cucks are so delusional.And by the way, let's say it's not true. There's nothing different between a virgin and non-virgin woman. In fact, used goods are actually better, because they've had their fun and are therefore less likely to leave you due to FOMO and they're also more mature and better socially adjusted (you faggots love using this retarded argument, after all). Does it even fucking matter? A lot of men just find non-virgins gross and the idea of dating them unromantic. We just don't want them. They are not appealing. The goal of dating for everyone isn't just to find any partner, but to find a suitable partner. All of this shaming does nothing because our tastes don't change. It's like trying to make a guy convert to being gay by saying that gay divorce statistics are lower than straight ones. Who gives a fuck man, it's still naturally gross to us
>>34493623nta>Does it even fucking matter? A lot of men just find non-virgins gross and the idea of dating them unromantic. We just don't want them. They are not appealing. The goal of dating for everyone isn't just to find any partner, but to find a suitable partner.As long as you're not crying about women dating tall Chads, sure. Go ahead and have your preferences.
>>34493632The difference is, most men have no self respect and will date any woman without caring about anything like that. Non-virgins have no problems dating, obviously. That's why they rack up body counts. There's no need for this massive crusade against purityfags as if they're some significant portion of the population making it impossible for women to find love. The chad-only women meanwhile objectively deserve hate, they are the reason the entire western world has birth rates below replacement. It's also the majority of women.
>>34493645>Pure seething cope justifying obvious double standardsCan't say I'm shocked at all, but lol.
>>34493645>chad-only women bad>virgin-only men goodTell me how you rationalise this one
>>34493654But it's not though, because the two situations are not equivalent. One is a group of fringe loser virgins who also want to date other loser virgins, the numbers of this group being negligible. The other is the majority of women actively causing human extinction.>>34493659See above. Would also add that most fags obsessed with purity are virgins themselves. Most chad-only women have never hit the gym in their lives, do not have a good job, do not have any confidence, are not particularly well gifted in terms of their genes, etc. One side wants exactly what they are, nothing hypocritical there. The other is women.
>>34493571Incel wiki is full of articles that say something completely different than incels say or outright made up shit. As in literally fake articles. But incels are low IQ so they will believe them anyway.>>34493623Good example right there. This collage uses literally made up bullshit numbers. The sources listed are fake or do not contain any of the figures mentioned. Low IQ bullshit for low IQ people.
>>34493645>women having standards and not having sex with just anyone is a bad thing
>>34493686Yes you are very high IQ for renouncing common sense to pursue promiscuous women. Way better than the incels. Good job anon
>>34493692When their standards are reasonable and don't filter out everyone, yeah. When their standards are a 6 figure job and a 6 feet height, no.
>>34489921how about someone who had vaginal thousands of times and anal twice
>>34493693Believing obvious fake bullshit instead of verifying it is low IQ.
You want a virgin? Okay here's how:Get them early, especially the alt ones that think they are "lesbians" and wasted their highschool years fingering other girls and drawing for deviantart. You have to be attractive enough to convince them to take a dick for the very first time and declare themselves "bi", but then you just control them like any other man with confidence would (black people are actually a good example to look at here: see how they control their women) and they'll be yours as long as you want them.Looking at people with an anthropologist's view of the world helps
>>34493667have you not considered that you're causing extinction by being an unsociable, candyass uggo?
>>34493623>A lot of men just find non-virgins gross and the idea of dating them unromantic. We just don't want them. They are not appealing.Yes, because you're mentally ill. Don't expect the rest of us to humour you in your delusions.
>>34493623>It's literally common sense It's literally the opposite of common sense. >and backed by statistics that non-virgins are less loyal and less capable of being loving partners.It's not. That's complete fiction. You can trot out "scientific" studies which suggest a correlation between partner count and the chances of divorce, but only a moron would take that as evidence that having previous partners *causes* divorce. Anyone with even a glimmer of intelligence realises that some people are good at relationships and some are shitty at them. Someone who is good at relationships is a bit more likely to find the right partner and get into a stable marriage early on; while someone who is shitty at relationships is a bit more likely to have a long string of failed relationships behind them, and hence a larger number of ex partners, and they are also more likely to fuck up their current relationship/marriage. You wouldn't think this was hard to understand, but anyone who cites one of those "studies" as "evidence" that a high partner count causes divorce actually is too dumb to understand that!What all this means is that it is *not* any more likely that marriage to a virgin won't end in divorce. Virgins are necessarily young and without relationship experience, which means the ones who are shitty at relationships haven't yet had the time to acquire the long list of failed relationships and ex partners that they are eventually going to end up with. So virginity is *not* an indicator of anything positive. It's true that a woman in her 40s who got married young and has been in a stable, happy marriage ever since is less likely to get divorced than a woman in her 40s who has 20 failed relationships behind her; but since the first woman is already married and isn't going to get divorced, you can't have her; so why does it matter? What you actually need to know is, is a woman good at relationships or shitty at them? And with virgins, there is no way to tell that.
>>34493763Basically this. When you engage in a relationship with a virgin, you have no idea if she is a future hoe. All hoes started as virgins so it's completely pointless to use virginity as a metric for anything.
>>34489084>Female chastity doesn't matter. Race isn't real. A dick in your butt is based. You should become a tranny. Eat the bugs, incel. Don't forget that the people criticizing you for having a historically valid preference also believe in all of the above.
>>34489180>3/4>10lol...those are some hilariously low numbers. Boy do I have bad news for you.
>>34493763>>34493780You're missing the fact that pair bonding is diminished with number of sexual partners. That virgin you're dating might be immature and a horrible partner, but she will love you. They can also grow their relationship skills, and I think it is a beautiful thing to grow together like that.Also, this is just a problem with dating younger. All young women are fucking retards, virgin or not. I actually wouldn't mind dating a 25-30 year old virgin at all, I'd even prefer them. But they don't exist, so that's not an option.The image of your SO fucking someone else is still extremely gross and enough for any arguments to not matter btw. You cannot be pro-monogamy and recoil at the idea of your partner at cheating on you and at the same time not care about their sexual history.
>>34493858>You're missing the fact that pair bonding is diminished with number of sexual partners.That's another fallacious claim with no evidence. The explanation anon gave above already explains why this is correlation and not causation.>The image of your SO fucking someone else is still extremely gross and enough for any arguments to not matter btw. You cannot be pro-monogamy and recoil at the idea of your partner at cheating on you and at the same time not care about their sexual history.You're lumping in active cheating with past history which are not the same thing. Besides, acting on your emotions never leads to anything good.
>>34489084He didn't skeet on his ex though
>>34493858>You're missing the fact that pair bonding is diminished with number of sexual partners.No, you are missing the fact that this claim is 100% pure bullshit. All evidence that might, to a moron, look like it supports this theory can actually be much better explained by other phenomena. See my previous post on the subject: >>34493763What you say is a fact is not a fact, it is fiction. There is no evidence whatever to support that claim. I don't just mean not very much evidence, or ambiguous evidence, I mean literally ZERO evidence. It's a meme, not a fact. Human pair bonding doesn't work like that.
>>34494140You're obsessed with scientific papers proving things when I work entirely on personal experience and rational conjecture. The entirety of science based on social dynamics is bullshit. I trust myself and what makes sense, not what some faggots put out in a scientific journal because they get paid based on it. The biggest evidence that you should care about body count is that it just makes sense to do so, and that every single man throughout history knew this. You've been brainwashed and are larping as high IQ rather than embracing common sense.
>>34493858>The image of your SO fucking someone else is still extremely gross and enough for any arguments to not matter btw. Yes, but that's because of your mental illness. It's nothing to do with women. >You cannot be pro-monogamy and recoil at the idea of your partner at cheating on you and at the same time not care about their sexual history.Of course you can. Most monogamous people manage it effortlessly. It's only mentally ill people like yourself who have an issue with it.
>>34494173>You're obsessed with scientific papers proving things when I work entirely on personal experience and rational conjecture.Or, to put it another way, you have literally no scientific evidence whatever. Thank you for admitting that.
>>34494187>actually, your wife having fucked other men is healthy and appealing, chudI'm losing brain cells. You guys are fucking retards. >>34494196Neither do you. You have not posted one scientific paper in this thread.Anyway, I'm out. These arguments are pointless. Used goods is gross. If you're women, you're subhuman and disgusting. If you're men, you're cucks and your wives (or polyamorous roommate partner situationships, whatever) are whores. Bye
>>34494196He has no scientific evidence, nor personal experience.
>virginity is bad because... IT JUST IS OK CHUD DONT SLUTSHAME STACY FOR FUCKING 80 GUYS WHAT ARE YOU AN INCEL?
>cocks and cum... mmm.... cocks and cum... chad... chad's cock and cum...
Why are men incapable of understanding that having sex once outside of marriage doesn't make a woman a slut? Why is it always "muh pure virgins" or "muh sluts"? Why are men incapable of basic nuance?
>>34489084its not really that it isn't a big deal, its just kinder to forgive.
>>34489084>Why has there been such a huge push lately to get men to just "forget the past" and settle down with women with unnaturally high body counts?Says the retard OBSESSED with OTHER MEN. That's what it boils down to. You are jealous of her being with other men.>b-but muh trad virgin waifu!!1!This would be the correct thing to want... IF you were a high value man. Instead you're a bitter, unemployed anti-social virgin complaining about foids on 4chins. (You) bring nothing to the table, (You) offer her nothing of value. What does HER past matter when YOU yourself are worthless?
>>34494368>80 guysFirst it was a couple guys, now it's 80? Keep shifting goal posts, lonely retard.
>>34494411>menThose are not men. They are incels. They're basically eunuchs.
>>34494479>forgiveForgive what? What a person does BEFORE you meet them is irrelevant to you. Forgive her for having sex with someone else before she even knew you existed?This is your brain on inceldom.
>>34494411You're confused and conflating incels and normies. It's literally just socially retarded virgins projecting blame onto foids instead of working on self-improvement. So long as it is always the woman's fault, the incel will never have to change their ways.
>>34494517>Forgive what?Forgive the woman for being sloppy seconds. The male imperative is to mate with the youngest, most fertile woman. A woman that spent time with another man is effectively older, less anttractive, and has less eggs than if she had just mated with him when she was younger, more attractive, and more fertile. >Forgive her for having sex with someone else before she even knew you existed?Yes. A good woman waits for her man. She doesn’t spend her precious youth with another man then monkey branch onto the next one when she’s getting older and has dwindling options. It’s literal slut behavior.
Is there anything wrong with wanting to be with a woman who has a low body count? One of the big reasons why I don't want to date someone with an above average amount of partners is because our view of sex would be too different.I don't want to be with a woman who had to sleep with 10+ men to figure out what she wanted in a relationship. I also think sex with that kind of woman wouldn't have much meaning because she had that moment with quite a few men before men, and it's also a pride thing. It feels weird to have to put in far more effort to finally have sex with her when I know that she had sex with other men for far less. I don't have an issue with if she made her past boyfriends wait. I don't think less deserving of respect than women with a low to average amount of past partners. It's just a preference.
>>34493763You're retarded. You're equating relationships with sex, which is the only way your hypothesis of "being better at relationships" could explain away the trend in marital outcomes. This is ridiculous for several reasons.-You're pulling this completely out of your ass. We're talking specifically about waiting until marriage, not "mere virginity", which is the supposed red herring you're getting asshurt about. -You're pretending that relationships are a simple binary, of good/bad, despite them obviously taking two. Someone who has high standards for themselves and others is likely to go through a lot of dates before finding who they eventually marry, and it has jack shit to do with how "good" they are at relationships. -As I showed you before, both partner count (independent of timing) and waiting until marriage (independent of partner count), after controlling for other factors (including, among others: socioeconomics, age, and religion), are correlated with better marital outcomes. You're essentially arguing, at this point, that those who are better at relationships will consistently wait until marriage. And, well, that's no more or less than what I'm claiming, just phrased differently.>And with virgins, there is no way to tell that.See above. It's incredibly easy. Just wait until marriage and filter out the mere virgins from those who consciously value commitment and intimacy.>>34494196Neither do you. For every half-baked excuse to ignore the consistent finding of practically every study on the subject (Not the right controls! Okay, controls, but I don't like how they were set up! Right-wing hacks using government data! LALALALA), you and your ilk have yet to post a single fucking study of your own. Your only "evidence" is refusing to give any and hoping you can poke enough rhetorical holes in things you proudly haven't even read that most people will assume you know more than the authors themselves.
>>34494411It's a labeling issue. You object solely to the connotation of slut, but not the actual meaning, so you're incapable of understanding the meaning people are trying to convey.Fundamentally, slut in this context means "sexually immoral". Whether she does something immoral once or a hundred times is only a difference of degree, not substance. Take the logic to its extreme: would you really care if someone has committed murder once, versus a hundred times? The first is bad enough and already carries a stigma. And it's the first instance which carries the greatest marginal change in status. It's the difference between being a murderer at all versus being a somewhat worse killer with an additional victim. If anything, the nuance here is that one prior partner is a worse change than going from, say, 10 to 11.If you disagree that sex outside of marriage is immoral at all, of course you won't agree with people who do. But it's hardly irrational on their part to draw the line on ANY immorality. Rigid to the point of hurting their own chances, maybe (but not really in this case). But not irrational, provided they accept how much of the dating pool they're excluding.
>>34494869>Is there anything wrong with wanting to be with a woman who has a low body count? Yes, because a "low body count" is an arbitrary and unenforceable standard that expects the same behavior it condemns. You're presumably going to date a woman, expect sex, and would then get upset if she had sex under those same circumstances "too much" for your liking.This is always going to be a race to the bottom, because every relationship a woman gets in, she shrinks the proportion of guys who consider her to meet their standards, even though they all expect the same thing from her. I.e. she will have to continually revise her standards downwards to suit her past, rather than watch her behavior to maintain her standards.If you don't like promiscuity, you should wait until marriage. It's the only method which explicitly values commitment above sex.
>>34494929>You're presumably going to date a woman, expect sex, and would then get upset if she had sex under those same circumstances "too much" for your liking.If she did this tango with 10+ men, then it's too much my liking. If she had a history of hooking up and getting or getting into non serious relationships, then that's on her. If that number keeps increasing past the point of what is considered normal, then I don't a romantic or sexual relationship with her. It tells me that may have issues or maybe she felt that she wanted to have fun with a lot guys before settling down, and in that case it's also a no for me. I don't want to be with someone who had a relationship go south that many times or needed a new guy every few months. We simply won't see eye to eye on sex and relationships.>If you don't like promiscuity, you should wait until marriage. It's the only method which explicitly values commitment above sex.It's odd how there can only be two extremes to you. I have no issue with dating a woman who isn't a virgin and sex with 4 or 5 different men she was in a serious relationship with. I don't have to change my values to make a former promiscuous woman feel better about herself. She could've avoided these issues by not fucking every guy she met, and again, I respect her for it, but she isn't someone who I'd want to marry.
>>34494907>would you really care if someone has committed murder once, versus a hundred times?Imagine unironically thinking that having consensual sex is the same as murder. Also, there are instances where murder is justified, but that's getting off topic, the point is you're a retard and I'm happy you'll die miserable.
>>34495069>It's odd how there can only be two extremes to youThey're not two extremes. It's a simple and stark difference in priorities: is sex more important than commitment, or vice versa? All promiscuity is rooted in the former. Dating "seriously" simply involves people who (at least superficially, never mind those with ulterior motives) are hopeful commitment will eventually happen. Hookups are just people superficially agreeing that commitment won't happen in the future (but again, plenty of people have ulterior motives and hope it will). Both agree that sex can and should come before commitment; that the latter isn't necessary, or even desirable beforehand.Think: why did we go, in the space of half a century, from lifelong monogamy being the mode experience to the absolute shitshow of modern dating? It wasn't because people decided overnight to create the shitshow. It's because the pill and the sexual revolution enabled people to easily decouple sex from commitment.
>>34495083>Imagine unironically thinking that having consensual sex is the same as murder. If I had a nickel every time some midwit used this same thought-terminating cliche...I explicitly said "to take the logic to the extreme". I did so to illustrate a principle, because you obviously don't think premarital sex is wrong at all. So I showed you an instance where you would unambiguously be on the same page as me. The idea is that [objectionable act], however defined, doesn't become any less objectionable in itself if it "only" happened once. You can argue over how objectionable any given act is, or how much importance should be placed on forgiveness and second chances, but these are totally separate discussions. If someone sees premarital sex as wrong, as I do, there is no logical contradiction in coming down just as hard, if not harder, on the first instance as on the hundredth.>there are instances where murder is justifiedCorrect, and they are few and far between, and can be discussed in themselves without invalidating the general rule. I don't hold, for example, a coerced relationship against a woman. Is such a thing even remotely common in Western society? Hell no.
>>34495113You do realize that you can get into a committed relationship and have sex before marriage, yes? That what I want. It doesn't have be within a short period of time because I want the both of us to be ready comfortable with each other. What I want is someone who never had a promiscuous phase, and a big history of failed relationships. A few relationships is perfectly fine, and maybe I can accept a hook up or two, but no more than that. That isn't an insane demand.
>>34489084it is the realisation that you will never know her true body count. akaash singh is living it right now.
>>34495215>You do realize that you can get into a committed relationship and have sex before marriage, yes? Not in that order, unless you define commitment to mean a lack of binding, enforceable commitment (i.e. the institution of marriage, or an equivalent).Commitment in the sense of a desire to remain together is a necessary but not sufficient part of commitment.> maybe I can accept a hook up or two,It just gets better and better.It's insane not because you're too strict, but because your standards are so low that you might as well not have them.
>>34495354>Not in that order, unless you define commitment to mean a lack of binding, enforceable commitment (i.e. the institution of marriage, or an equivalent).Commitment in the sense of a desire to remain together is a necessary but not sufficient part of commitmentYou can still have sex before marriage. Nothing wrong with that.>It just gets better and better.It's insane not because you're too strict, but because your standards are so low that you might as well not have them.My standards were never super high to begin with. Like I said, I'm not dating a woman who used to be promiscuous.
>>34494839Because she totally wanted to be "sloppy seconds"? You are completely missing the point. It's a good thing you will never breed and will die alone and a bitter virgin.
I will never understand the extreme black/white thinking of incels. Either a woman is a virgin or she has had 9000 cocks inside her, nothing in between.
>>34494874>you and your ilk have yet to post a single fucking study of your own.We don't need to, because you're the ones making unfalsifiable claims. If you're going to make a claim that is unfalsifiable, the burden of proof is on you, not on the sceptic. (See also, Russell's teapot).
>>34489180Killing your unborn children is "normal" too, crazy how "everyone is weird get over it" until you're "weird" in the way where you actually act human for a change and then it's an issue
>>34496231>extreme black/white thinking of incels.I am only like that on race. Otherwise i am chill.
Women pretend to be indifferent to men in general and sex in particular, and yet they're seemingly always fucking some guy or other.
>>34496547>seeminglyYou mean, you have personal observations in real life? Or you just believe what you read on online incel forums?
>>34496600What do you think of the first part, then?
>>34496231Idgaf about bodycounts. Setting some arbitrary number as the cutoff for whore is retarded. It is isn't how many it is the why. Consensual sex outside of marriage = promiscous/low moral standards. Either A or not A is just how logic works. But it seems that is mostly for incels.
>>34496676You do not get to define moral standards especially when you are such an immoral person. Pretty much everyone has higher moral standards than you and also know there is nothing immoral about having sex in a committed relationship.
>>34489180Wrong. According to the GSS, in the 1970s (and before) at least 80% of women had only ONE sexual partner in their entire life.
>>34489084All the attractive women who would make great wives and mothers are taken in high school and college the latest. Whatever remains is taken shortly after they enter the workforce. There exist very few good looking women that are single and have a good heart, are modest, raised in a decent family, soft spoken and pretty. The window of opportunity when they are single is very very narrow. These are the 2% of women, the highest stock of females this wonderful creation can offer. If you don't frequent their circles or the events they attend you have no chance of meeting them. Women also don't go anywhere alone, so whatever hobbies women have or events they attend it is done with their husband or boyfriend and if they are single with their groups of friends.tldr; there simply aren't enough single good looking young white women to go around for everybody, they are rare and exist mostly in very niche places where men without social circles (loners) can't get in to
>>34496687Sex outside of marriage is not inside commitment. Congrat on your failing worldview having below replacement birthrates. 50% of millenial wome will die childless and that number is rising. Reality is the cure for your insanity. You are the definition of evil.>u r immoral prson Cry more
>>34496689Give an exact link to the source of that number.
>>34496695Birthrates are falling because there are more low quality immoral males such as yourself than ever before that are not worthy of passing on their genes.
>>34496699https://sda.berkeley.edu/sdaweb/analysis/?dataset=gss24rel1
>>34496689Lolwut. What kind of low IQ virgin incel would believe something this ridiculous. In the 1970s people having sex all over the place. That generation was far more promiscuous than zoomers who are the least promiscuous generation ever.
You'll shame women for having high body counts but won't shame men for the same. You'll shame women for being unfaithful, but won't shame men for doing the same. You'll shame women for treating their man like garbage, but when a man treats their women like garbage you claim they deserve it. You don't want a woman, you want a slave and then get upset people treat you like one.>muh key and lock!Ask yourself why you would want a key that unlocks everything. Do you REALLY want to unlock everything?
