Thread 82306677

Say you have this girl you like. You know she has a body count of 15+. Why would you settle for a solely monogamous relationship with her? How is that fair? If she didn't think you were good enough for a fling why should you limit yourself to this woman?

Having a free and easy sex life is an absolute privilege, I don't care what your name is. To people like us we have to settle for a relationship. We therefore are more naturally also more drawn to quality over quantity. So why would we settle for a woman who would normally have any other guy any other day of the week? How is that equal footing?

>>82306677 (OP)
I don't care about a woman's sexual past so long as it isn't utterly horrid because I'm slept with like 8 women and 3 men myself. Not in a position to judge. I lie to my gf and tell her I just fucked a couple girls in college.

i'm over 30. a body count of "15+" would mean a woman my age has had sex with a different man every year. that's not even possible, you guys are crazy.

>>82306677 (OP)
>You know she has a body count of 15+
bro basically talking about virgins at this point
the average college age girl is at 50+ to start lil broski

>>82306687
average college girl is at 50, lets take a rough estimate and say 25 men per year, at 30 you are looking at atleast around the 300 mark for the average thot, anything else and she's lying

>>82306677 (OP)
1. Your whole post is a contradiction. If flings and "easy sex" reflect a better person (i.e. good enough), then the quality of a woman with 15+ bodies would be higher, not lower. You would actually argue that having her date you exclusively would be an achievement and a reflection of how good you are.

2. Men and women aren't on equal footing in general. You're the dominant one. If body count matters to you, then just find a woman with a low body count. That's entirely up to you. If these women with 15+ bodies have no trouble getting sex, they're not going to bother you unless you allow them to.

>>82306739
> 1.
No it wouldn't. A woman receives more on her end from a relationship than a man.
> 2.
This is absolutely retarded reasoning. The post is about why body count matters. So saying "Just find someone with a low body count." is missing the point. I'm not saying every woman should have a low body count I'm saying it's totally valid to refuse someone based on their body count.

>>82306774
>No it wouldn't
Yes it would. OP said "good enough" as a person when referring to people who can have flings, i.e. getting a lot of sexual partners makes you a better person.

>This is absolutely retarded reasoning
It's not retarded when it's completely true. I addressed that your reasoning for why it matters to you is contradictory and irrational, and I'm saying the next step beyond that is for you to just find someone with a low body count. You don't need anyone to validate your opinion, because men are the ones who lead. People have stupid reasons for what matters to them all the time, the test is in actually showing that it matters.

>>82306677 (OP)
Bodycounts really depends on age imo. Like if somoene is 18, then 15 is a lot. But if someone is 30, it's fairly moderate I would say. Personally I would say like 1-2 bodycount / year (after 18) is a reasonable maximum. A year is a very long time.

>>82307007
Well, the problem is that a lot of these girls think a year IS a "very long time.." as far as romantic relationships are concerned. Most of them either haven't hit the one year mark with a guy or that's about as far as they've ever made it. Not ideal if you are looking for someone to be with "forever" and not just a fuck buddy or casual fling.
Long-term relationships tend to put a damper on body count. Sure, you could have a couple 5+ year relationships and then a crazy year or two where you really racked up the numbers. But usually people who believe in monogamy and value meaningful sexual intimacy wouldn't do that. I've only had a handful of sexual partners at nearly 40 since they've all been within the context of a serious relationship and not just flings "because I can."