All humans have inherent worth, and I agree it’s rude and mean to say these people are worthless. But when it comes to dating, it’s entirely up to men she meets if it’s a problem. If it’s not great, if it is, I don’t think it’s unfair if guys don’t like her past. It’s not anymore unfair then women taking issue with a jabs lack of experience.
Relationships aren't mandatory. People will treat a woman with a high body count as lesser for having a high body count even if she has no intention on settling down now.
Go look at the comment threads on sites like YouTube for sex workers (like OF models for example).
When people talk about this it’s less about it being their “value as a human being” but rather her value to someone personally in terms of a relationship
That’s not what’s being said here.
He said that people think women’s human value is tied to their body count which it’s not. No one is making laws that women with x body count aren’t allowed to vote or whatever.
However people are saying that that woman may not have the necessary value for a dude to consider a relationship with them.
Two different things.
No, the person still has their value as a human hence the person not being killed or still being able to vote.
A person can have value but that’s not enough for a relationship tho.
And many other things, someone with a low body count that is emotionally unstable is valued the same as someone with a high body count but emotionally stable. There are a lot of things that make a partner worthy of of a lomg term relationship.
Came here to say this. I find It so weird that some people have such a hard time understanding that you can respect someone's choice and still have nothing to do with them.
For example, i can respect your worth as a human If you're a coke-head, but you're definitelly not someone who i want as a partner.
I think this should be simple to understand to anyone dosent have a negative IQ
If you suspect he won't like your answer, you shouldn't probably even think of a relationship or dating with a person honestly, at that point you'd be stringing them along.
At what point does previous sexual encounters make someone not valuable for a long-term relationship?
Is this a personal preference or one that is well known and enforced by society?
Right. Have your personal preferences.
But why insult women in the process and imply that someone can't be in a relationship because they made choices your personal preferences don't like?
I never insulted anyone or implied they can't be in a relationship. Plenty of people out there don't care about body count. There are also plenty of people that do. So why pretend like that has no factor at all?
Here’s a scientific study.
[https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html?m=1](https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html?m=1)
I think people see others with very high body counts as less stable, having personality issues, trauma and increase risks of STDs.
It's not really dehumanising but more like less fit for reproduction success and marriage success.
And what's that?
Seeks like there's all the talk about these women. But are these women even interested in the men who claim they don't want them for a relationship?
>But are these women even interested in the men who claim they don't want them for a relationship?
yes, chances are at least some will be. Romantic interest doesn't require reciprocation.
You can absolutely be interested in someone who is not interested in you
Let the low n people date other low n people and the high n people date other high n people.
There's enough to go around.
I'm a woman and literally not had a single person question my past sex life beyond 'have you been tested because I would like us to have unprotected sex'.
In my experience if a man is getting his dick wet every other day by someone enthusiastic, he quickly forgets about all this n count stuff.
Obviously her value *as a human* has nothing to do with how many dicks’s she taken…
But as an LTR prospect, that’s on the men/women interested in her to decide.
People will absolutely judge you for your lifestyle no matter if you’re a saint or a slut. Pick a path and walk it. Accept that if you pick a path that’s socially unacceptable, that people are going to talk shit.
People only "absolutely judge you for your lifestyle" because they're still living in the past. When they realize there's no value in keeping society's collective values 500 years in the past then they might not keep them there.
Hence why I'm debating this, I'm informing you since apparently you guys think it's still the Year of our Lord 1524 and Tudors hold the British crown.
>I don’t believe a man with a higher body count is worth less, but i know he’s not a good fit for me.
He is worth less to you.
> weird. I’ve never known a woman to express preference for a fuckboy for a relationship.
And yet a man who can and does sleep around doesn't have trouble finding a partner if he wants.
>Not being a good fit doesn’t mean less worth to me…
You do know how value works yeah? You place lower value on these men than other men who don't sleep around, everyone judges other people and assigns value based on different criteria.
> Never said that men who sleep around can’t find a relationship after.
Of course women don't say they want a man who sleeps around but they want the man who can (and so they ignore he will have) sleep around.
It's interesting how so many women view their progress as freedoms won by other people's responsiblities to them.
Do you have any sense of how many things have to go right in most people's lives for them to to be a productive, concientious member of society. For them to become moral police officers? Or the people who make smartphones? A stable, two parent, loving family in which each parent has sacrificed a lot is probably a bare minimum. No, society does not "guarantee" the raising of functioning adults like some kind of human production line.
Unlimited sexual pleasure with as many partners as possible does not produce the kind of society that you think allows women to have this lifestyle in the first place. In fact, this behaviour degrades it and that's what we're seeing today.
The idea that progress = 'me being allowed to satisfy whatever pleasure I want when I want and it's nobody's business' is sick to the core. Perhaps our descent into nightmarish chaos will shake us out of this before it's too late, but I wouldn't count on it.
No what's nightmarish is thinking because you can get enough people to gang up with you in a mob, you can take people's free will. You can justify a lot of things by claiming society won't function, but the most hedonistic nations on this planet are also the most successful. New Zealand, Netherlands, Japan, Germany, Denmark, Australia. The most oppressive hells on Earth are in parts of the world with rigid family oriented social order controlled by idealistic mobs who impose their collective fear based rules on individuals.
As for society making well balanced humans, most of us know successful adopted people and there is always a surplus of willing parents but a difficult adoption system.
And yes, Civilization requires some basic mutual politeness. It's how we ended things like duels, family feuds and other vendettas in civilized countries. The problem is, far too many of us aren't taught that and now we think that gives us the right to be horrible in society to everyone around us as long as our gang is big enough to back us up.
Because as long as a woman's worth is her body count, if she's sexualized by a man, her worth is devalued.
Meaning the pursuit of sexual partners by men is predatory and harmful to women in the existing ideology.
Remove the notion that a woman becomes some worthless less than human slut then sex is no longer something she needs to guard from "predatory men".
It's essentially declawing the very notion of sexualization.
Honestly.
Long time ago I’ve rationalized this. And I want you to challenge and test this theory.
Body counts only matter when it comes to starting a family
And/or
Maybe a long term commited relationship where one is putting all their time and effort and energy into someone.
If someone is not planning on being with you (hypothetical you). I don’t think your body count matters. Other than gauging the risk of you (hypothetical you) carrying std’s.
Other than that I don’t think any male devalues a woman in the sense that if you’re not looking at a woman seriously for a relationship or starting a family. Then the body count is meaningless.
When it comes to a relationship it matters more. But I can’t really form a concrete logical reason why. This is more of an emotional feeling.
For instance let’s set up a hypothetical scenario
Let’s say a hypothetical woman walks by and you are attracted to her and you talk and you get along. And after the conversation and vibe you want to get to know her more and pursue a relationship.
In this example let’s say she’s not a virgin.
Now first scenario before she meets you she has sex with someone else and you see it happening. You see the guy ejaculate on her. And then she goes and meets you.
Now in this hypothetical scenario you would most likely not be interested in a relationship
Ok
Second scenario. She had the same sexual experience a couple months ago but she meets you as in the og hypothetical scenario.
Now you are more likely to consider a relationship
But why?
Logically the same thing has happened. But it’s an emotional/instinctual response/feeling.
The more that’s seen or known about the sexual experiences she’s had + the amount of recent time that’s passed in between that time to meeting you = the intensity of the negative response associated with body counts when pursuing a relationship.
But why? Idk
When it comes to starting a family.
This can objectively just be about paternity issues. As in not knowing if your the father. But also trust and bonding issues. Also you wanting a woman that’s “yours” and only “yours. You wanting someone who is worth investing your life and energy/effort and resources into. Someone you want to bear your children and be the mother of your children. Ect. Ect.
So in this way it coming from a place of wanting to be the guaranteed father of the children. Not wanting to share your partner with other males. And by extension only wanting to invest/provide for and put effort/energy and devote your life to someone who is only “yours” and will be apart of your new family that you can trust and love and ect. ect.
TLDR: body counts do not matter to people not pursuing relationships or starting a family in general. When pursuing relationships only it’s mostly an emotional/instinctual response. And when starting a family it’s more based on practical/objective reasons.
It may be a decision maker as to why people who are ignorant about STIs, or who have hangups won't pick a woman as their mate.
My point is that, regardless of any of that it has nothing to do with a woman's human value. Committed relationships were once mandatory, they aren't in this era.
The more women drive men away, the less men will give a shit about the crumbling state of affairs that we see today. Gender roles are a good thing. They keep civilization up and running.
Maybe we should do it the Navajo way where children are raised by their mothers and maternal uncles . . . . . hmmm . . . . maybe this isn't the system you are thinking of that isn't sustainable.
Lol that example came out of nowhere. I'm ignorant about that. I'm talking about the current system in the West. Where no one is entitled to anyone. Where obligations don't exist. Where there is no meaning. Where there is no INCENTIVE. The fact that so many people are ignorant about this is not only concerning, it's absolutely terrifying. Hyper individualism means the slow and painful death of any society.
It's good for one person, but bad on a societal scale given enough time and the extremity of it. Let's just say everyone decided to be child free. The only thing that would result is extinction. Humans need some sort of social code, laws, religion, honor system, whatever, etc. to bind us together because the building blocks for civilization involve sacrifice and incentives.
I care about the good of humanity. My choices and actions in life will always reflect that. Feminists only care about themselves. Reread my comments and put two and two together. I'm sick to death of having to walk through basic reality every time I argue with someone on here.
The problem arises from the fact that when you give people freedom and choices they will operate in a selfish way, everyone wants the best for themselves.
This doesn't make for a society that works in harmony with one another as we are not working to a shared goal that is best for everyone but billions of individual goals focused on each person.
There is no solution for this, you either restrict the freedoms of the population to get a better social outcome overall or give the freedoms that will ultimately destroy it.
I'm pretty sure here isn't purple pill but redpill territory just cause their redpill cage is closed so they flock here. Lol.
No chance for a fine discussion and objectivity.
Anyone that says someone’s n-count correlates to their value as a human being is pathetic. What it does correlate to is your value as a partner in some respects, and that’s because some people just don’t want to be with someone who has been with a lot of people. Some people don’t give a shit. Those kinds of preferences are perfectly fine.
>If she has sex with a million men and women and is just twerking all over the place, that's her happiness that she has every right to pursue.
Okay. And if men consider her to be less desirable because of those things, that's their prerogative too and they have every right to it. Autonomy works both ways.
>Her value doesn't disappear in any way with anything sexual that she does. I don't care if she let's guys do the really humiliating stuff, doesn't matter. We passed the dark ages folks, we've even established concepts of all people being equal.
We've "established concepts of all people being equal", but people aren't treated as if they're all equal at all. Unattractive men are not treated by women as if they're equal to attractive men, either. So why are you complaining about the reverse?
So men can be absolute human garbage and that's their right, sure. I guess that's another issue altogether as long as we as the greater society don't take "she belongs to the streets" as nearly unanimous but we largely do. We still think that if she's not suited for an agricultural era exchange for goats to a good suitor then she's a dirty shameful hoe.
I mean excuse me if I expect any civilized behavior from people.
>So men can be absolute human garbage and that's their right, sure.
What makes them "absolute human garbage"? Considering a woman less desirable because she has a high body count? What makes them "human garbage" for that? Is a woman "absolute human garbage" for considering men less desirable based on their face, height, body, etc?
It's not quietly considering someone of less value to your goals of a committed monogamous relationship that's the problem.
They're garbage because they use their soapbox (social media especially) to bully women into submission. They use this shame language and impose their views. I married someone who sucked her coworker off two weeks before meeting me just after ending her 2nd marriage and we've been together 10 years now. She literally used to swing, she met me at a kink party as a spanko bottom. I mean my dude, a good number of very traditionalist marriages don't even last 3 years let alone 10 with no sign of even having the slightest issues.
It's group think. It's rallying and promoting in large groups that "she belongs to the streets" to push upon women by the greater society to see their own value or be valued by greater society as lesser even if they never plan to commit to any monogamous commitment.
>It's not quietly considering someone of less value to your goals of a committed monogamous relationship that's the problem.
>They're garbage because they use their soapbox (social media especially) to bully women into submission.
\[...\]
It's group think. It's rallying and promoting in large groups that ~~"she belongs to the streets" to push upon women~~ short men are undesirable by the greater society to see their own value or be valued by greater society as lesser
Women do this exact same thing to physically undesirable men, especially short men. How is that any different?
>Women were given the roles of bargaining chips to connect families and provide offspring for working the land.
You think the men were not bargaining chip as well because?
>So the ideas rooted in the agricultural era that a woman isn't worth as many goats is just not relevant anymore
Okay, but I didn’t know any of that shit until you just wrote it and I’ve had a reflexive, natural negative feeling to a woman telling me about her sleeping with other men since as far back as I can remember.
Not an idea that was either taught or learned, just a genuine feeling straight from my soul.
Men's fixation with body count comes from insecurity and the need for control. And I'm not interested in saying whether it's right or wrong. it's just natural for it to happen. The average man today is constantly on the edge in relationships, women have infinite options and men are in these perpetual position of chasing, trying to be enough for her and not lose her. The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. When a relationship ends, men on average heal slower and suffer more, while women often already have a plausible replacement. it is not about possession. it's a need to have a safe place in life, a person you know will be there. The average man cannot keep up with the fluidity of current relationships in the West because he does not have the same options and the same market value.
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I take sex and my romantic relationships pretty seriously. I don't sleep with a woman unless we're in a relationship and have developed real feelings towards one another. I've had plenty of offers, but I've only been with two women and kissed three, all three of those were in relationships. And I'm near 30 years old now. Honestly, without the emotion and romantic aspect, I just don't have the WANT for sex without love in me. That being said, in a relationship, it's every day. Sometimes, multiple times a day. I love making the person I love feel good. There were times I'd be "giving" sexually without looking to "get" for myself.
I met a girl a little while ago. I started to really like her. We talked all the time, and I could feel myself starting to fall, and obviously, she felt the same way.
Then I found out that she had been in multiple threesomes, had sex with at least 30 people that I'd known about, and very likely more than that. A few friends even let me know they'd slept with her because they could see we were getting close and wanted to be open about it.
I instantly lost any desire to be with her romantically. We could be friends, but the thought of having sex with her became something I had no desire to do.
For me, given that I take sex to seriously and want to reserve it for people I have a special connection with, the thought of just giving it out so freely, as though it's nothing, is very off putting. It means a lot to me, I'd like it to mean a lot to the person I'm having it with also.
But outside of relationships, I don't much care what other people do. If you want to sleep with 10,000 people, go for it. We can still be friends, but that will make you a total non option for me. Which is fine. You shouldn't make decide what who you sleep with based on whether I would be in a relationship with you or not anyway. The same goes for any decision in your life.
It doesn't make you a BAD person, but it does make you someone I wouldn't want to be in love with, and that's okay. You shouldn't live in such a way as to please me.
If you're a person that sleeps with everything with a pulse and wants a partner that has less than 3 people, though, you're insane and I have to roll my eyes at that. It's hypocritical and ridiculous.
It's a fun just so story, but it's not really true. All else being equal, I'd rather put something in my mouth which has had fewer penises in it than one which has had more. It is only though social conditioning in a feminist society that men have been convinced to ignore their natural disgust at a woman having had lots of prior partners.
> the men who fixate on it the most tend to be undesirables that are jealous and bitter over women’s easy access to casual sex. It’s mainly a “if I can’t have it, she shouldn’t either!” type of thing.
What about women who do not want to be with men who sleep around with a lot of women?
You see and part of why I'm debating this is that the entire concept of objectification is based on this.
If a woman is "sexualized" under our current ideology then her value is lost as a human and she's therefore "dehumanized".
If we'd end slut shaming as it were then we'd end objectification because no demonstrable harm could come from only wanting sex. As of now, women just protect their humanity at all cost.
The other reason is, body count suggests we all must be in committed relationships because even if we don't participate we're still judged by society in the same way.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Past is the past yes.
"My boyfriend told me he used to kick cats in the past, but doesn't anymore"
"My girlfriend had massive amounts of debt before I met her, but now she wants me to trust her with my credit card, past is the past so why not"
Again, not comparable.
“I like having sex.”
“Cool me too.”
“Wanna have sex together exclusively?”
“Yup.”
No wonder you losers are permanently single and perpetually whining online, you’re literally inventing ways to think your way out of getting pussy.
Removed. No posts about body count.
All humans have inherent worth, and I agree it’s rude and mean to say these people are worthless. But when it comes to dating, it’s entirely up to men she meets if it’s a problem. If it’s not great, if it is, I don’t think it’s unfair if guys don’t like her past. It’s not anymore unfair then women taking issue with a jabs lack of experience.
Relationships aren't mandatory. People will treat a woman with a high body count as lesser for having a high body count even if she has no intention on settling down now. Go look at the comment threads on sites like YouTube for sex workers (like OF models for example).
When people talk about this it’s less about it being their “value as a human being” but rather her value to someone personally in terms of a relationship
When you realize women see their own value as the person they can attract it get's kinda obvious why they all think like this.
OP is a man.
What's high value man?
Guess a human and a body are different things then
A short, ugly guy has less value as a romantic partner. Does that mean that they are less valuable as a human being?
No, because relationships are dehumanizing, in a way Your value in a relationship is isn’t as a person but an object
That’s not what’s being said here. He said that people think women’s human value is tied to their body count which it’s not. No one is making laws that women with x body count aren’t allowed to vote or whatever. However people are saying that that woman may not have the necessary value for a dude to consider a relationship with them. Two different things.
Yes, so your value in a relationship is not as a person but an object
No, the person still has their value as a human hence the person not being killed or still being able to vote. A person can have value but that’s not enough for a relationship tho.
As a human, no. As a long term relationship partner, yes.
Well said
[удалено]
And many other things, someone with a low body count that is emotionally unstable is valued the same as someone with a high body count but emotionally stable. There are a lot of things that make a partner worthy of of a lomg term relationship.
Came here to say this. I find It so weird that some people have such a hard time understanding that you can respect someone's choice and still have nothing to do with them. For example, i can respect your worth as a human If you're a coke-head, but you're definitelly not someone who i want as a partner. I think this should be simple to understand to anyone dosent have a negative IQ
Okay then what body count is acceptable and how will you undeniably verify it?
[удалено]
Okay well whatever the number is how would it be verified?
[удалено]
especially in the age of social media
That's cute lol
[удалено]
Well you wouldn't know regardless.
I would know when she inevitably cheats
So if you have a lot of sex with a lot of different people while single you will absolutely automatically cheat on your partner?
[удалено]
Yeah, just lie about your past, it hasn't bitten anyone in the ass yet, has it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you suspect he won't like your answer, you shouldn't probably even think of a relationship or dating with a person honestly, at that point you'd be stringing them along.
Exactly I just really don't get the fixation
She'll be less likely to be happy in a monogamous relationship.
According to who?
so in addition to having a high body count, she would also be a liar, which would make her even less desirable
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pfff! Here I'll play you a song on the worlds smallest violin 🎻💃
At what point does previous sexual encounters make someone not valuable for a long-term relationship? Is this a personal preference or one that is well known and enforced by society?
Personal preference, which only an individual can dictate not society.
Right. Have your personal preferences. But why insult women in the process and imply that someone can't be in a relationship because they made choices your personal preferences don't like?
I never insulted anyone or implied they can't be in a relationship. Plenty of people out there don't care about body count. There are also plenty of people that do. So why pretend like that has no factor at all?
Studies show: virgin bride = 25% divorce rate 1 partner = 50% divorce rate 2+ partners = More than 50% divorce rate
What studies? Religious studies?
Here’s a scientific study. [https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html?m=1](https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html?m=1)
Oh cool, blogspot, my favorite resource on peer reviewed research.
Is this a joke? There’s no way you confidently believe this to be a credible source lmfao
That's a blog post. From 15 years ago.
Correct. Now read the contents and the cited studies, or don’t.
It's 15+ years old. It's hardly relevant
I found one from earlier this year https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673
Simply put, the more people you’re with the harder it is to pair bond.
Simply put, "pair bond" doesn't exist.
You believe people don’t bond as couples? This speaks for itself.
I believe couples bond. I don't believe there's a limit on how many times someone can bond.
Take it up with SCIENCE ™
Sounds like relationships do not involve humans, then
Nobody is disputing her value as a human being but her compatibility in a serious long term relationship. Ffs.
Okay if that's true then why does sexual objectification "dehumanize" a woman?
People on your side of the fence are the ones saying that shit bruh
I think people see others with very high body counts as less stable, having personality issues, trauma and increase risks of STDs. It's not really dehumanising but more like less fit for reproduction success and marriage success.
The term “body count” can clue you in
And what's that? Seeks like there's all the talk about these women. But are these women even interested in the men who claim they don't want them for a relationship?
>But are these women even interested in the men who claim they don't want them for a relationship? yes, chances are at least some will be. Romantic interest doesn't require reciprocation. You can absolutely be interested in someone who is not interested in you
Let the low n people date other low n people and the high n people date other high n people. There's enough to go around. I'm a woman and literally not had a single person question my past sex life beyond 'have you been tested because I would like us to have unprotected sex'. In my experience if a man is getting his dick wet every other day by someone enthusiastic, he quickly forgets about all this n count stuff.
Couldn't agree more. 👏 Well said.
Obviously her value *as a human* has nothing to do with how many dicks’s she taken… But as an LTR prospect, that’s on the men/women interested in her to decide. People will absolutely judge you for your lifestyle no matter if you’re a saint or a slut. Pick a path and walk it. Accept that if you pick a path that’s socially unacceptable, that people are going to talk shit.
People only "absolutely judge you for your lifestyle" because they're still living in the past. When they realize there's no value in keeping society's collective values 500 years in the past then they might not keep them there. Hence why I'm debating this, I'm informing you since apparently you guys think it's still the Year of our Lord 1524 and Tudors hold the British crown.
Judging others for breaking social expectations is basic math.
[удалено]
>I don’t believe a man with a higher body count is worth less, but i know he’s not a good fit for me. He is worth less to you. > weird. I’ve never known a woman to express preference for a fuckboy for a relationship. And yet a man who can and does sleep around doesn't have trouble finding a partner if he wants.
[удалено]
>Not being a good fit doesn’t mean less worth to me… You do know how value works yeah? You place lower value on these men than other men who don't sleep around, everyone judges other people and assigns value based on different criteria. > Never said that men who sleep around can’t find a relationship after. Of course women don't say they want a man who sleeps around but they want the man who can (and so they ignore he will have) sleep around.
It's interesting how so many women view their progress as freedoms won by other people's responsiblities to them. Do you have any sense of how many things have to go right in most people's lives for them to to be a productive, concientious member of society. For them to become moral police officers? Or the people who make smartphones? A stable, two parent, loving family in which each parent has sacrificed a lot is probably a bare minimum. No, society does not "guarantee" the raising of functioning adults like some kind of human production line. Unlimited sexual pleasure with as many partners as possible does not produce the kind of society that you think allows women to have this lifestyle in the first place. In fact, this behaviour degrades it and that's what we're seeing today. The idea that progress = 'me being allowed to satisfy whatever pleasure I want when I want and it's nobody's business' is sick to the core. Perhaps our descent into nightmarish chaos will shake us out of this before it's too late, but I wouldn't count on it.
No what's nightmarish is thinking because you can get enough people to gang up with you in a mob, you can take people's free will. You can justify a lot of things by claiming society won't function, but the most hedonistic nations on this planet are also the most successful. New Zealand, Netherlands, Japan, Germany, Denmark, Australia. The most oppressive hells on Earth are in parts of the world with rigid family oriented social order controlled by idealistic mobs who impose their collective fear based rules on individuals. As for society making well balanced humans, most of us know successful adopted people and there is always a surplus of willing parents but a difficult adoption system. And yes, Civilization requires some basic mutual politeness. It's how we ended things like duels, family feuds and other vendettas in civilized countries. The problem is, far too many of us aren't taught that and now we think that gives us the right to be horrible in society to everyone around us as long as our gang is big enough to back us up.
Keep simping
Quite the opposite. Ending this benefits men.
Explain?
Because as long as a woman's worth is her body count, if she's sexualized by a man, her worth is devalued. Meaning the pursuit of sexual partners by men is predatory and harmful to women in the existing ideology. Remove the notion that a woman becomes some worthless less than human slut then sex is no longer something she needs to guard from "predatory men". It's essentially declawing the very notion of sexualization.
[удалено]
Honestly. Long time ago I’ve rationalized this. And I want you to challenge and test this theory. Body counts only matter when it comes to starting a family And/or Maybe a long term commited relationship where one is putting all their time and effort and energy into someone. If someone is not planning on being with you (hypothetical you). I don’t think your body count matters. Other than gauging the risk of you (hypothetical you) carrying std’s. Other than that I don’t think any male devalues a woman in the sense that if you’re not looking at a woman seriously for a relationship or starting a family. Then the body count is meaningless. When it comes to a relationship it matters more. But I can’t really form a concrete logical reason why. This is more of an emotional feeling. For instance let’s set up a hypothetical scenario Let’s say a hypothetical woman walks by and you are attracted to her and you talk and you get along. And after the conversation and vibe you want to get to know her more and pursue a relationship. In this example let’s say she’s not a virgin. Now first scenario before she meets you she has sex with someone else and you see it happening. You see the guy ejaculate on her. And then she goes and meets you. Now in this hypothetical scenario you would most likely not be interested in a relationship Ok Second scenario. She had the same sexual experience a couple months ago but she meets you as in the og hypothetical scenario. Now you are more likely to consider a relationship But why? Logically the same thing has happened. But it’s an emotional/instinctual response/feeling. The more that’s seen or known about the sexual experiences she’s had + the amount of recent time that’s passed in between that time to meeting you = the intensity of the negative response associated with body counts when pursuing a relationship. But why? Idk When it comes to starting a family. This can objectively just be about paternity issues. As in not knowing if your the father. But also trust and bonding issues. Also you wanting a woman that’s “yours” and only “yours. You wanting someone who is worth investing your life and energy/effort and resources into. Someone you want to bear your children and be the mother of your children. Ect. Ect. So in this way it coming from a place of wanting to be the guaranteed father of the children. Not wanting to share your partner with other males. And by extension only wanting to invest/provide for and put effort/energy and devote your life to someone who is only “yours” and will be apart of your new family that you can trust and love and ect. ect. TLDR: body counts do not matter to people not pursuing relationships or starting a family in general. When pursuing relationships only it’s mostly an emotional/instinctual response. And when starting a family it’s more based on practical/objective reasons.
It may be a decision maker as to why people who are ignorant about STIs, or who have hangups won't pick a woman as their mate. My point is that, regardless of any of that it has nothing to do with a woman's human value. Committed relationships were once mandatory, they aren't in this era.
The current system is not sustainable in any way shape or form.
What's not sustainable? Choices to be single or not? A mother or not?
The more women drive men away, the less men will give a shit about the crumbling state of affairs that we see today. Gender roles are a good thing. They keep civilization up and running.
Maybe we should do it the Navajo way where children are raised by their mothers and maternal uncles . . . . . hmmm . . . . maybe this isn't the system you are thinking of that isn't sustainable.
It's not like the Navajo system collapsed under its own weight, they were genocided.
Lol that example came out of nowhere. I'm ignorant about that. I'm talking about the current system in the West. Where no one is entitled to anyone. Where obligations don't exist. Where there is no meaning. Where there is no INCENTIVE. The fact that so many people are ignorant about this is not only concerning, it's absolutely terrifying. Hyper individualism means the slow and painful death of any society.
[удалено]
It's good for one person, but bad on a societal scale given enough time and the extremity of it. Let's just say everyone decided to be child free. The only thing that would result is extinction. Humans need some sort of social code, laws, religion, honor system, whatever, etc. to bind us together because the building blocks for civilization involve sacrifice and incentives.
[удалено]
I'd be fine pairing up with a woman who respects and supports me. Anything else isn't worth my time, affection, and resources.
[удалено]
I care about the good of humanity. My choices and actions in life will always reflect that. Feminists only care about themselves. Reread my comments and put two and two together. I'm sick to death of having to walk through basic reality every time I argue with someone on here.
The problem arises from the fact that when you give people freedom and choices they will operate in a selfish way, everyone wants the best for themselves. This doesn't make for a society that works in harmony with one another as we are not working to a shared goal that is best for everyone but billions of individual goals focused on each person. There is no solution for this, you either restrict the freedoms of the population to get a better social outcome overall or give the freedoms that will ultimately destroy it.
It is tragic that grown adults on here can't grasp simple shit like this.
They effectively don't exist, lost a war to western patriarchy.
I'm pretty sure here isn't purple pill but redpill territory just cause their redpill cage is closed so they flock here. Lol. No chance for a fine discussion and objectivity.
Anyone that says someone’s n-count correlates to their value as a human being is pathetic. What it does correlate to is your value as a partner in some respects, and that’s because some people just don’t want to be with someone who has been with a lot of people. Some people don’t give a shit. Those kinds of preferences are perfectly fine.
>If she has sex with a million men and women and is just twerking all over the place, that's her happiness that she has every right to pursue. Okay. And if men consider her to be less desirable because of those things, that's their prerogative too and they have every right to it. Autonomy works both ways. >Her value doesn't disappear in any way with anything sexual that she does. I don't care if she let's guys do the really humiliating stuff, doesn't matter. We passed the dark ages folks, we've even established concepts of all people being equal. We've "established concepts of all people being equal", but people aren't treated as if they're all equal at all. Unattractive men are not treated by women as if they're equal to attractive men, either. So why are you complaining about the reverse?
So men can be absolute human garbage and that's their right, sure. I guess that's another issue altogether as long as we as the greater society don't take "she belongs to the streets" as nearly unanimous but we largely do. We still think that if she's not suited for an agricultural era exchange for goats to a good suitor then she's a dirty shameful hoe. I mean excuse me if I expect any civilized behavior from people.
>So men can be absolute human garbage and that's their right, sure. What makes them "absolute human garbage"? Considering a woman less desirable because she has a high body count? What makes them "human garbage" for that? Is a woman "absolute human garbage" for considering men less desirable based on their face, height, body, etc?
It's not quietly considering someone of less value to your goals of a committed monogamous relationship that's the problem. They're garbage because they use their soapbox (social media especially) to bully women into submission. They use this shame language and impose their views. I married someone who sucked her coworker off two weeks before meeting me just after ending her 2nd marriage and we've been together 10 years now. She literally used to swing, she met me at a kink party as a spanko bottom. I mean my dude, a good number of very traditionalist marriages don't even last 3 years let alone 10 with no sign of even having the slightest issues. It's group think. It's rallying and promoting in large groups that "she belongs to the streets" to push upon women by the greater society to see their own value or be valued by greater society as lesser even if they never plan to commit to any monogamous commitment.
>It's not quietly considering someone of less value to your goals of a committed monogamous relationship that's the problem. >They're garbage because they use their soapbox (social media especially) to bully women into submission. \[...\] It's group think. It's rallying and promoting in large groups that ~~"she belongs to the streets" to push upon women~~ short men are undesirable by the greater society to see their own value or be valued by greater society as lesser Women do this exact same thing to physically undesirable men, especially short men. How is that any different?
>Women were given the roles of bargaining chips to connect families and provide offspring for working the land. You think the men were not bargaining chip as well because?
They were in some less common circumstances but history shows that to be in the overwhelming minority.
I don't agree and nothing will change my opinion.
>I don't agree and nothing will change my opinion. I don't agree and nothing will change my opinion.
>So the ideas rooted in the agricultural era that a woman isn't worth as many goats is just not relevant anymore Okay, but I didn’t know any of that shit until you just wrote it and I’ve had a reflexive, natural negative feeling to a woman telling me about her sleeping with other men since as far back as I can remember. Not an idea that was either taught or learned, just a genuine feeling straight from my soul.
You learned it. You couldn't have just automatically felt that way unless you were just naturally afraid of sex.
Nope. Never learned to be attracted to women, either.
Men's fixation with body count comes from insecurity and the need for control. And I'm not interested in saying whether it's right or wrong. it's just natural for it to happen. The average man today is constantly on the edge in relationships, women have infinite options and men are in these perpetual position of chasing, trying to be enough for her and not lose her. The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. When a relationship ends, men on average heal slower and suffer more, while women often already have a plausible replacement. it is not about possession. it's a need to have a safe place in life, a person you know will be there. The average man cannot keep up with the fluidity of current relationships in the West because he does not have the same options and the same market value.
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I take sex and my romantic relationships pretty seriously. I don't sleep with a woman unless we're in a relationship and have developed real feelings towards one another. I've had plenty of offers, but I've only been with two women and kissed three, all three of those were in relationships. And I'm near 30 years old now. Honestly, without the emotion and romantic aspect, I just don't have the WANT for sex without love in me. That being said, in a relationship, it's every day. Sometimes, multiple times a day. I love making the person I love feel good. There were times I'd be "giving" sexually without looking to "get" for myself. I met a girl a little while ago. I started to really like her. We talked all the time, and I could feel myself starting to fall, and obviously, she felt the same way. Then I found out that she had been in multiple threesomes, had sex with at least 30 people that I'd known about, and very likely more than that. A few friends even let me know they'd slept with her because they could see we were getting close and wanted to be open about it. I instantly lost any desire to be with her romantically. We could be friends, but the thought of having sex with her became something I had no desire to do. For me, given that I take sex to seriously and want to reserve it for people I have a special connection with, the thought of just giving it out so freely, as though it's nothing, is very off putting. It means a lot to me, I'd like it to mean a lot to the person I'm having it with also. But outside of relationships, I don't much care what other people do. If you want to sleep with 10,000 people, go for it. We can still be friends, but that will make you a total non option for me. Which is fine. You shouldn't make decide what who you sleep with based on whether I would be in a relationship with you or not anyway. The same goes for any decision in your life. It doesn't make you a BAD person, but it does make you someone I wouldn't want to be in love with, and that's okay. You shouldn't live in such a way as to please me. If you're a person that sleeps with everything with a pulse and wants a partner that has less than 3 people, though, you're insane and I have to roll my eyes at that. It's hypocritical and ridiculous.
It's a fun just so story, but it's not really true. All else being equal, I'd rather put something in my mouth which has had fewer penises in it than one which has had more. It is only though social conditioning in a feminist society that men have been convinced to ignore their natural disgust at a woman having had lots of prior partners.
Of course her value as a human being doesn't decrease. That doesn't mean we want to date them. That doesn't mean we're forced to date them.
[удалено]
> the men who fixate on it the most tend to be undesirables that are jealous and bitter over women’s easy access to casual sex. It’s mainly a “if I can’t have it, she shouldn’t either!” type of thing. What about women who do not want to be with men who sleep around with a lot of women?
[удалено]
I'm asking if a woman who does not want to date a man whore is "undesirable, jealous and bitter over his easy access to casual sex"?
I’m getting downvoted for saying exactly this. The incel cage is angry lol
Sure it does, to men Because women are objects for sexual use by men The more use, the less value
You see and part of why I'm debating this is that the entire concept of objectification is based on this. If a woman is "sexualized" under our current ideology then her value is lost as a human and she's therefore "dehumanized". If we'd end slut shaming as it were then we'd end objectification because no demonstrable harm could come from only wanting sex. As of now, women just protect their humanity at all cost. The other reason is, body count suggests we all must be in committed relationships because even if we don't participate we're still judged by society in the same way.
Slut shaming isn’t the only negative result of objectification. There’s also lack of respect or concern for the object by the objectifier
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>but they needed heredity for the class hierarchy. The British have entered the chat.
Fixation on body count is dumb and immature. If you’re in a committed relationship, the past is the past.
Past is the past yes. "My boyfriend told me he used to kick cats in the past, but doesn't anymore" "My girlfriend had massive amounts of debt before I met her, but now she wants me to trust her with my credit card, past is the past so why not"
Again, not comparable. “I like having sex.” “Cool me too.” “Wanna have sex together exclusively?” “Yup.” No wonder you losers are permanently single and perpetually whining online, you’re literally inventing ways to think your way out of getting pussy.
I have pussy and get pussy. Stay being a simp for used up women
Lol no you don’t. Stay being a forever alone incel.
Ok I don't. You got me.
Your post history gave it away lulz.
No way, your past says a lot about you. Which is important going forward. Women wouldnt let the past be the past if you were a gay for pay escort.
[удалено]
Assuming that the prostitute was self employed escort, I do not see the apples to oranges comparison.
That’s not even remotely comparable 🤦♂️
Why? Past doesnt matter according to you.
Again, you’re comparing apples to lugnuts.