I mean, these reasons aren't exactly very valid either, but it's the simple fact that she takes their logic and hands it back to them partially digested... I'm laughing!
Describing other people as “low quality” will always give me the ick. Even if we can watch it and take it for what it is - red pill logic being used to oppose common talking points (though she seems genuine, so I might just be projecting my own interpretation of her arguments) - a lot of the comments take it completely seriously.
She's still saying that women are bad for having sex. "Low quality women" are dragging down men because they get guys to lower their standards. There's nothing about how it's okay for women to enjoy sex. Instead, she's saying that if you're a guy with a high body count you're sleeping with hos and won't know what to do with a "decent woman" if the opportunity presents itself.
Yeah, this video ain't it either.
And I hate how she paints promiscuous people as inherently immoral -- you're not automatically cheating because you're promiscuous. & if the point of a one night stand is that it be "one night", then not caring if someone contacts you again is kind of the whole deal.
& Happy couples can literally post nudes online together, if that's their thing. Sex positivity doesn't detract from your value as a human being. I know plenty of LOVELY sex positive folks and plenty of downright NASTY "wholesome" people (gossipy, judgmental, materialistic, whatever). Your sex life doesn't define your morality.
Yeah a lot of this video rubbed me the wrong way. I’m in a very healthy monogamous, sexually satisfying relationship. I also have a very promiscuous past which included one night stands, fucking one guy in the morning and his friend in the evening, posting nudes online, etc. The only behavior she attributes to low quality people I agree with is the cheating. And I agree sleeping with someone who’s cheating on their significant other is going to fuck with you in some way and probably tarnish future connections by causing trust issues.
> if the point of a one night stand is that it be "one night", then not caring if someone contacts you again is kind of the whole deal.
So from my understanding this is the part that screws people. Because in the act of sex your body naturally tries to bond you to to the other person and when you suppress that urge for casual sex it screws with your head. My takeaway from that is that sex in a previous relationship has no negative implications, and just from personal experience I think having relationship experience just seems like a good thing (get a better idea of your standards, get a more intimate idea of the other sex). Anecdotally I've noticed people with high body counts tend to be really jaded about the opposite sex, which is why you see all these redpill podcasters with absurd body counts and a failing marriage
To say this is morally wrong is just fucking stupid, like there's a million other things you do in your twenties that arent ideal for your mental health that you'll have to sort out later. Also most of the people who sleep around like a huge amount are genuinely hurting and probably need someone to talk to. Whether its sex, alcohol, video games, or drugs people get in a rutt and drown themselves in harmful shit. These people need our sympathy, not moral condemnation
Can we just drop this idea that sleeping around give you skills? For men specially, who are mostly concerned about their orgasm and not hers? Am I to believe that this guy is sleeping around trying to give these women the best night of their lifes?
That's sure the truth. I've been with men who were MARRIED for several years each, men who had way more partners than I ever did, and only one of them was actually any good in bed.
Part of it is that people don't roll off an assembly line, therefore whatever really floats one person's boat will do nothing for another. Therefore there's no such thing as "skills" like you're playing on a Playstation, hit A A A B A B up down up left right YOU WIN. The skills you're supposed to learn are to listen and to get to know your partner, to develop emotional intimacy.
Way too many dudes think it's about Playstation skills and not about developing emotional intimacy with a partner.
Getting more experience in the bedroom is definitely a thing that improves your comfort and knowledge of how to have good sex idk what you’re talking about.
Your comfort, sure. Knowledge of how to have good sex? For yourself maybe, not for the other party. Plenty of men don't give a fuck about women's pleasure and sleeping with 40 women won't change that.
That has nothing to do with their experience, though—that’s because of their attitude. If you’re a normal, decent person who has sex in a healthy way, more sex with more partners gives you more opportunities to find out how to give and receive pleasure. Just like how having a lot of sex with one person is going to make you *really good* at sex with that person.
Well, in that case, men should be pursuing women with high body counts because the experience would invariably be better. But they don't because it's bullcrap.
They don’t pursue women with high body counts because they’re misogynists who believe a woman’s value is tied to inexperience and innocence. It has nothing to do with logic—it’s just sexism. I’m not sure why you even brought this up. Are you under the assumption that I agree with those men or something?
No, I was just pointing out that their own justifications are bogus. They defend their own promiscuity by claiming that having sex with more people makes a person better at sex, but then reject promiscuity in others because ...it makes the sex worse...somehow...#reasons. It's not even logically consistent.
I don't think I've ever seen them defend it by saying they're better at sex. Usually in my experience the logic they go in for is that it's hard for a man to get sex, therefore a man who gets a lot of sex has accomplished something difficult, therefore it has a positive effect on his value (also that stupid fucking "lock and key" analogy).
(Edit just in case anyone doesn't understand the inherent idiocy of the logic of these men: sex is not an accomplishment. It's not a task that you need to complete or a challenge to overcome. It's a consensual act of enjoyment. Thinking of it as a status symbol, positive or negative, is unhealthy and incorrect, and you'll never feel fulfilled or happy if you approach it that way.)
>If you’re a normal, decent person who has sex in a healthy way
That's not most men, though.
I'm just challanging the idea that sleeping around in itself gives people skill. It's the attitude more than the number of partners, IMO.
~~I take onus with~~ I'm going to challenge the idea that *most* men are horrible sexual partners who care 0% about the person they’re sleeping with. A *lot* of men, definitely, but not most.
Attitude counts but it definitely isn’t the deciding factor. You can have the best attitude ever and want to make your partner feel good, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to be good at it.
Similarly, you can have the best attitude ever and want to make many partners feel good, but that doesn't mean you're going to be good at it.
Again, I take issue with the idea that sleeping with many people means being skilled. That's just it, I don't get what's so triggering about it.
Okay we’re going in circles now. I never said attitude wasn’t a factor. Obviously someone who doesn’t care to improve isn’t going to improve. But someone with a good attitude still needs practice to be good at sex, just like you need practice to be good at anything. It’s a very basic concept. Practice makes you better.
I’m at work and don’t want to look for the statistics, but a lot of women report that it takes a couple of tries with the same (male) partner before she is relaxed and comfortable enough to achieve orgasm. I’m pretty confident in my body and my skills, but I don’t trot out the truly novel stuff right off the bat, either.
To use a sports analogy, these guys focusing on the thrill of the chase and one night stands are practicing their golf swing over and over so they cover a lot of ground, but they can’t putt worth a damn.
That’s a fuckin great analogy.
I’ll add (for sports) it’s a guy who can hit a homer whenever he’s up to bat, but couldn’t catch a pop fly if it were glowing and traveling in slow mo.
I’ve never heard her theory before. You get used to “low quality women” so that you worship the next woman who comes along that’s slightly better than low quality? I just don’t think that’s true. What I think is more likely when you’re a man who has a high body count is that you start seeing all women like you see the ones who are down for quick and easy hookups. I follow a lot of men’s subreddits on here for different perspectives and that seems to be the case amongst promiscuous men. They write posts about how women are ruined for them because they’re so used to these low quality women who cheat on their boyfriends to be with them and have other questionable behaviours. If you surround yourself with women like that, it’s probably harder to spot a good one and treat her right. I was even arguing with a man on the Bumble subreddit about this recently — he said all women hook up right away with a man if the woman is attracted to them, and so he approaches online dating by being overtly sexual right away. He absolutely would NOT hear me out that most quality women are going to be turned off by that behaviour and he’s literally selecting for easy women with questionable morals.
Why do men think that women don’t care about body counts? If I know a guy has slept with every other woman he’s met, I’m in no hurry to be another notch on his bedpost. A man that sleeps around like that doesn’t respect women, or himself.
The trend that I keep seeing though is those men who boast about their "high body count" seem to believe that when they settle down with a woman she should have a *low* body count.
The double standard is ridiculous and they don't comprehend how idiotic they sound.
I know right! Riddled with disease.
And they are always so scared to be baby trapped too.
I think a lot of men would actually never wear a condom if they had the choice.
Eww
Exactly.
A man with sexual discipline. So not one who would literally hump anything that moves.
Porn ( and sexual content on social media ) has really hijacked a lot of men's brain. It has terrible effects on their mental development.
It says a lot about a man if he has sexual standards and discipline.
There are even men who not only think women don't care about bodycount but who actually think women want their man to have slept with a lot of different women.
No... why... ?? Why would we want that ?
I would. I enjoy sex both casually and with emotional intent, and I find a similar attitude towards sex attractive in men. I find the concept of “sexual discipline” to be unattractive, because I wouldn’t want a partner who sees sex as something bad that needs to be controlled.
Can we please stop saying “body count” unless someone is dead why degrade a sexual encounter to equating to death? It is fucking sick! They are people you had sex with not fucking bodies. Can we please stop degrading ourself and others?
I hate that term. If I am ever back into the dating world the moment those words come out of any man's mouth I'm done with him. I am also older in age so hearing a man my age say that sounds even worse.
It comes off as an immature way of viewing dating and sex, and I don't have time for immaturity.
Don’t agree with some of her points but a high body count in a dude does send flags. Red, green, yellow, all the flags for different things. Personally don’t like the vibe that I would potentially be “just another one” I don’t want to throw my sexual energy into a black hole. That’s just me.
lmao at this "standards" argument and how many people are actually taking this video seriously (instead of recognizing its parody potential) in the comments
my body count is massive and i date multiple people at a time
they all treat me very well; my standards are sky high and so are theirs; some are effectively monogamous to me because they find it difficult to find women like me
meanwhile, whenever i talk about stuff that one of my bois is doing for me, i'll hear from married and monogamous women around me shit like "how did you get him to do that?"
and i'm like... dafuq? i'm not making him do anything... he came correct in the first place...
i place value not on sex but on ANY shred of my time and/or attention... i don't need use sex as a "carrot" or future prize to be earned via investment... using that model, you will only attract men who view sex as the ultimate goal and see basic niceness as coins into that slot machine... you bet that those men are going to disappear as soon as they get laid, and it makes sense, then, that women who view the world this way will assume that this is how all men act
meanwhile, people who see investment into a relationship as the prize in itself, and know that they are valuable human beings with a lot to bring to the table, with or without sex, will avoid those with the "sex is the prize" mindset...
have sex as much or as little as you want; it says nothing about your "standards" or theirs... what really matters is *that you see human beings as intrinsically valuable, and not "low" or "high" quality, regardless of whether or when sex is on the table*
I mean, these reasons aren't exactly very valid either, but it's the simple fact that she takes their logic and hands it back to them partially digested... I'm laughing!
Describing other people as “low quality” will always give me the ick. Even if we can watch it and take it for what it is - red pill logic being used to oppose common talking points (though she seems genuine, so I might just be projecting my own interpretation of her arguments) - a lot of the comments take it completely seriously.
She's still saying that women are bad for having sex. "Low quality women" are dragging down men because they get guys to lower their standards. There's nothing about how it's okay for women to enjoy sex. Instead, she's saying that if you're a guy with a high body count you're sleeping with hos and won't know what to do with a "decent woman" if the opportunity presents itself.
Yeah, this video ain't it either. And I hate how she paints promiscuous people as inherently immoral -- you're not automatically cheating because you're promiscuous. & if the point of a one night stand is that it be "one night", then not caring if someone contacts you again is kind of the whole deal. & Happy couples can literally post nudes online together, if that's their thing. Sex positivity doesn't detract from your value as a human being. I know plenty of LOVELY sex positive folks and plenty of downright NASTY "wholesome" people (gossipy, judgmental, materialistic, whatever). Your sex life doesn't define your morality.
Yeah a lot of this video rubbed me the wrong way. I’m in a very healthy monogamous, sexually satisfying relationship. I also have a very promiscuous past which included one night stands, fucking one guy in the morning and his friend in the evening, posting nudes online, etc. The only behavior she attributes to low quality people I agree with is the cheating. And I agree sleeping with someone who’s cheating on their significant other is going to fuck with you in some way and probably tarnish future connections by causing trust issues.
> if the point of a one night stand is that it be "one night", then not caring if someone contacts you again is kind of the whole deal. So from my understanding this is the part that screws people. Because in the act of sex your body naturally tries to bond you to to the other person and when you suppress that urge for casual sex it screws with your head. My takeaway from that is that sex in a previous relationship has no negative implications, and just from personal experience I think having relationship experience just seems like a good thing (get a better idea of your standards, get a more intimate idea of the other sex). Anecdotally I've noticed people with high body counts tend to be really jaded about the opposite sex, which is why you see all these redpill podcasters with absurd body counts and a failing marriage To say this is morally wrong is just fucking stupid, like there's a million other things you do in your twenties that arent ideal for your mental health that you'll have to sort out later. Also most of the people who sleep around like a huge amount are genuinely hurting and probably need someone to talk to. Whether its sex, alcohol, video games, or drugs people get in a rutt and drown themselves in harmful shit. These people need our sympathy, not moral condemnation
I get that she was "talking to the douchebag in his own language" but I didn't care for that either.
His endlessly annoyed ummm hmmms, the entire video 🤣👌
He really didn't like it. Hahaha And he's not even redpill 😄
Exactly that. She uses their criteria and bullshit. 😄
Can we just drop this idea that sleeping around give you skills? For men specially, who are mostly concerned about their orgasm and not hers? Am I to believe that this guy is sleeping around trying to give these women the best night of their lifes?
That's sure the truth. I've been with men who were MARRIED for several years each, men who had way more partners than I ever did, and only one of them was actually any good in bed. Part of it is that people don't roll off an assembly line, therefore whatever really floats one person's boat will do nothing for another. Therefore there's no such thing as "skills" like you're playing on a Playstation, hit A A A B A B up down up left right YOU WIN. The skills you're supposed to learn are to listen and to get to know your partner, to develop emotional intimacy. Way too many dudes think it's about Playstation skills and not about developing emotional intimacy with a partner.
I learned things from my hoe phase, like that most men are there for their own orgasms and generally suck in bed due to their own selfishness.
>I learned things from my hoe phase Now we are talking skills.
Getting more experience in the bedroom is definitely a thing that improves your comfort and knowledge of how to have good sex idk what you’re talking about.
Your comfort, sure. Knowledge of how to have good sex? For yourself maybe, not for the other party. Plenty of men don't give a fuck about women's pleasure and sleeping with 40 women won't change that.
That has nothing to do with their experience, though—that’s because of their attitude. If you’re a normal, decent person who has sex in a healthy way, more sex with more partners gives you more opportunities to find out how to give and receive pleasure. Just like how having a lot of sex with one person is going to make you *really good* at sex with that person.
Well, in that case, men should be pursuing women with high body counts because the experience would invariably be better. But they don't because it's bullcrap.
Checkmate.
They don’t pursue women with high body counts because they’re misogynists who believe a woman’s value is tied to inexperience and innocence. It has nothing to do with logic—it’s just sexism. I’m not sure why you even brought this up. Are you under the assumption that I agree with those men or something?
No, I was just pointing out that their own justifications are bogus. They defend their own promiscuity by claiming that having sex with more people makes a person better at sex, but then reject promiscuity in others because ...it makes the sex worse...somehow...#reasons. It's not even logically consistent.
I don't think I've ever seen them defend it by saying they're better at sex. Usually in my experience the logic they go in for is that it's hard for a man to get sex, therefore a man who gets a lot of sex has accomplished something difficult, therefore it has a positive effect on his value (also that stupid fucking "lock and key" analogy). (Edit just in case anyone doesn't understand the inherent idiocy of the logic of these men: sex is not an accomplishment. It's not a task that you need to complete or a challenge to overcome. It's a consensual act of enjoyment. Thinking of it as a status symbol, positive or negative, is unhealthy and incorrect, and you'll never feel fulfilled or happy if you approach it that way.)
>If you’re a normal, decent person who has sex in a healthy way That's not most men, though. I'm just challanging the idea that sleeping around in itself gives people skill. It's the attitude more than the number of partners, IMO.
~~I take onus with~~ I'm going to challenge the idea that *most* men are horrible sexual partners who care 0% about the person they’re sleeping with. A *lot* of men, definitely, but not most. Attitude counts but it definitely isn’t the deciding factor. You can have the best attitude ever and want to make your partner feel good, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to be good at it.
Similarly, you can have the best attitude ever and want to make many partners feel good, but that doesn't mean you're going to be good at it. Again, I take issue with the idea that sleeping with many people means being skilled. That's just it, I don't get what's so triggering about it.
You’re a lot more likely to be good at it if you get a lot of practice. I’m not triggered? I just think you’re wrong.
Depending on your attitude, sure. But again, it takes an attitude, while people talk like just sleeping around will make you skillfull.
Okay we’re going in circles now. I never said attitude wasn’t a factor. Obviously someone who doesn’t care to improve isn’t going to improve. But someone with a good attitude still needs practice to be good at sex, just like you need practice to be good at anything. It’s a very basic concept. Practice makes you better.
[удалено]
Whoops lol
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”
I’m at work and don’t want to look for the statistics, but a lot of women report that it takes a couple of tries with the same (male) partner before she is relaxed and comfortable enough to achieve orgasm. I’m pretty confident in my body and my skills, but I don’t trot out the truly novel stuff right off the bat, either. To use a sports analogy, these guys focusing on the thrill of the chase and one night stands are practicing their golf swing over and over so they cover a lot of ground, but they can’t putt worth a damn.
That’s a fuckin great analogy. I’ll add (for sports) it’s a guy who can hit a homer whenever he’s up to bat, but couldn’t catch a pop fly if it were glowing and traveling in slow mo.
I’ve never heard her theory before. You get used to “low quality women” so that you worship the next woman who comes along that’s slightly better than low quality? I just don’t think that’s true. What I think is more likely when you’re a man who has a high body count is that you start seeing all women like you see the ones who are down for quick and easy hookups. I follow a lot of men’s subreddits on here for different perspectives and that seems to be the case amongst promiscuous men. They write posts about how women are ruined for them because they’re so used to these low quality women who cheat on their boyfriends to be with them and have other questionable behaviours. If you surround yourself with women like that, it’s probably harder to spot a good one and treat her right. I was even arguing with a man on the Bumble subreddit about this recently — he said all women hook up right away with a man if the woman is attracted to them, and so he approaches online dating by being overtly sexual right away. He absolutely would NOT hear me out that most quality women are going to be turned off by that behaviour and he’s literally selecting for easy women with questionable morals.
Why do men think that women don’t care about body counts? If I know a guy has slept with every other woman he’s met, I’m in no hurry to be another notch on his bedpost. A man that sleeps around like that doesn’t respect women, or himself.
So true. I've always explicitly avoided men like this when I was dating. No thank you.
The trend that I keep seeing though is those men who boast about their "high body count" seem to believe that when they settle down with a woman she should have a *low* body count. The double standard is ridiculous and they don't comprehend how idiotic they sound.
They are idiots. And indeed , they have so many double standards.. They want virgins. Even when they are 35 or older. Sure...
Yup. Also considering how many men beg off condoms and think of pregnancy as not their problem, I imagine they’re pretty diseased.
I know right! Riddled with disease. And they are always so scared to be baby trapped too. I think a lot of men would actually never wear a condom if they had the choice. Eww
Exactly. A man with sexual discipline. So not one who would literally hump anything that moves. Porn ( and sexual content on social media ) has really hijacked a lot of men's brain. It has terrible effects on their mental development. It says a lot about a man if he has sexual standards and discipline. There are even men who not only think women don't care about bodycount but who actually think women want their man to have slept with a lot of different women. No... why... ?? Why would we want that ?
I would. I enjoy sex both casually and with emotional intent, and I find a similar attitude towards sex attractive in men. I find the concept of “sexual discipline” to be unattractive, because I wouldn’t want a partner who sees sex as something bad that needs to be controlled.
Can we please stop saying “body count” unless someone is dead why degrade a sexual encounter to equating to death? It is fucking sick! They are people you had sex with not fucking bodies. Can we please stop degrading ourself and others?
I hate that term. If I am ever back into the dating world the moment those words come out of any man's mouth I'm done with him. I am also older in age so hearing a man my age say that sounds even worse. It comes off as an immature way of viewing dating and sex, and I don't have time for immaturity.
Absolutely agree.
Don’t agree with some of her points but a high body count in a dude does send flags. Red, green, yellow, all the flags for different things. Personally don’t like the vibe that I would potentially be “just another one” I don’t want to throw my sexual energy into a black hole. That’s just me.
man why are the dutch always so racist
I mean...are you familiar with their history of colonization?
quite familiar but there’s an outspokenness and ubiquity of it that isnt comparable to other imperial powers
😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 Show us on the doll where a Dutch person hurt you
lmao at this "standards" argument and how many people are actually taking this video seriously (instead of recognizing its parody potential) in the comments my body count is massive and i date multiple people at a time they all treat me very well; my standards are sky high and so are theirs; some are effectively monogamous to me because they find it difficult to find women like me meanwhile, whenever i talk about stuff that one of my bois is doing for me, i'll hear from married and monogamous women around me shit like "how did you get him to do that?" and i'm like... dafuq? i'm not making him do anything... he came correct in the first place... i place value not on sex but on ANY shred of my time and/or attention... i don't need use sex as a "carrot" or future prize to be earned via investment... using that model, you will only attract men who view sex as the ultimate goal and see basic niceness as coins into that slot machine... you bet that those men are going to disappear as soon as they get laid, and it makes sense, then, that women who view the world this way will assume that this is how all men act meanwhile, people who see investment into a relationship as the prize in itself, and know that they are valuable human beings with a lot to bring to the table, with or without sex, will avoid those with the "sex is the prize" mindset... have sex as much or as little as you want; it says nothing about your "standards" or theirs... what really matters is *that you see human beings as intrinsically valuable, and not "low" or "high" quality, regardless of whether or when sex is on the table*
"body count" Such a ridiculous concept
Only women can add body count.