"Every dick a girl fucks pretty much reduces her marriage potential to men in general. It's just a fact of life." (reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
478 ups - 0 downs = 478 votes
532 comments submitted at 19:02:11 on Nov 6, 2014 by wilst
"Every dick a girl fucks pretty much reduces her marriage potential to men in general. It's just a fact of life." (reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
478 ups - 0 downs = 478 votes
532 comments submitted at 19:02:11 on Nov 6, 2014 by wilst
Eh, it's politically incorrect but he's generally right. Most men aren't going to want a promiscuous woman as a long term partner. For myself, if it's just a one night stand/fuckbuddy I don't care as long as she's clean, but if I'm thinking serious relationship I'm going to want her number 3 or under. Obviously it's all a matter of opinion, but in my experience the large majority of men are not going to be interested in dating a so-called "slut."
>Most men aren't going to want a promiscuous woman as a long term partner.
[citation needed]
> if I'm thinking serious relationship I'm going to want her number 3 or under
How I can tell you're under 25.
Only citation is personal experience and the opinions other men have shared with me.
I'm 31 and married.
So, just to clarify, you think any woman with a number of 4 or higher is considered a "slut" by the majority of straight men.
> politically incorrect
Why does this always precede ignorant bullshit?
>he's generally right
No.
>Most men aren't going to want a promiscuous woman as a long term partner.
Source please. Oh wait, you're just projecting your own insecurities on everyone else.
>For myself, if it's just a one night stand/fuckbuddy I don't care as long as she's clean, but if I'm thinking serious relationship I'm going to want her number 3 or under.
That's fucking weird.
>Obviously it's all a matter of opinion
Yes, and yours is the strange one.
>in my experience the large majority of men
Even assuming you've asked every man you've met, I'm not that surprised that you mostly interact with insecure misogynists.
>are not going to be interested in dating a so-called "slut."
Quotation marks doesn't change the fact that you think someone who has had more than three partners is a slut. That's fucked up. Go reevaluate how you think about women.
> Why does this always precede ignorant bullshit?
It's an umbrella for when socially awkward mixes with loud and opinionated.
It's kind of equivalent to "I'm not a racist/misogynist/whatever, but...", in that you always know that anything that follows will be awful.
Or just being honest without beating around the bush to protect delicate feelings.
I gather that's what you hope is conveyed.
Really? Having standards is misogynistic? Where the hell was your father at? Mine was very through on teaching me and my brothers to have self-respect and not settle for the first shank that comes along.
If that's misogynistic, then I'm perfectly okay with that. My wife loves me, and I have no problem sleeping at night with my decisions.
> Having standards is misogynistic?
This isn't a standard. It's an arbitrary and meaningless statistic that is a great signpost for some really odd insecurities and prejudices.
>Mine was very through on teaching me and my brothers to have self-respect and not settle for the first shank that comes along.
Let me summarize that: "I think women who have sex with more than three people are skanks. I loudly protest how much I respect myself but not women who choose to sleep with more than three people." If we're comparing fathers, I'll take the one that taught me to respect myself and women.
>If that's misogynistic, then I'm perfectly okay with that.
You shouldn't be. Harshly judging someone solely because she's had sex with more than a handful of people is wrong.
>My wife loves me, and I have no problem sleeping at night with my decisions.
Good, and I sincerely wish you all the best. The only decision of yours I'm aware of is your decision to marry your wife, and it sounds like that was a good one.
So you've had less than 3 sexual partners, right?
No no no no no no no no no no.
See, men are supposed to have had hundreds of lays, but women are only allowed three.
That's why sports teams have orgies in the locker room, right?
It's one thing to have your own subjective preferences about what you want in a partner. But to think that the number of partners someone has had directly affects whether they are "marriage material" in an objective sense is completely false at best, and close-minded at worst.
And I imagine that a woman who cares enough to keep her number at 3 or under...will probably care about their partners number as well.
Indeed, I said "partner," to keep this gender neutral. The question is why people care about these numbers at all. What information do people think they're gleaning about a person based on number of sexual partners? Logically speaking, if someone has a high number of partners, then I can tentatively conclude that this person is likely to be both sexually experienced and someone who enjoys having sex. That is it. People who care about their partner's "number" think that this number reflects morality or intelligence or trustworthiness, but there is no correlation between them, so that is false.
Exactly. All we can get from a number is that it's a number and they like sex and stuff.
Not really, women want a confident experienced man, men want a faithful pure woman. The two genders have different motivations.
Hah no.
A girl who remains virginal is looking for a guy with similar values. Growing up within a fundamentalist religion showed me just that. Women definitely want "faithful" men. Also, you can't tell if someone is faithful or not from their number...
> Also, you can't tell if someone is faithful or not from their number...
Sure you can! But it only applies to women, not men, because reasons.
I thought it had more to do with the measurement of her vagina because you see, the vagina stretches every time you have sex with a different man. That is why our assholes are so big because they stretch with every poop. Science!
Right! And because of these super stretched vaginas (that totally aren't constantly contracted by surrounding muscles or anything) women will never be satisfied until they have, like, 6 dicks in them. It's always expanding.
And this leads to infidelity!
Well thanks for clearing that up RobotPartsCorp. How silly of me to forget that women having sex with other people besides Optol are incapable of fidelity.
This is exactly the type of sexist drivel we are laughing at in the linked post.
K.
People are not monolithic based on their sexes or genders.
How can an opinion be false? My wife only has 2 partners before me, if it was 20 I would have never married her. That's a plain fact.
That's kind of... odd to say about your own wife. Presumably you married her for more than her number, right? At least I'd hope so... But those things would be meaningless if she'd had sex with a few more people before you'd met?
"Honey I love you to pieces and these last 4 years have been great. I was going to ask you to marry me now but I just found out that I am the 4th person you had sex with. That is frankly too many, you are all used up and I need a fresh woman."
Unless I was getting married at like 20 years old I would think there is something wrong with a woman who has had less than 3 partners.
Why would you think that? It's not really cool to assume one way or the other, ya know? While the reasons behind the number of partners someone has had might tell you something about them, just the number doesn't.
I was mostly just being hyperbolic, the number seems ridiculously low to me. To think it is slutty, abnormal or not ok to have more than 3 partners by the time you are in your mid to late 20s just seems completely insane to me.
I would be way more surprised if my girlfriend told me she had two previous partners than if she told me she had 40. But obviously the reasoning/circumstances is more important than the number and more importantly a persons past sexual history is really none of my concern or business 99.9% of the time.
The idea of "marriage material" in an objective sense (to quote my earlier comment) is false. Everyone has their own different standards and thus their own different definition of what is "marriage material." However, the claim that there is any correlation between a person's intelligence or morals and the number of people they've slept with IS false.
It didn't affect her "marriage material," it affected your insane, deluded, and misogynistic perception of her. So the notion that it would have changed anything about her is false.
What's your number, btw?
Probably pretty high...
> when I was barely 17 I had sex with numerous people well into their twenties and I'm no worse for wear.
His preference can't be. Like I can't say your wrong for not marrying someone who has slept with 20 people before you.
However he can be wrong by saying "most" people care about that.
What about 4 partners? Or 6? You would decide to not marry the love of your life because of a couple of sec partners?
Such a Hypocrite! One glance into your user history shows you admitting to having multiple partners in your teens and beyond...so basically it's okay for you but not for your SO? >when I was barely 17 I had sex with numerous people well into their twenties and I'm no worse for wear.
[deleted]
> predisposed to STIs
So wear a condom until you both get tested, which you should be doing anyway.
>more likely to stick to a single partner
I don't understand this at all. You think someone who has sex while single is somehow more likely to cheat in a monogamous relationship?
Condoms don't protect from HPV and HSV1-2, which you would know if you had any actual education on STD's.
> So wear a condom until you both get tested, which you should be doing anyway.
I'm a physician and you sound good in theory. Because the biggest thing on the mind of someone with multiple sexual partners is surely protection, not reducing other risks highly associated in the practice, like intimate partner violence, drugs, and prostitution. Have you actually worked with someone who with multiple sexual partners. When there are valid reasons some women decide to go into this these relationships. You make it sound like it's a run-of-mill casual dating most people imply in this comments.
> You think someone who has sex while single is somehow more likely to cheat in a monogamous relationship?
It's basic statistics, implying that the previous relationships were not monogamous. Also, do you think an ex-smoker is more likely to pick up smoking later in life. Maybe, maybe not, but definitely more likely than the average person.
[deleted]
> people with multiple sexual partners are more likely to keep multiple sexual partners.
I think this part is just a misunderstanding of phrasing. The OP op is talking about having many partners over the course of their life not juggling multiple partners at the same time. Just because someone has had a lot of partners does not mean they were ever unfaithful.