Are 11 sex partners at 22yo too many?

11 is fine, 13 is where you have to worry.
I'll explain more while you're making me the 12th.

also your friend is beta af
>only sexing girlfriends

There is no universal rule. The guy you were talking to clearly sees sex as something special to be shared with a person you love, so for him, it is too much. But a guy who fucks anything that moves and who thinks that it doesn't take away anything from the affection he feels for his girlfriend, he probably wouldn't care.

Personally, I'd see it as a red flag.

Why are you friends with someone who's that judgmental towards you? Even if he said what he said in the heat of the moment, that's no excuse. You don't say shit like that to friends.

>>17573683
That's a bit extreme... sleeping with 11 people is not the same as "fucking anything that moves". And I'm sure that you wouldn't say the same thing about a guy that had slept with 11 women.

>>17573684
If you judge your friends for passing judgment on you, you're not only judging yourself you're judging your friends for judging you. And that would be using bad judgment.

I'm a 19 y/o grill and at 8. It just depends on what you want.

Most men will see it as a red flag if not a dealbreaker, sorry to break it to you. The whole key and keyhole thing has an gram of truth.

>>17573686
I would. I don't date women, so when I said it's 2much4me, I was imagining a guy.

The point was, that different people hold different values, so obviously she isn't undateable. She's just unappealing to people who have more conservative views on sex and should seek out like minded individuals.

>Would you still date someone who'd had 11 sex partners at 22?
No. But it's your life to live, it's a pretty presumptuous statement to say you can't enter a relationship. I've seen people with bigger red flags and dealbreakers find something.

>>17573686
At 22? It's pretty indicative. Either she's been sleeping around since she was 16 or she's been sleeping with people pretty constantly in a shorter period. Neither are exactly a positive thing.

>I'm sure that you wouldn't say the same thing about a guy that had slept with 11 women.
You really need to cut this shit out. This is a narrative mostly pushed through shit like Cosmo mag and butthurt spinsters.

File: 1459629685191s.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>17573671
Whore.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>17573695
No they don't. Why do kissless virgin betas have to project their insecurities on others?

>>17573697
>Either she's been sleeping around since she was 16 or she's been sleeping with people pretty constantly in a shorter period. Neither are exactly a positive thing.

11 people in 6 years means switching sex partners every 6 months. If you live in a big city, that doesn't constitute sleeping around.

>>17573695
So a guy who has had 11 sex partners is not incapable of staying monogamous, but a girl who has had 11 sex partner will never be faithful to her future boyfriend? What a load of bullshit. People are not keys or keyholes.

>>17573716
I think the point of that metaphor is that men have to work harder for sex, thus male sluts are more impressive. It has nothing to do with who is capable of monogamy.

>>17573671
for somebody who's looking for relationships, it's probably too many.

for somebody, who's into having casual """fun""", probably not.

Non of his business, actually.

>>17573709
I made it a pretty binary situation, either she started sex incredibly early at an age I find concerning or she started it later (read, not 6 years ago) but had a high frequency. I'm not really sure how you failed to understand that.

>>17573695
Since we're apparently doing the whole analogy thing, a sharpener that can sharpen many pencils is a good sharpener, a pencil that's been sharpened is useless.

Anyone can be damaged by 'too many' partners, but 'too many' partners doesn't mean that someone is damaged. That goes for both male and female. If you personally think 11 partners are too many, then that's fine. But don't make sweeping generalisations and claim that the majority of men agree with you. It just exposes you as the misogynistic robot you are.

>>17573720
"Sleeping around" means switching sex partners frequently

>>17573729
Not being able to keep one person by your side for a year is pretty alarming.

>>17573729
Straight from google, it says nothing about frequency.

sleep around
phrasal verb of sleep
1.
informal
have many casual sexual partners.

You're using a strict definition for a very subjective term. Stop looking for a reason to be upset.

>>17573731
What about if you don't want to get in a relationship, but you do want to have sex? Are you just supposed to go for years without sex?

>>17573731
Many posters here can't even get a partner, let alone hold on to one for that long. There was a thread a few days ago where OP said something about breaking up after a year and said that they recognised it wasn't that long, and there were a significant number of replies saying that their longest relationship had been X months.

>>17573734
>have many casual sexual partners
>many
>casual

Thanks for proving my point.

>>17573736
>Many posters here can't even get a partner, let alone hold on to one for that long.
And that is also often cited as a red flag or even a dealbreaker. It's a very subjective preference, the upper and lower limit varies between each person.

>>17573737
Again, google references total number yet you're defining it by frequency. It's a subjective definition at best, yet you are conflating the two.

The fact is a count of 11 at 22 is at the end of the day fairly high relative to the average person. Either she has a low frequency but started at an age I consider concerning, or she had a high frequency over a short period. Either way, she was sleeping around.

The more partners = the more likely the relationship will fail.

You might be thinking "OMG, HOW DO YOU WORK THAT ONE OUT, MYSOGYNIST PIG!?"

Well, think about what too many partners means, it's either:
>Lots of one night stands, normalising sex making it "just sex". It's seen as less special and therefore they'll be more likely to have "just sex" with someone and expect their SO to be okay with it. Also, they may have a habit of it, and bad habits die hard. They'll struggle with monogamy.
Or
>Lots of failed relationships. Why should anyone think they'll be any different?

I used gender neutrual terms there because it works both ways.

>B-b-but double standard.

Just because girls choose to date alpha fuckboys, frat bro's and pro-athletes, doesn't mean the rest of the world has to take stupid risks.
The double standard only exists because you think you shouldn't be held accountable for taking dumb-ass risks, whereas men would rather protect themselves physically, emotionally and financially by avoiding to enter a relationship with someone who is a risk.

>>17573735
You're not "supposed" to do anything. It's your life.

>>17573736
I don't know. Finding a relationship seems a bit harder than keeping it. There are more hindrances. Sure you could be a creep or a bore. But you could also just be shy, or poor, or awkward, or busy, maybe you live in a small town with a shitty dating pool... There are less possibilities for consistently failing to maintain a relationship, or at least less understandable ones. You could be abusive, boring, unfaithful, bad at picking your partners, clingy, abrasive... You already got their affection at that point, you kind of have to work to lose it.

>>17573735

It's fine.

But don't expect a relationship later on if you've made yourself look like someone who's likely to cheat.
And certainly don't lash out and call it "slut-shaming" when held accountable for your actions.

You make choices, you must bear the consequences. At least have some dignity about it.

Here's something to keep in mind:
There's a reason prostitution is unethical and looked down upon; and, here's the hilarious part: it is not the money earnt.

;-P

>>17573761
It's because the whole topic of sex is still taboo to talk about.

>>17573671

I'd be more wary of someone who hasn't had that many partners. They will eventually start to wonder what sex with other people is like and might either cheat to find out or break up just to go exploring. Plus, if someone has only had one or two romantic partners, how are they supposed to even know what they want? Getting serious with someone like that, only for them to figure out later that something else might suit them better seems like waste of time. At least with people who have more experience, they've done things and tries people and know what they are looking for. And their curiosity is sated, they will not have to wonder about sex with other people, because they've already been there and done that.

File: stats3.jpg (56KB, 633x360px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 633x360px

>>17573671
With such a history you are proven to be sex toy material unsuitable for stable long term relations. Whatever reasons you have for promiscuity, it is extremely likely that they will still be present when in a relationship. This is also reflected in marriage stability as a function of number of sexual partners. It should not be surprising that individuals sleeping around a lot will persist in such behavior. After all people rarely change in behavior. Previous behavior is always a strong indicator of future behavior. If a person engages in behavior X in 2015, he or she will probabl demonstrate X in 2016 as well. Sexual behavior is no exception to this rule. There should be nothing controversial or surprising about this.

>>17573761
I don't get it?

>>17573766
>Plus, if someone has only had one or two romantic partners, how are they supposed to even know what they want?
More partners doesn't mean more sex. I know a chick who's slept with a lot of guys but is still pretty thirsty because most of them ditch her pretty quickly.

>>17573671
No i wouldnt.
A lot of people wouldnt look for a long term relationship with someone who has had 11 partners.

You can call it slut shaming or whatever you want, but how you present yourself and how people precieve that are what matters, not your opinion of yourself.

How okay you are with having 11 partners doesnt matter because you arent trying to date yourself.
Most people will be turned off and turned away by a woman with that kind of history unless a quick fuck is all they want.


As a woman, all you have to do is approach any man and offer yourself. There are hardly any obstacles in your way to secure a sexual partner.
Men dont have it that easy, and thats why # of partners is viewed so differently between genders.

The facts are what they are. How much you do or dont like it wont change things.

So good luck op.

>>17573671
>11 sex partners at 22
it's not too many since 11|22 and essentially you have 2 partners in the maximal quotient ring, incidentally same as him.

>>17573671
at age 22 you had more sexual partners then last 5 generations of females in my family in their whole lifetime...

>>17573681
underrated kek

>11 by 22

And people are saying modern women aren't complete and total whores?

I wouldnt date someone like that.
Live your life like you want and all that, but I just dont like heavily used goods. Few partners is fine, but having 11 is a sign of a bigger problem, not a person I would consider being serious with on any level.

His reaction was likely heavily informed by his own sexual history. The gap in your pound counts is pretty significant so his insecurity and sexual frustration combined with his lower number forced him to apply a sense of enlightened morality to his own promiscuity in order to make himself feel better. I could be wrong and that was just some pseud shit, everyone is different after all, but speaking as a 22 year old virgin who occasionally has the same involuntary reaction of contempt for female sexuality, I think it's a decent guess.

Would I date someone like that? I don't know. I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't play on my mind in some form but I also don't know what it's like to genuinely be romantically interested in someone, and I would imagine emotion takes over at that point. Again, everyone is different, I get why some people would back out in that situation and I understand why many wouldn't care, as well as everything in between. Nobody should feel bad about having a high number of sexual partners (as long as you sincerely have no regrets about it) but you also have to accept some people aren't cool with it, just comes with the territory.

All that being said, you are absolutely a slut.

>>17573671
> 11 sex partners at 22yo

aww, my gf currently has 9 partners at 18 so I think she's on her way to become a little hussy like you

11 by 22 years old means you either don't have a good filter for men. Or you are impossible to be around for too long. Either way, thats the problem. Ita easier for you to find 1 guy to fuck a lot than it is for a guy to find 1 girl

>>17573671
That's really a pretty crazy high number. Half of that is high in the normal range. People who view sex as masturbation are just fundamentally different from me and I don't think I would get along with them.

>>17573671
stupid argument you guys had. He's a relationship kind of guy (there are girls just like him too) and there are people like you that really aren't yet and don't want to settle down with one person (there are men just like you too). Your number is relative to your lifestyle choice. If a guy or girl wants a relationship they shouldn't expect a relationship with someone in the middle of playing the field. One caution though OP. When you are in your late 20s and if you decide you want to settle down and you have hit 30 or 40 or 50 you should not be surprised if you are rejected by those that did not choose the same path.

>>17573761
Only in third world shitholes. And America.

>>17573671
Goodluck with finding a guy who wants to settle with you because you will need that luck a lot

>>17573671
my ex had around 40 sex partners at 25 because she used to be an actual slut in high school but had like 3 in the last 4 years, do it depends, i'd say no anyway, you are just better in bed than someone who only had like 3 or 4

>>17573671
I personally wouldn't.

But don't worry, you'll find some retard that would, just like you found previous 11.

There is no universal rule.
I am against casual sex so I wouldn't date someone who had so many partners. Some other people won't care.
Anyway - don't let people tell you what you should or shouldn't do. He can avoid fucking you, if he cares about that.

>>17573681
this honestly

as long as you have sex with me its still not too many

>>17573671
Thats gross. Sorry, youre sort of a whore.

>>17573880
>Goodluck with finding a bitter virgin who wants to settle with you because you will need that luck a lot

Fixed that for you. What it she wants a real man though?

No.

Literally kys.

>>17573671
>Are 11 sex partners at 22yo too many?
Only you can decide that.

>Would you still date someone who'd had 11 sex partners at 22?
Yes. As long as you're not sleeping with anybody else while we're in a relationship, it wouldn't bother me.
However, I would ask for an STD test. Not sure if that's a dealbreaker for all girls, it certainly has been for all the ones I've asked for one, though.

Also, sounds like your mate is just upset about his lack of sexual success. It happens.

>11 by 22yo
>some people on his thread unironically defend this

>>17573888
>you are just better in bed than someone who only had like 3 or 4
that is not always true anon. quantity does not mean quality. Lying there for a three minute fuck over and over again doesn't take much effort or skill when you know you likely will never see them again.

>>17573920

Nothing wrong with it you virgin. People date and people vibe really well that they want to have sex. If she started at 16, that is almost 2 partners a year which isn't a lot by a long shot.

File: 1468573783190.gif (88KB, 406x572px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 406x572px

>>17573888
>you are just better in bed than someone who only had like 3 or 4

But some are so bad in bed that they can only score one time sex with a person or short term relationship, t b h you need to consider a step functions generated by multiplying the number of partners by the number of times and duration of their sex acts, each with a weighing coefficient equal to perceived level of satisfaction, then take the supremum over all finitely valued functions less than or equal to said level of satisfaction for each person. That would give an indicator of how good someone is in bed in the Lebesgue sense, which is more general than the plebian Riemann sense.

>>17573913
not that anon but I assume you mean "good luck finding a real man who want to settle etc. ?"

>>17573917
>However, I would ask for an STD test. Not sure if that's a dealbreaker for all girls, it certainly has been for all the ones I've asked for one, though.
me too anon. They get fucking angry even when I present them current results on myself. I think they have to face the fact their promiscuity may have had health consequences and someone would know.

>>17573789
I'm not a chick but 11 partners at 22 is pretty suspect with any gender.

Constantly pumping n dumping chicks isn't really much better despite being harder to do.

>>17573922
Bitter used up whore detected.

There are people who think you are a complete whore if you've slept with one person or done more than kissing before marriage. I think it's really up to you, as long as you get checked for STDs regularly.

Also this guy friend doesn't really sound like a friend if he started insulting you like that

>>17573930
I never understood why people get so offended.
I get tested once a year for everything even if I am in a long term, stable relationship.
It seems pretty careless, to me, to not take a blood test to make sure you're not infecting your partner.
I would never have sex with a person who didn't get tested.

>>17573941
>if he started insulting you like that
who knows what he actually said, maybe he just expressed his concern that OP might have difficulty finding a stable relationship and hasn't finished his sentence before the fallout began.

>>17573945
I've been in a relationship for nearly five years, and I haven't been tested for any of that. I guess we just trust each other.

Before that, though, I would get tested after having sex with each new girl. Gotta be safe. And my current girlfriend had been tested just before we started fucking (without me asking her to) which was also good.

>>17573921
It can go both ways, this old fuck porn "casting director" scumbag I saw on efukt was fucking awful at sex despite tricking several chicks to fuck him.

>>17573922
I'm married, retard.
Just because people disaprove whore actions and disagre with your point doesn't mean they are virgin, fucking mongrel.
Some people on this planet still having principles, luckly.
Modern society it's fucking lost because people like you.

>>17573934
This. I would not settle down with someone who'd had 11 sexual partners. My boyfriend had two before me, which was just the right amount (0-3). The more partner's you've had the worse your ability to pair bond, studies have found. I know couples where both partners were promiscuous who are happy, but I wouldn't want to take that risk when I can get low partnered men.

File: 1473908252221-pol.png (179KB, 600x699px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 600x699px

>>17573671
Filthy slouts!!!
Yeah op you are a walking sexual disease. I hope you test your filthy couch.

>>17573671

Its his opinion, you dont have to date him. Let people have their preferences, he wont change his mind if you call him"slut-shamer".
Your record is too much for me as well to answer the question.

>>17573951
I have been with my boyfriend for 8 years and still get tested.
I mean, I'm 99.99% sure I'm clean every time, my boyfriend is adorable. But after my friend got AIDS from fucking her (ex) boyfriend who had been with a prostitute I am a bit paranoid and just get tested periodically

>>17573963
I was with my ex for 6 years and I became very ill and ended up in the emergency room. Hepatitis was a gift from my "loyal" gf. She was fucking some coworker and brought it home

File: 1472924004184-pol.jpg (18KB, 480x712px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x712px

>>17573963
20/m and still a virgin who almost has a masters in EE here. OP is the reason I blow off women who seem like skanks. This is why I old talk to average women who know their place and won't slut around.

Mostly I disregard women as leaches with no self accountability. Guess I'm gonna be a virgin for life but no sweet off my back.

File: 1473963364711-g.png (451KB, 428x548px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 428x548px

>>17573975
Curse autocorrect.

>>17573945
In my experience, a guy I dated was mad to get checked because he had to go out of the way to schedule an appointment, and it was uncomfortable, then he had to pay for it. He didn't even get a full test.
For girls, I guess it's easier because they are supposed to get yearly check ups and STD checks are usually included in that.

Why did you even answer?

I'm a virgin an I wouldn't even answer that question. It's none of his business.

>>17573989
bullshit. most cities have a free test available at the health clinic. Totally easy, anonymous and free

>>17573974
Fuck, that's terrifying.
Did you get better?
What a cunt.

>>17573975
Most girls I know aren't like that. Maybe I'm lucky.

>>17573989
Here it is free for everyone. You can go whenever, get tested, and go take the results after 5 days.
Both my BF and I get tested. We have both always been clean, but ya never know.

There are so many non-sexual ways to get STDs, it's unfunny.

>>17573958
I think their age is a pretty big factor. If OP were 32 then it wouldn't be so bad. Still not something I personally would go for(though I'm only 22 too so I may change) but at least it's possible that all of those weren't just quick fucks with no emotion attached.

>>17573671
No. To me its a sign you wont be able to commit, give up on relationships easily or have very bad issues. Regardless outside of a one night stand, which im not into, no I would not. Slut shaming is just a nice way to deflect legitimate criticism but there is a reason women who do that have issues later.

>>17573671
No

>>17573909
Actually, this anon has a point
Only people who'll bitch about your sexual history are catty hoes projecting onto you and butthurt beta males who can't get with you

>>17574023
>Only people who'll bitch about your sexual history are catty hoes projecting onto you and butthurt beta males who can't get with you

There are far too many threads posted here from guys getting disgusted at their GF's sexual past after boning her for this to be even remotely true.

Maybe a nice thought for people who don't want to feel bad but that doesn't make it true still.

>>17574000
It doesn't matter if they're quick fucks or not, a high partner count impairs your ability to pair bond either way. They've had 11 people they failed with, or were slutting it around with, or a mixture of both. I'd say no to a man like that and don't blame low partnered men who say no.

>>17574023
Yeah but no. Statistics don't lie.

See >>17573774

>>17573998
almost fucking died, had a temperature of 103 and they couldn't get it down. At first it was awkward when the doctors came in to discuss what was going on with my gf bedside but they finally came out with it. Of course she went all innocent like she had no fucking clue and at first pushed all the blame on me. She was tested eventually and bingo.

>>17574043
>Of course she went all innocent like she had no fucking clue and at first pushed all the blame on me. She was tested eventually and bingo.
was she crying while pleading innocent or angry?

>>17573774
>that chart
Do people actually believe this shit? It was originally posted on a blogspot website "based on" data from Heritage Foundation, which is Conservative group. The post is a guest post from someone named INTREPID, and that's it.

I swear people will believe anything that looks fancy and has complicated words on it

>Would you still date someone who'd had 11 sex partners at 22?

It's not about the number.
Accidents can always happen, so my question would be, "Was every one of those men someone you could have imagined starting a family with?"

It's not a red flag, but statistically the number of sex partners correlates with irresponsibility, so it is at least a warning sign. Don't blame people for being suspicious.

>>17574062

This. It's like source criticism is an entirely foreign concept here.

File: 1347799615139.png (42KB, 1585x1527px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1585x1527px

>>17574062

Are you seriousy denying that religious people who marry as virgin are less likely to divorce?

>>17574062
Not that anon and I'm merely a bystander interested in this topic and just want to quickly point out
1. there's literally no complicated word in that chart
2. quick google result points to
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf

Now you might argue that the National Center for Health Statistics and National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepititis, STD, and TB Prevention, all those who listed their names with PhD degree made up these statistics or tried to distort it, or perhaps they don't understand this topic as well as you, but then you'd have to show your credence, collect the data to support your hypothesis, if you meant to say your opinion has value. But then I get it that people here love to joke around and that's ok too.

File: 1461060379391.png (103KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 480x480px

>>17573822
>>17573671
That's a lot OP, i hate to be that guy, but it's really a very high number, refer to linked post, he's almost spot on. I'll add on that maybe you're just giving out to easily for the relationship to be worth it, granted i'm a guy with some tighter morals, so take my point with a grain of salt

>>17574041
Nobody gave a fuck about your rants because you post the same old tired debunkes graphs that are commissioned by religious pro-abstinence groups.

>>17574066
>source criticism
well, I think they adopt the convention of mathematicians, usually when they need to refer to their colleague's result and the number came up does not require any serious thought process to comprehend, i.e. it's completely intuitively obvious and does not contradict common sense, then they just skip this criticism, because life is short, you only have time to solve nontrivial problems. You might want to be pedantic and check every single bracket so that it makes sense for every set notion and how to write functions the most correct way but when you look in the mirror you realize you are already old and you still haven't proved your first theorem - that's a joke my teacher told me.

>>17573671

No

End story.

Dw, there are guys that would, but dont expect a great relationship with them tbqh, they are the kind of people that know girls come and go as they please and they act the same no matter what they say.

My gf has slept with 3 guys and even then i'm quite salty about it being a (slightly more than normal) conservative person.

>>17574097
Are you deliberately dishonest or just stupid?

The graphs and claims come from the religious group. The government merely produced raw data, from which the religious group cherrypicked what they wanted to support the conclusions they want to see.

A common tactic used by liars. They claim hurrr govt phd data, when it is nothing of the sort.

>>17573671
If we're fuck buddies? Hell yeah, I don't care. We meet, fuck, and leave each other to our business unless we want to fuck again.

Trying to pursue a relationship? Fuck no. All that says to me is if sex wasn't exactly everything you were expecting, you'll find someone behind my back. Hell, you might even do it even if you really did like the sex.

With that being said, some guys won't mind dating a girl with lots of sex partners so young, but keep in mind those kinds of guys are a lot more likely to cheat if you wanted something serious.

>>17574161
The same goes for men with so many sex partners. They signal the same thing.

>>17574168
I can't speak for gays, but that might be true.

If you're talking about a woman's perception, then that's plain bullshit. Women appeal to men who can 'claim' other women. The more they've been with, the more that girls wants to make him hers. That's just how shit works.

If you just mean how those guys would act? Then yes you're right it's the same.

>>17574179
As a woman's perception it's bullshit? I am a woman.

A female slut would say the same thing:

>Men appeal to women who can 'claim' other men. The more they've been with, the more that guys wants to make her his. That's just how shit works.

I am a woman who wanted to settle down. We don't want mansluts, we want guys who are competent and attractive who want something more from life than fucking anything with a pulse. Someone with higher standards. Virginity in a man if it's BY CHOICE (and he's obviously had opportunities) is attractive as hell. A man who sluts it up is not commitment material. The same goes for women.

>>17574155
wow, you are a fumbling retard who can't read. Whatever you think that post or link said... cherry pick what ? it only has a simple table of results. Feel free to cite whichever data that can be cherry picked there.

>They claim hurrr govt phd data, when it is nothing of the sort.
You are doing a bad job showing you are a mentally competent person in this discussion.

Good grief I'm out, the stupidity in this thread is rubbing off on me.

>>17573684
I encourage my friends to be real and judgmental of me when I deserve it, if you don't want to know other people's opinion then 1.) You might as well live in a bubble and 2.) Why are you on 4chan?

>>17574155
>A common tactic used by liars. They claim hurrr govt phd data, when it is nothing of the sort.
based tinfoil hat, show those religious nuts who actually know the truth.

>>17574196
I could go on an argument about how male virgins throw up a lot more red flags than female virgins, but that's not the topic.

The point is, my original post is about OP as a person. Sounds like you agreed, but wanted to make this about females, not just OP.

I'm just going to agree that OP is a slut and go to bed. Goodnight.

File: 1473054445013.jpg (60KB, 934x625px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 934x625px

>>17573683
>Red flag
Same here 11 is a little to many well my wife has had 7 and she's at 24 her friends have had like 20. They've counted before so your not that bad.

Most men don't like women who have a lot of sex because it makes men seem disposable and replaceable.

>>17573716
It has to do with biology and the reasons why people mate. Men spread seed, women have children. For a man, whose job is to "spread", more women in a short period of time is a biological "success." For a woman, whose mating purpose is to reproduce healthy, provided-for children, having more sex in a short period of time is a biological "failure," as no babies were made.

>>17574225
If a guy is charming and attractive, and has clearly had opportunities, it's not a red flag. You can tell if someone's so creepy that no one's wanted to have sex with them, it's not the virginity on its own that says that.

You were implying that you had casual sex but didn't want to settle down with people who had casual sex, thinking the standards for men are different (for low partnered women). They're not.

>>17574246
The healthiest children come from fathers who stick around to raise their kids. It's the optimal strategy for people who are family oriented. Since women can only have limited offspring each offspring's health is optimal, so a woman's best choice is a man who will stick around. Meaning, a man who is more choosy about who he has sex with, a man who doesn't just fuck for the sake of fucking, a man who wants a deeper emotional connection and bond as well. That's a man who sticks around.

>>17573727
>a pencil that's been sharpened is useless
What, you mean the other way around, a pencil that isn't sharpened is useless
Besides that analogy doesn't make sense

As for OP, honestly if you're an awesome person otherwise I wouldn't care personally, but it is always cool when it turns out the girl didn't have many sexual partners. Call me misogynistic but I think it speaks well of her. Then again I'm also a bit put off when it turns out the girl never had a boyfriend despite being, let's say, over 19 years old. Don't really care whether they had sex or not, I'd rather know somebody has put up with her for some months/years before.

>>17573686
Let says started at 15 that's someone new boning someone new EVERY 300 days. Some people like to used cars and some people don't

>>17574062
>>17574066
>>17574155
What is your problem. It is readily available from multiple sources with simple google searches. Sexual promiscuity is linked to poor marriage outcomes; there is no point in denying reality except to legitimize your adult adventures. Just deal with the consequences like a grown-up.

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=etd

http://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_2899_Marriage_Partners_Study.pdf

>>17573718
Studies shows positive correlation bewtween an increased amount of premarital sex partners and dissatisfaction in an eventual marriage

>>17573765
>It's because the whole topic of sex is still taboo to talk about.
t.fall of Rome

File: 1473282687550.png (224KB, 355x300px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 355x300px

>>17573671
Yeah that's fine. It could be daunting for some people who have had significantly less, and some of those people will pull a "she's a whore" line of thought, which shows that they definitely weren't worth it anyway.
There isn't really any such thing as having too many sex partners, that's what jealous and stupid people say to try and put their negativity onto you. There's a reason he's only had 2 and it's that he sounds like a pretty big loser, drop his ass

It's very sad to see people, especially women, buying into this bogus norm. Even if you had 1000 sex partners at 22, it might reflect on your character, but it wouldn't necessarily reflect poorly like people think. Imo lots of partners are almost always sign that you're more able to connect, which is a good thing.

>>17574335
That could easily be because sexual promiscuity is still stigmatized enough that only certain personality types are attracted to that lifestyle. Those studies are unreliable at best anyway

File: 1473432393347.png (18KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 500x500px

>>17573671
Hey OP don't act like a sweet ass nigger bitch. You're a Hoe and you know it. Accept it and don't frequently open ya legs. Regards- Jesus

>Would you still date someone who'd had 11 sex partners at 22?

Would I? I would try not to. You can't change it and it's not the end of the world but there is not a single guy out there that is happy to learn his potential gf fucked a bunch of guys. I'd rather date a girl who has had 1 or 2 long term boyfriends and maybe tried casual sex and decided it's not for her.

>>17573671
i 100% wouldn't date you because i have standards.

would i berate you for being sexually active? nah, you do what you want and have fun. if we were friends then the only time i would call you out on being a slut is if you were "woe is me" about not being able to find a decent guy.

would i drunkenly hook up with you? sure and then promptly get checked. as i wait for the results i would remind myself not to fuck sluts.

does that mean you won't be able to find someone to date you? of course not. there are plenty of desperate cucks that are willing to look past your adventures on the cock carousel assuming you're attractive enough. if you ain't even attractive then fucking kek, good luck being single or having to lie about your past to find a guy.

>>17574335
How many times do you need to be explained that those studies are done by religious groups with an agenda? They, and you, are jumping to conclusions you want to see.

Note how they talk about divorce rates. Nothing to do with happy marriages. Those who married virgins are stuck in an unhappy marriage because they are not allowed to divorce.

op just fuck when u want , who u want

if someone's mad at that they're probably just salt

but b careful of STI

>>17574340
No they don't. They show divorce rates. Not happiness. Virgin marriages are generally unhappy ones that they can't get out of.

>>17574540
got a source for that you libcuck?

>>17574545
The graph itself says they are divorce rates, not happiness rates. Projecting much, bitter virgin beta cuck?

>>17574484
>That could easily be because sexual promiscuity is still stigmatized enough that only certain personality types are attracted to that lifestyle. Those studies are unreliable at best anyway

I don't think less of someone when they don't understand the point of statistical research or science in general, but I still feel the need to say it is not to reveal "the truth", it is to create a predictive model, this is especially important for sensitive topics like metaphysics or social science where people can interpret data in many ways to suit their view regardless of their level of understanding on the topic.
Logically, if the sun came up yesterday, the sun came up the day before, and the day before, and every day before that etc. these are the only things we know about this phenomenon, does that mean we know for a fact that the sun will come up tomorrow based on that pattern ? No, we don't. This is a classical inductive problem, and every branch of physical science can be reduced to this form. In the end, the study only presents a pattern, its prediction and the degree of accuracy based on past data.
Do you believe the sun will come up tomorrow based only on such pattern ? you don't, fine, do you believe some marriage will fail if certain conditions are met, here's the pattern and its prediction that has been correct with some degree of accuracy in such and such years ? No, you don't. That's fine too. I just don't think it's fair to criticize the research when you don't understand that their conclusion is of a inductive nature, or scientific method for that matter.

>>17574553
>Virgin marriages are generally unhappy ones that they can't get out of
>Those who married virgins are stuck in an unhappy marriage because they are not allowed to divorce

you make a lot of agenda-laced assumptions for a faggot that's ultra butthurt about the integrity of scientific studies.

you're a fucking child.

File: stat5.png (73KB, 684x854px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 684x854px

>>17574553>>17574540
>>17574540
>>17574540
>>17574540
?

>>17574536
>How many times do you need to be explained that those studies are done by religious groups with an agenda

Really, your essential reasoning is, they must be wrong because they are religious with an agenda. This is classic ad hominem, dont expect to be taken seriously, just saying. Since I feel like most posts following this will be personal insults. (virgin, beta, cuck, etc.)

>>17573671
Yes, you are a roastie

>>17573671
Women have an easier time to get sex because men have a higher sex drive, nothing new. Women are also more selective so they'll only sleep with the top 10%. More news at 11. Wateris wet. The sky is blue.

>>17574565
It would help if they posted their data. But they never do. People who don't know jack shit about the scientific method are easily impressed by studies that support the conclusion they want, even without proofs.

>>17574563
If you would know basic statistics you would notice how cherrypicked that data is. Why pick only one single category (those who says very happy), and not happiness as a whole or average? That reeks of cherrypicking. Source data?

>how many marriages have i seen ruined due to promiscuity
i don't even count because there's just too many

>but it doesnt matter if they USED to slut it up, that doesnt mean they cheat
so you're telling me someone who fucked 20-30 people in the span of a couple years is just going to suit up for marriage and be completely monogamous? I'll take my chances with a partner who doesn't fuck everything they get the opportunity to.

why can't we admit that some people are not meant to be monogamous? why would you taint a supposed faithful relationship with your inevitable promiscuity?

I dated a girl who told me that between men and women (she was bi) that she had sex with about 10 different people when she was 18. Fucked with my head a bit and made me worry that I wasn't good enough but I was a softy back then.

I dumped her because she cheated on me. If you have a lot of sex partners it MAY mean you like sex a little too much and cant make choices about it properly which is what I'd be aware of.

>>17574573
yeah they totally need proof that their proof supports their view. I mean seriously, you should pick a consistent approach, like saying that they misinterpret their chart, or their chart is wrong and you know what the right chart looks like, either is enough.

>>17573671
I wouldn't hold it against you if I wanted to get my dick wet, but I would never consider you proper girlfriend material.

>>17574581
I have had two gfs. One had a bf before and some ONS. One was a virgin.

One of those two cheated on me. Take a fucking guess which one. Virgins are not at all faithful than non-virgins. It's a retarded meme.

>>17574580
By far the most common reason for divorce is financial infidelity. Not sex.

>>17574558
Social norms aren't like the rising and setting of the sun. Expectations shift, and in the case of premarital sex, quite rapidly. Numbers that held true in 1995 probably don't hold true today.
http://family-studies.org/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/
This article exposes some interesting trends, namely that 10+ wasn't predictive of higher divorce rates in the last decade, but is now. It's maybe interesting to speculate about causal factors, but they don't look like irrefutable, constant laws of humanity to me. Also a little annoying that people will point to a study from the 90s and act like it was perfect science and will always be true just because it happens to align with their agenda. Approach all studies and surveys like this with a skeptical eye, even if they make claims that you like to hear. I don't really have a horse in this race, but bad science kind of irks me.

>>17574602
irrelevant

>>17574611
>it goes against my beliefs!
>I'll call it irrelevant!

File: 1464237002478.jpg (30KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x450px

>>17574575
>Why pick only one single category (those who says very happy), and not happiness as a whole or average? That reeks of cherrypicking

Do you seriously believe they hide the data of "moderately happy" women and "slightly happy" women ? Perhaps there're only two options to tick in such survey "very happy" and "otherwise"

File: 1427522554270.jpg (42KB, 407x430px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 407x430px

>>17574615
says the faggot that disregards any study done by a religious organization?

>>17574615
>financial infedility is a more common cause of divorce therefore divorce due to promiscuity doesn't matter

your post has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. irrelevant.

File: stat6.jpg (255KB, 671x987px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 671x987px

>>17574573
>>17574575
>>17574588
I already posted two links to full reports. Have a better look. But here, have another one. You will discard it just as well since it does not fit with your paradigm. I have a fairly good grasp of statistics. Enjoy reading (you wont though), I am not going to spoonfeed you any more. If you refuse to break feminism and Disney conditioning you cannot be helped anyway.

>>17574619
They would have no problem showing the entire data right? I want to see the distribution of "very unhappy" and the other classes too. Why aren't they showing their statistics? Do they have something to hide?

File: stat7.jpg (110KB, 683x852px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 683x852px

>>17574638
Right, this just keeps getting better and better.

>>17574636
>study using data from 1965 to 1985
>by researchers at a religious bible study "university"

You must be trolling.

File: 1455717445936.png (32KB, 207x252px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 207x252px

>>17574575
>>17574573
>>17574563
>>17574553
If you want to this the easy way and not measure dicks the entire time, just look at this thread as a sample size for men and women.

look how many say they'd never consider OP's type for marriage versus those who said yes.

We don't care about the long term because of shifting morals, hell, what OP does could just be mainstream in 10 years (not saying it's generally okay)

I'll reserve my own judgement but you shouldn't be friends with dudes who would disrespect your decisions like that. Best case scenario he's an asshole worst case scenario it's a date rape waiting to happen

People that find casual sex fun are usually pretty boring to me. I have maybe one friend in ten that does.

>>17573671
>Would you still date someone who'd had 11 sex partners at 22?

no I would just pump and dump you that is all you are good for now.

>>17574643
Do you even statistic, virgin? That is a completely different question. Not the chart I asked for.

>>17573692
Any way I could be your 9th?

>>17574638
>I want to see the distribution of "very unhappy" and the other classes too

but that's retarded if their survey only has 2 columns "very happy" and "otherwise", (which is likely the case because it makes sense that they assume most women wouldn't be comfortable saying I'm unhappy in my marriage to strangers, and the ones who conduct the research would be stupid to include field like "moderately happy" because then he has to quantify the difference between "very" and "moderate" while the survey only aims to find a basic trend), if you have 40% very happy then you have 60% otherwise, these "otherwise" are not "very happy", so they say the trend is "very happy" goes down, and perhaps they should add one word into the name of the chart to satisfy this pedantry. I hope this makes sense to you.

File: 1461701126080.png (3KB, 284x115px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 284x115px

>>17574660
you'd be 12th, assuming anyone would ever bang someone that poor at reading comprehension

>>17573671
its a complete non-issue. like you said he is just sexually frustrated. i bet if he was getting laid at least once every few months he wouldn't be 'slut shaming' you.

dont listen to this guy >>17573695
they wont think its a red flag at all. if they do thats a red flag.

I really dont understand how having sex with 6 people or 20 people somehow reduces your relationship-worthiness.

>>17574665
The person he responded to said they had 8 currently. Get your reading comprehension checked, friend.

>>17574665
Nigger.

File: b95.jpg (37KB, 600x390px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x390px

Your friend. ..yeah. ...he wants your P. He's thirsty.

He's like "oh I want you"
You're like "I've fucked 11 guys"
Then he's like "11! I should prove I have a moral compass and standards to be deemed worthy of this. ....SLUT!"
And now you're like "WTF there's nothing wrong with me, asshole. Go fuck yourself"

And that's why he's fapping in the NSFW 4chan cat right now.

You do you, girl. Love yourself and be true.

File: 1457193510250.jpg (69KB, 660x520px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 660x520px

>>17574669
you've got me on that one

>>17573671
As long as you don't have any STDs and aren't fucking anyone on the side then it isn't an issue at all.

>>17574664
If someone makes a survey that only has "very happy" and "other" as choices, he should be fired. That is not how statistics work. But then again you are a bitter virgin full of wishful thinking and see what you want to see.

Post the full data, not this cherrypicked outlier.

>>17574666
Spot the Cuck: Beginner Mode

>>17574708
Spot the bitter virgin: beginner mode.

I don't know. I have only had sex with the two people I've dated (I'm about to turn 23), it probably wouldn't be a deal breaker for me but it would certainly put me off a little.

File: 1464612738394.gif (2MB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x200px

>>17574708
pretty much this >>17574716

>>17574606
is this the first link you post and its conclusion is still "The odds of divorce are lowest with zero or one premarital partners." kek and
>10+ wasn't predictive of higher divorce rates in the last decade, but is now

basically it agrees with the trend by the religious group with agenda showed.

>Social norms
>Expectations
Most of the articles posted have the form of a very simple experiment of outcome of a marriage depending on number of lifetime partners, we have a chart, a child can look at the chart and see the trend. What you are doing here is introducing ill defined terms that cannot be quantified into the study, all this does is somehow change the interpretation of certain numbers at most, but what is the point of that if the study only makes very simple conclusion in the form of a binary outcome: marriage fail or not, and how often it fails for some inputs.

>Also a little annoying that people will point to a study from the 90s and act like it was perfect science and will always be true just because it happens to align with their agenda. Approach all studies and surveys like this with a skeptical eye, even if they make claims that you like to hear. I don't really have a horse in this race, but bad science kind of irks me.

I do not believe for a second you know the scientific method from your post and you obviously have an agenda. You are basically arguing about criteria of some study without specifying what exactly is wrong or contradictory with their conclusion in well defined terms. Even the only link you can find doesn't support you. "bad" because it is from the 90s ? because a 0 in data from 90s means a 1 in data in 2000s ? I hope that's not what you mean. None of the data from the 90s claims that it holds today.

>>17574143
>religious pro-abstinence groups.
More like guys who fright want better quality women and not disgusting whores

>>17573697
11 people at 22, assuming she started at age 18, is 2.75 people a year. I wouldn't call that "sleeping with people pretty constantly."

>>17574666
>if they do thats a red flag.
Stop projecting, No it isn't
>I really dont understand how having sex with 6 people or 20 people somehow reduces your relationship-worthiness.
Because it shows you view sex as near solely casual act and that if you'd give it up for 20 guys what's one more to you make it 21, or 22, or 23 or... Having alot of partners also shows you most likely don't screen for any type of quality. Also sluts are way more likely to cheat. The woman who had sex with 6 guys would be better relationship material with the woman who had 20.

>>17574738
My first point is that the trend is mutable and changed every decade. You missed my point because you think I'm arguing one way or another, but I'll give you another shot to understand.

I don't accept the findings of studies without reading methodologies, and certainly don't spam 20 year old screenshots of studies I've never read on message boards.

I'm not arguing against the idea that "slutty girls are more likely to divorce you", but people itt seem pretty desperate to prove a point while only examining the issue at face value.

>>17574704
>If someone makes a survey that only has "very happy" and "other" as choices, he should be fired. That is not how statistics work

What principles of statistics are you using to come to this conclusion ? I am convinced you don't know even the most basics of the subject. I have outlined the practical reasons in my post >>17574664
Also feel free to contact NCHS to inform them of your opinion. I am sure you are in a vast minority though.

>But then again you are a bitter virgin full of wishful thinking and see what you want to see. Post the full data, not cherrypicked outlier.

I understand that personal attack is obligatory at when one is at wit's end, still there is no need for such hostility, I'm not the one posting the chart. I might be a virgin, I might be not, but I am definitely less deluded about my opinion and less triggered by some simple chart than you are, that much is clear.
Also please only use the term outlier when you have an idea or a proof of what you are talking about, you constantly demand proof, yet you never show proof that a bigger experiment on a larger sample exists (conducted by yourself maybe ?) that uses acceptable methods and that the aforementioned chart was "cherrypicked" from.
I mean obviously the one who posted the chart is unaware of this secret experiment, and you insist it exists. Is this pure faith ? Here's the raw data >>17574097 to start from.

>>17573671
You're a whore plain and simple & if you told me you fucked 11 different guys I would go ghost on you immediately.

>>17574233
check'd

>>17574738
Also the only point I was trying to make was about the instability of social data measured over a period of decades. The link I posted was literally the first link I found on google. change in social norms is "quantifiable" insofar as surgery results change across decades that you ask the same question. Again, don't give a shit about the great slut debate, but I found your tone/lack of critical thinking annoying.

>>17574842
*Survey results, typing from phone

>>17574801
im >>17574666

Im 26 and ive had 17 and a bit sexual partners. more than half of those were when i was between 20-21. just because someone has a "good year" doesnt mean it was quantity over quality.
I know plenty of girls who have had like 20 sexual partners and have never cheated in a relationship, nor have i cheated on any of my partners.
My first serious relationship was with a girl who had double digits compared to my 3 partners and not once did i think because she's fucked more guys she is going to cheat on me.
I dont agree that there is a direct link between how many partners and how likely someone is to cheat.

I think it really depends on the social circles you are accustomed to and a persons mindset.

>>17574805
>My first point is that the trend is mutable and changed every decade
Yes, that is the easiest catchall conclusion any person could've guessed, it allows ones to introduce ill defined terms that has no mathematical representation like "stigma and lifestyle". The interesting question is usually "what remain unchanged ?" and how to quantify them.

What I want to point this out that as far as I've seen, none of the articles posted actually made any assessment about the quality of the women involved, it is the use of ill defined terms like above that invariably led to this direction of discussion, and of course, the mandatory personal insults and ad hominem that doesn't even make sense.

>I don't accept the findings of studies without reading methodologies
Usually in any well established field, some methodologies became too basic and well understood amongst practitioners that it is contracted into one of two sentences or even omitted. They should have long list of reference at the end though. Say you are writing article on nonlinear optimization you wouldn't spend time explaining babby linear regression. Also, if you want to hold the public's interest you need to dilute the content and only present the most flashy, easily perceived graphical result.

>I'm not arguing against the idea that "slutty girls are more likely to divorce you", but people itt seem pretty desperate to prove a point while only examining the issue at face value.
I am not on any side of this debate either, but what irks me is how easily someone use terms like "unreliable at best" on some article they haven't read and don't even know its methodology. In fact you shouldn't have replied to my first response to yours.

God damn, wow. It's not a bad thing honestly, just wow. You got some game, woman or not.

This comes down to perspective and such, religious affiliation. Personal preference. Would I date said person? Depends on emotional connection honestly.

>>17573709

It's different per person


I have only had sex twice in the past 6 years. So if someone is changing partners every 6 months. That sounds like a fucking lot

>>17573766
This. Fell hard for a dude with very little experience and after a year he just decided to up and leave with no explanation, not even a courtesy call. Having a decent amount of experience myself with a few very long-term partners, I know for a fact shit would not have gone down that way if he'd had an equal amount of experience / maturity in a relationship as I did.

I do not go for dudes with less experience than I have, anymore. Hurts way too fucking bad.

>>17574842
>Also the only point I was trying to make was about the instability of social data measured over a period of decades
I thought anyone would know this despite the big words used they have very simple meaning, interestingly, like I said, it doesn't contradict a general trend outlined. Unless you disagree and would like to point out where exactly is the contradiction ? does any chart here implies that the way the public perceive some number would remain the same ? No. They are very simplistic. And they are meaningful.
What you hope to achieve is to somehow dismiss their meaning through what you thought to be a skeptical approach, but it isn't. It is the captain obvious approach. Introducing more parameters is good I agree with that. But can you call yourself critical of a simple theory when you haven't pointed out even once how its prediction might have larger error than the claimed error margin ? despite the theory itself is so simple ?

I don't think I am the one who lacks critical thinking here, I see something simple, I recognize its simplicity and its limitation, but I don't try to drive the discussion into a full blown social science analysis while the only thing involved is two sets of parameters. That's just silly.

>>17574879
Divorce rates aren't devoid of social context, it's about as intertwined to social context as you can get. Just because "value shifts" are difficult to quantify, doesn't mean we throw that out from our understanding of the world, or worse, naïvely draw conclusions without them. Which is exactly why I find the whole thing so uninteresting, maybe let some smart people unpack the human brain a bit more instead of tarding it up with bar graphs from 1995 on a mongolese basket weaving forum.

And yes, but I'll at least skim the study, see whether they're using some familiar methodology, look at the t-values. None of these bar graphs show standard error. You have no idea how many shitty studies I've read, esp. in the social sciences but even in bio or econ.

>>17574900

That is just pathetic. Because one dude fucked you over that means every single other will do same. Experience is not good measure here you should be able to judge the character by now and to even know in what state your relationship is at all times.

Oh and how do you tell who has lots of experience and who lacks it ?

it doesn't matter. no, it's not too many

no guy wants to know the truth about how many before him . . . and it's really none of their business

you do you

>>17574908
see >>17574906

>>17574900

Not the person you replied to, but..

I'm 27 years old. I've never had a girlfriend before. I've only had sex one time. And that was before I was legally old enough to buy a beer..

Based off your post. I shouldn't even attempt to meet girls, I should just keep doing my thing..?

>>17574908
>maybe let some smart people unpack the human brain a bit more instead of tarding it up with bar graphs from 1995 on a mongolese basket weaving forum

You aren't doing good job at showing you need to be taken seriously

>>17574922
Well I'm talking to someone who ironically used the word "kek" in an earlier post, just trying to speak his language

>>17574908
>None of these bar graphs show standard error
>standard error
>when the "measurement" is a simple arithmetic calculation number of people in set X / total number of people
wow they should also include double precision limit error, truncation error and round off error here ?
I'm not even the one carrying out experiment but I am sure he's not that illiterate.

>>17574939
Holy fuck take a stat 101 class

"Polling is simple arithmetic" omg why am I doing this >>17574939

>>17574944
Can someone who is redpilled back me up on this one, I feel like we're going off the rails now

>>17574944
Nope I haven't taken stat 101, but some how I still know that including standard error meant for either physical measurements or when there at least exists error propagation from different parameters when you are simply counting two numbers and divide them is really dumb. You have finally revealed yourself. No one who passed physics in highschool makes this mistake.

>>17574913
Yeah, I learned from that experience to be aware at all times. Of course I don't believe every person will be a fuckhead, but I do believe that my own needs and goals will lead me towards someone who knows firmly what they want out of a relationship. Usually having some experience is a good indication of the presence of that knowledge, considering figuring out what you want from a relationship generally takes some trial and error.

And you ask. You just ask.

>>17574917
Nah. I'm just one person on 4chan. All I can do is offer one flawed, subjective perspective on the issue. Coming from that perspective, "relationship experience" doesn't necessarily mean just sex or the number of partners. It can also mean how much thought and effort a person has put into thinking about what they want and who they are. I have had only a few partners, but I've spent many years with them and on my own gathering experience to figure out what I want.

>200 replies

I can't believe people fall for such blatant trolls

OP didn't even have to try to make himself believable, you retards ate this shit up like it was chocolate cake

Godamn this board is almost as easy to troll as /v/

>>17573671
Assuming you first started having sex at 16 (assuming from UK age of consent laws and you not being a slut who couldn't wait that long).
with those assumptions, in 6 years you fucked 11 people, averaging at nearly 2 a year, assuming you were in a relationship with each of the 11 people, that averages to about 6 months per person.

But the reality is that you probably weren't romantically involved with them all, probably not even half.
So yeah, you are a bit of a slut, the fact you had to try and hide behind "slut shaming" only proves that you are a slut

tl;dr ROASTIE KILL YOURSELF REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>17574955
I guess if you haven't googled "statistics standard error" between your first post and this post you're either trolling or too retarded to keep talking to

>>17574959
>Nah. I'm just one person on 4chan

The thing is, it seems like your opinion is pretty popular.. You're not the first girl I've heard this from

>>17574946
standard error is a systematic error you made when you have carry out a huge number of measurements and you have to take the average. In layman term it is "the width" of the distribution of results from this large set of measurements.
Suppose you have 1000 surveys from women, how many times do you need to count the survey that says "very happy" ? If you do that again and again like 50 times so that you need to account for standard error you might be retarded, like >>17574970.

Now I am waiting for his next retort. See how he can salvage this.

>>17573671
Let's just say I wouldn't shake your hand without having you tested for STDs first.

>>17574960
>implying people come here to give /adv/
>implying it's not just a soapbox to preach one's ethical superiority

>Girls saying it's none of his business
>tfw none of them have the guts to say this to a man's face and will instead lie

>>17574980
Dude, just google it. "Polling standard error statistics". It will bring things together for you. Here's a teaser, the distribution of a randomly chosen subset of your population will not always perfectly reflect the distribution of your whole population. Can't believe I'm getting this "burn the witch" treatment for asking for error bars on a graph, utterly mind-boggling

>>17575003
I wouldn't say "it's none of your business" I would just say I'm not going to talk about it.

>>17575008
And if pushed further?
Also, this thread is really heated so I just want to point out that I'm not gonna get emotional over the response.

>>17575018
I guess if pushed further it might get to the point of actually telling "it's none of your business" but it's not something I'm going to fight over. If that's a deal breaker for him, that's fine.

>>17575006
Wow, you cant even tell the difference of sampling error and standard error, and when it is applicable to graphical representation, that is even more mind boggling. I am certainly not an expert in statistic but this is like high school stuff m8

>>17574972
The longer I browse this board, the more I feel like women are just as jaded as men when it comes to relationships. The common thread through it all seems to me that everyone (who isn't bat-shit insane or abusive) is just looking for someone who will love them in a genuine way, someone who won't be an immature asshole and fuck them over in some devastating, heart-breaking way, which seems to be, perhaps unfairly, expected from those who don't have much experience. But experience comes in many forms. Even if the actual sex experience might be lacking, if a person demonstrates a high level of maturity and life experience in other ways, it can balance it all out.

>>17575024
Mind if I ask what the partner count is? Does a certain level of promiscuity cause that answer or do you think it could be anyone?

>>17575025
Standard error is a way of measuring standard error, try again retard

>>17575032
your definition really reflects how much you know about the concept.
Now tell me this, retard, how would you like to include standard error in any bar graph here ? when the only measurement is simple counting ?

Im 22 and my 24 yo girlfriend had 8 before me. She was my first. Couldn't ask for a better person for my first time. She took it really slow and wanted me to be as comfortable as possible, the number doesn't mean shit.

>>17575032
*standard error is a way of measuring sampling error, autocorrect

>>17575032
I mean what is the formula for this standard error ? you should know this at least right ?

>>17575031
0. I have had a boyfriend before though. I didn't care what his "count" was because it didn't really matter to me and I would rather be with someone of a same mindset.

>>17575043
Huh. That's unexpected. So you'd never let someone know that they are/were the first?

>>17573671
You're a fucking machine
wonder no one called you a slut in this thread

>>17575039
Assuming we're talking about standard error of a sample mean, s/sqrt (n). I'm ghosting from this dumbass thread, Google any followup questions you have

>>17573671
tell him to fuck off and date as many guys as you like. if he had the opportunity and he was good looking he would have a diff woman every night

>>17575048
Maybe in the moment it became immediately relevant but I obviously never ended up having sex with my first boyfriend so yeah.

Guy has sex with 25 girls = hero
Girl has sex with 11 guys = slut
There is a double standard when it is sex.
My girlfried was a virgin when we met buy if she had sex with 20 guys before me it's fine and we wil stil have a good relationship regardless. Don' t juge a book by it's cover. Sex is sex making love in not just about sex?

>>17574484
Thanks John Green. You saved this innocent baby girl from those naughty idiot bigot white male trolls who would stop her from being the strong independent womyn she was meant to be. Love your book man.

>>17573671
As a fellow femanon I have to say that being only 22 and having had 11 different dicks in you doesn't come off very well, especially to guys who are interested in you In ways other then just fucking you.

The men who wouldn't care about your past sexual exploits will most likely have been as loose as you, and wouldn't value sex as anything more then just getting off. If that's all you care about then cool, but you shouldn't expect to be treated any better then a cock sleeve.

Overall it comes off as bad. If a guy told me he has had sex with 11 girls he would come off as a man whore, if a chick said she has had sex with 11 guys then she comes off as a whore. If you wanna be loose with yourself and be "free" then you have to also except the consequences for your choices.

>>17574558
Take a statistics class. The point is that relation doesn't equal correlation, and correlation doesn't equal a causation, especially not in the direction the article claims

>>17573766
So what do I do if I am 24 years old and still a virgin? Am I supposed to date around to "figure out what I want"?

I haven't been without oppurtunities, I just didn't take them for various reasons. That and I want to do it with somebody I like and for some reason, possibly of my own doing I can't find a woman I really trust enough for that.

>>17574602
Yeah but
>70% of marriages where infidelity is discovered end in divorce

>>17573671
Lol, I'd date you, but it wouldn't lead to anything. I'd use you for a hole to cum in. Guys settle down with a girl with low low numbers. 11 is way too high at 22. And slut shaming is something that insecure whore white women in the US made up. Thank God I have the jungle fever. Black women are 10x hotter than white bitches, and they are loyal as fuck. And your male friend is a beta. He should be tapping that and smearing cum on your mouth.

>>17575060
>Assuming we're talking about standard error of a sample mean, s/sqrt (n). I'm ghosting from this dumbass thread, Google any followup questions you have

I understand that you might have taken statistics at some point in your life, but obviously you did terrible in this class, most of what you posted contain no understanding beyond googleable results.

Here is how to do it, I haven't taken any statistics class I swear, this is just intuitive to me: sampling error makes sense when your measurements are to be averaged over, i.e. average weight measurement: you have a sample of 100 k women, which you assumed to be your population, and you want to do a measurement on the average weight of, say 2k of them. This leads to difference in population average and sample average, But you dont apply it blindly like a retard to a survey where the only result that matters is the percentage of Yes in a Yes/No question, it doesn't even make sense to talk of population average in this case. So no, no amount of googling would help you do what you thought the "experimenters" should've done in this case.

>>17575080
Ah another person who want me to take statistics class. Pls read harder. I precisely made the point that no causation can be inferred, only data that WAS predicted, and compared. I am pretty sure you would understand me more if you read >>17574879
>none of the articles posted actually made any assessment about the quality of the women involved
>it is the use of ill defined terms like above that invariably led to this direction of discussion, and of course, the mandatory personal insults and ad hominem that doesn't even make sense.

and >>17574906
>I don't try to drive the discussion into a full blown social science analysis while the only thing involved is two sets of parameters

Adios amigos

>>17575078
This woman tells the truth.

>>17575118
You keep saying "I've never taken a stat class" and then proving it by spewing a paragraph of incoherent garbage. In the future you only need to do one of those two things and we'll still get the general point.

>>17575071
It takes ridiculous amount of effort and time to fuck lots of decent looking girls even if the guy is good looking and has things going for him. ANY girl has a full list of guys on call waiting to fuck them if she invites them over and spreads her legs.

I know of a 300+lb tub of shit who dyes her hair blue and wears basketball jerseys and jean shorts who has fucked at least 30 guys. The only guy I know who has fucked 30+ girls is an elite athlete whos tall and handsome and goes out to concerts, parties, and festivals every weekend. I used to work with a cartoonishly ugly obese 2/10 girl who had 3 kids from 3 dads and always bragged about fucking guys and parting.

Lock and key analogy makes perfect sense.

>>17575028
sex- and relationship-problems can usually be worked on when both can openly TALK about it and can accept valid criticism and feedback.

of course, unless the issues are rooted in abuse or trauma.

>>17575141
>ANY girl has a full list of guys on call waiting to fuck them if she invites them over and spreads her legs.
Right, a girl could fuck 11 guys every week if she wanted to.

So why is it such a big deal to have fucked 11 guys in 22 years of life?

>>17575139
would you like to point out which part of my exposition made you hostile ? I'm sure I made some error so people have something other than unintelligent insults to tell me. I think the matter is very simple. And I genuinely prefer a rational discussion. UNLESS the other person keeps driving it into a shit flinging contest.

>>17575146
I'm not saying 11 guys in at 22 is unacceptable. I'm just saying that calling out the double standard is ridiculous when theres an even bigger double standard when it comes to how difficult it can be to get laid.

Personally 11 guys at 22 is more than any girl I've deemed acceptable in my life but the only way I'd learn my potential gf has been with 11 guys is if we were pretty close. At that point I don't think I'd turn a girl down just for a number.

>>17575146
Lol, because that's what whores do. Girls that fuck 11 in a week are called community property. Yeah, go ahead and have all the equal rights to having sex you want. But youre gonna end up alone as a hag with a drug addiction, a loose pussy, and a kid or two that has hep c when you give it to him while he was in the womb. Guys look for low number girls later in life while fucking as many practice girls as possible before settling down. Just the way it is.

>>17573671
I hope it's not too many. I'm 22 and I've had 10 partners, but the 11th one might be tomorrow. (Date is planned, we'll see)

>>17575164
And I'm pointing out that even what you would deem a "slut" turns down more sex in a month than you'd ever get offered in your entire lifetime. But you refuse to think about this from any perspective besides your own.

>>17575153
It's annoying to talk to someone who doesn't even want to do a small amount of research to understand what I'm saying. I can't even parse that large paragraph once you get to "I don't apply it to a survey like a retard" or whatever you wrote. Like, your post didn't even give me a point to respond to. Maybe you should join the Google knowledge club, it's a swell place to be.

>>17573909
This is what you'll hear for the rest of your life, OP. Before the guy nexts you.

>>17575175
No I fully understand. She has more more sex partners because she has access to more sex partners and she is possibly even more selective because of this. That changes nothing to me though, what matters is that she fucked a truckload of guys instead of being in stable relationships.

>>17575153
Stop arguing from intuition, my main point here is that smart people have already figured a lot of this stuff out, so maybe get off 4chan and pick up a book.

"What's the definition" "here's the definition " "hurr durr Google everything you took a class on stats once"
give me a fuckin break

>>17575175
And my point is the only thing that matters is that you marry a girl with a low sex partners # , and tap as many hos as you can before. Lol, ya, you turn down offers from lots of betas. ^_^ that rancid coochie

>>17575191
Hahahaha, absofuckinglutely!! The ONLY thing a guy cares about in a longterm partner is looks, loyalty, and a low number of previous sex partners. That is IT! Hoes gonna be hoes. Marry a real woman instead of a cum guzzling white slut.

>>17574960
Fucking kek I was just lurking this thread when I came across this comment couldn't be more true

>>17575215
The "trolling" doesn't matter if it's real or just to stoke debate. It's just a discussion. You think anyone actually cares about OP?

The average over a lifetime for women is like four, so yeah, you're a slut

People are acting like most guys only want pure virgins, it's not the fact that she's having lots of sex, she could've only been with one guy and had more sex than someone who slept with 25 guys. It's the fact that she may not value commitment as much as you do, she may have an STD, she may fall out of love with you faster than average.

It's just too much risk, my dad was a manwhore before marrying my mom and when I was 6 he took me and my baby brother away from my mom to a "business trip" and fucked a hooker while I slept on the bathroom floor because the bedroom was too loud. Whores aren't worth the risk if you value loyalty.

>>17575247
>she may not value comitment
>she may fall out of love faster

These right here are what I am concerned with when I hear a girl say she's slept around a lot of been on a lot of dates.

I guess it's par the course for things not to work out with everyone but when I know you've been with a lot of dudes I get concerned because I know you aren't the type to fight for a relationship to work out and would rather just let it die because you stopped feeling it. More power to you but I'm one of those beta males who really values monogamy so yeah.

File: received_1007762102587368.jpg (24KB, 477x479px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 477x479px

Ugh slut shaming

I wouldn't take a date with a women that had about 11 sexual partners seriously.
mostly i'd be using her for sex and kthxbye.

>>17573671
well, he's right and wrong.
11 is ridiculously high for someone that still has her peak sexual years ahead of her.
But there's no real thing as "too many partners" because it really only matters how you handle the now, not the past.

But odds are, if you've had that many at such a young age that you are likely using sex to fill some emotional void, and unless you remedy that, then you won't be able to get into a real relationship for quite some time. Or if you do, you won't be able to keep it.

When men hear a big number so young, it does give them legitimate pause, as it could mean you aren't clean. The same if the genders are reversed of course.

My suggestion is to abstain for a few years, and when you get into your next relationship, wait at least several months before jumping in.

The "Oh, yeah, years ago I used to be promiscuous until I cleaned up my act" at, say, 24 years old won't raise too many flags, especially if a guy is really interested in you.

Remember, sex is the most vulnerable you can ever be. You're naked and literally letting someone else put something inside of you. If you are quick to put yourself in potential harms way, that's the turnoff far more than the mere fact that many dicks have been inside of you.

Also, this presumes that your "sexual partner" number is actual sex. If it's more... sex-adjacent, then don't feel like you need to put a number on those.

>>17575267
No, you call her hey whore/ hoe.

>>17575177
>>17575192
oh so it's you again, huh ? thought you gave up.
And nope I understand perfectly what you are saying, you just haven't thought hard enough about it.
>smart people have already figured a lot of this stuff out, so maybe get off 4chan and pick up a book
Now that's just condescending, I agree with what's written in books, I don't agree with you since you have a weak grasp on the subject.

>your post didn't even give me a point to respond to

well here it is, I'd say it again, how do you find the sampling error of say, 100 women sample taken from a population size of 1000 women, when we have exactly one measurement assigned to this set: the percentage of women who ticked yes in a yes no question. And the measurement is done by counting.

You said you trust smart people who figured this out, well I don't trust them, yet in the end I came to the same conclusion as them: there is no need to include sampling error in the graph and one could easily carry out the measurement on the whole population.

You are confusing a set where each element has a value and we need the average, with a value simply assigned to a set.

>>17573735
>Are you just supposed to go for years without sex?
Literally everyone does this
It's only young people who seem to think it's odd.
Most people who get into long term relationships and then have a falling out won't even consider dating for several months.
If you get married and divorced (which is a lot of people) then I can guarantee you, you're going years without sex (sometimes leading up to the divorce)
People who get upset because "they shouldn't have to go without sex" are clearly looking to sex as something other than simply a way to feel good. You've got ways to stimulate yourself naturally, or you can buy toys to help, hell when most couples have babies, there's at least a 6 month, if not a 9 month gap of sex despite being in a good relationship, simply because the woman's ability to enjoy it is so diminished while all the other stuff is going on.

If you want to go out and sleep around, that's your prerogative. But if you (the general you, not specifically you) can't deal with not having sex indefinitely, at any time in your life, then you probably need some self help (or, in bad cases, full blown therapy)

Dry spells is nothing that any healthy individual cannot handle and still be happy.

OP here. Holy shit this thread exploded lol!

>>17575282
I don't think I'll be able to abstain for a few years. Maybe lying is better?

Would you break up with a girl if she had lied about her number? What about if she just wouldn't tell you?

>>17575282
Lol beta phaggot. Never EVER date a whore like that. They are only good for one thing if they've had 11 sex partners before they are 20...wiping cum off on their face.

>>17575308
I would break up with a hoe if they told me you had slept with so many guys. Or use you....haven't decided yet.

>decide to try online dating a few years ago
>put lots of effort in to texting this 19yo girl for 2 weeks
>finally get her over and have sex
>best bj i ever had so i comment on it afterwards
>she goes on a tirade about sexual liberation and how she's a nympho and all that crap
>i ask how many guys she's been with
>she says she doesnt count anymore but it's at least 30 because tinder
>this bitch convinced me not to wear a condom because she's on the shot
>feel disgusted with myself and her
>never talk to her again as soon as she leaves

sluts should be shamed more desu.

>>17575308
>I don't think I'll be able to abstain for a few years. Maybe lying is better?Would you break up with a girl if she had lied about her number? What about if she just wouldn't tell you?
Full disclosure, I married a virgin while I was not one, but between my previous sexual partner and when I got married to my wife (we waited until we were married) was 5 years.

I would dump a girl that had lied about her number for sure because that means she's comfortable lying about something to control my behavior, and that's completely unacceptable.
If a woman simply said up front "I don't talk about my sexual history unless we get really serious" then it's fine. Then I know going in that she'll eventually tell me, and I have to play it accordingly.

I've dating girls at all levels of sexual experience, and one I found out even dated a friend of mine years before I met either. That girl lied about everything to control me (see point one)

A girl who knows her number isn't a great one, and is making an effort to change, and is honest is a pretty good girl, IMO.

It still sounds like you might be using sex to cope with something though, especially if you are also considering lying to cover it up.

>>17575319
>19
>she says she doesnt count anymore but it's at least 30 because tinder
there are porngirls with less dicks in them, shit.

>>17573671

Honestly it's your own business. The only issue with getting into a relationship with 11 sexual partners is that your future partner may question your intentions for getting into a relationship. They may think that you may be interested more in sex than anything else.

To be quite honest, the limited sexual partners mentality was brought about back when birth control wasn't a thing, and having many sexual partners meant there would be kids being born left and right without two parents to raise them properly, leaving a bunch of orphaned degenerates running around who hate themselves and everyone else.

BUT if you have a good head on your shoulders and are responsible with birth control and getting tested for STD's, just live your life and look for someone who share's your interests, QT 3.14.

>>17575319
>>>
>Anonymous 09/16/16(Fri)22:56:24 No.17575324▶
On what shot? You mean like intravenous contraceptives? A friend of mine who suffered from severe psychiatric problems took that instead of the pill.

>>17575313
This thread isn't "Hey guys, should I date someone like that"
it's "Hey, I'm someone like this, is this bad, and if so, how do I fix it"
I'm not giving advice to the guys that might date her, I'm giving advice to her.

>>17575299
>>17575299
I didn't say read a stats textbook and blindly accept it, but you should read one so you know "what else is out there", like how a devout mormon might read a text on evolution.

Here's a thought experiment. You have a pool 1000 people who respond to a yes/no survey. You ask 20 of them whether they said yes or no. By sheer chance, 15 out of 20 were people who responded yes. You don't have time to ask 1000 people. How can you quantify your certainty in your 75% yes estimate? How much variation can you expect if you were to repeat the experiment a few more times. All interesting questions. Hmm if only there was some way to quantify these things and conveniently display them on a chart

Do sex partners include one night stands and such?

>>17573671
Idk, but just know I'm fucking your puss mentally right now, bitch

>>17575319
You should have slapped her with your cummy dick first, then the back of your hand while she was on her knees dude. Good info for next time. What a fucking whore. Sorry brah.

>>17575319
get yourself checked.
and I'm sorry you had to discover that womens lib has inadvertently created an excuse for women with emotional issues to use sex as a way of self medicating.

>>17575339
Obviously?

>>17575333
birth control as a whole does pretty awful things to women, particularly causing depression or other emotional imbalances.
and they don't protect from STDs
I highly suggest condoms if you're going to sleep with people outside of a tested committed relationship.

>>17575349
Lol, yeah, you're a whore.

Honestly, I stopped counting how many guys I have slept with when I realized that it's not a number to be ashamed of. I don't need to measure my worth by a number.

>>17573671
yes and no.

i don't usually have conversations with friend girls about how many people we've had sex with. but my relationship with them isn't the same as with most guys. most guys are really open about their thoughts and ego. and most guys are all over their friend girls and THEY get friend-zoned and sexually frustrated. whereas it's somewhat of an opposite for me.

that being said, the question doesn't usually come up on dates, either. so i'd probably know of her sex history AFTER we started dating or being bf/gf. i just don't feel the need to converse with a friend girl about that topic. i hold some sense of refrain with this, for better or worse. and if any girl brings up erotic topics to me, it's always kinda flirty and juicy. like they know we have potential for a future relationship.

i've been with over 20 females and i'm 23. i've had 3 gfs.

i know some girls our age who've only been with 2 or 3 guys who were ex's. you can kinda tell they are inexperienced- just saying.

i think a lot of people only have sex with their bfs/gfs because that is where security within being sexually deviant is at. that's what they were mentally comfortable with and drawn towards since puberty.

i know some guys who just don't know how to hook up. so they basically only get laid when they have a gf, yet they have allll these friend girls. nothing wrong with that, just saying.

>tl;dr
>i'd date someone with 11 sex partners at 22. i don't find it extreme or anything. it's actually quite normal and acceptable in my city. sounds like you guys are from a smlal suburb.
>also this guy obviously wants you.

>>17575339
Those are the worst ones, those are the ones that count. No one minds if a girl fucked all 5 of her boyfriends.

>>17575361
that's all fine and dandy until the guy you may potentially love is disgusted by your actions.

>>17575361
Lol, this is def one of the new age progressive whores. You know the number bitch, you're just trying to forget before the tears come at night.

>>17575363
>i've been with over 20 females and i'm 23. i've had 3 gfs
I feel sorry for you. It's going to be so hard for you to settle down for real now.

>>17575374
it's not that i want to anytime soon. it's not hard to stay committed. if i did plan on that then i'd seek out relationships differently and focus on my finances and health pertaining to settling down with a family.
>ideals

>>17575364
this is true, but having a lot of boyfriends at a young age is also bad because it adds the stigma of not being able to make a relationship last.

If you have more than 2 boyfriends/girlfriends In a year, you're moving too fast and need to slow down.

>>17575377
>it's not hard to stay committed
how could you possibly know with those numbers?
It's not like each of your 3 girlfriends could have been 2+ year relationships, with the 27 other girls in between them. You'd have to have been dating seriously since you were 13.

>>17575383
He's a man, he's allowed to fuck hoes.

>>17575338
Yes, you are describing a well known procedure, though I doubt you know how to apply it in this case since I don't think you understand my question. The assumptions are:
>we have exactly one measurement assigned to this set
>one could easily carry out the measurement on the whole population

File: sloot.jpg (124KB, 576x588px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 576x588px

yes that is too many partners
our puritan forefathers would be fking ashamed of you and burn you at the stake
also i am a man and had more than that at your age
but its okay because i found some golden plates in upstate new york that said i could have as many wives as i wanted

sloot

>>17575383
i've never felt the need to cheat. i don't believe in cheating. i don't believe in hooking up with a girl if she is in a relationship. i keep my word with people by making realistic goals and achieving them.

we hold different ideals. assuming one single guy who's been with over 20 doesn't mean he is any less-committed than a guy who's been with let's say 4 girls. it implies it.

the difference is wanting a gf versus not wanting one.

>>17575392
That's a meme, not a real thing.
Millennials are having less sex than any other generation.
Do you really think it's all because of the women?

Started at 18, had 5 relationships that lasted few years, never cheated, ended for various reasons, on god terms. # was in triple digits by 30. Been abstinent for a year.
Got tested every six months, always used protection.
Anyone who judges had their own biases. What they say is never a reflection of you, but a reflection of them.
The only one who can judge if it's right or wrong. If you feel it's wrong, then just stop. If not, just be careful & safe. Don't share any information with anyone if you don't want to. Someone who cares bout you should respect your privacy.

>>17575400
It's because millennials are beta pussies. I define millennials as being born after 92 btw

>>17573671
My rule is you have to be able to count all your partners using 2 hands (10 digits).

>>17575399
I think you're using "committed" when you mean "faithful"
Committed is sticking to one thing to see it through, and as far as relationships go, references how serious and long term a relationship is.
Faithful is the "no cheating on people" thing.

Breaking up with someone cause you want to go fuck another girl is still being faithful, but it's definitely not being committed.

>>17575403
You...
what?
You are literally excluding over half of all millennials.

>>17575403
Millennials are anyone born from 1980 to 1999.

People only care about that shit when their number is less that their SO's.

>>17575409
Because, I'm generation y, which is the proper term for what faggots nowadays call millenials. Imo, millennials are 92 to now. Or even 00 to now. Its all this skinny jean wearing, care what girls think, acting like loser behaviour that isn't getting yalls dicks wet. Stop protesting bullshit, crawl out of your mothers cunts or your safespaces and act like a man.

>>17575418
>Its all this skinny jean wearing, care what girls think, acting like loser behaviour that isn't getting yalls dicks wet
that's just hipsters and numales.
Those are 25-35 year olds.
Millennials.
You just keep telling yourself they're a separate, younger group than you because you don't want to be associated with them.
But you sure do whine like they do.

82 here, definitely not a millennium

>>17575426
>hipsters and numales
you mean boys with no balls

I am 21 and have had over 100 sexual partners- the first at age 16. I'd guess about 85-95 men and 20-25 women.

I have been dating and only having sex with the same person for 3 years.

It's totally fine to hook up with people. I think the victorian sex-shaming mindset is really outdated and sad. If you wanna fuck that hottie you saw at the bar, you go girl, you do the damn thang.

>>17575428
Sorry, you are a millennial.
You literally became legal age on the millennium. That's pretty much the definition. Millennials are the first adult generation of the new millennium.
If you had older siblings like me (I'm also 82) then you probably picked up a lot of Gen Xer habits, but anyone who was an oldest or only child in 82 is going to be pretty similar to the rest of millennials.

>>17575426
Lol, you must be a beta faggot. I'm not whining, just telling people to grow the fuck up and get their dick wet and stop all this bullshit "changing the world" go fuck yourself and trump and hillary while youre at it. 86 here. No, I have nothing in common with these libs.

>>17575406
>I think you're using "committed" when you mean "faithful"
nope.
>Committed is sticking to one thing to see it through,
no shit. apply this to long term serious relationships. autizmo you are.
>and as far as relationships go, references how serious and long term a relationship is.
umadbro?
>Faithful is the "no cheating on people" thing.
and being Committed to being Faithful pertaining to that is the thing.

>Breaking up with someone cause you want to go fuck another girl is still being faithful, but it's definitely not being committed.
you are again implying breaking up means i would want to fuck another girl while i was in a relationship. that contradicts the fact i stated, and your point is invalid.

>>17575436
you can say this all you want but everyone else thinks you're disgusting

>>17575406
>Breaking up with someone cause you want to go fuck another girl is still being faithful, but it's definitely not being committed.
you are throwing these two key words around. you are really autistic.

>>17575406
>breaking up with someone to have sex with someone else is still being faithful.
Lmao. That is some of the most twisted logic I've ever seen. Are you a roastie?

>>17575395
The assumptions you outlined would not cause you to deviate from standard polling practices. "You can easily carry out the measurement on the entire population" the point of polling is that you haven't. Whether it's "easy" to carry out is ill-defined and irrelevant. Ever hear of election polling error? I wonder what that relates to?

17575444
speak for yourself....

>>17575436
the hedonistic sexual free-for-all is the outdated mind set.
If you've been having sex with the same person for 3 years, that means in two years you had 120 sexual partners.
That's 60 per year.
That's literally a new partner every 6 days or so.
Can you seriously say that's "no problem"
It's so high that it's hard to believe anyone could pull that off as a mere teenager.

>>17575436
Over 100 at 21? How the fuck does that even work? And is that even enjoyable?

>>17575439
>libs
hipsters and numales are just as likely to be libertarian as liberal.
you can call me a beta faggot all you want. I still get to fuck my wife several times a week, so what the fuck do I care?
No one gets THAT angry about hipsters and numales unless they're defensive about something. So what's your issue? Why does it bother you so much that your generation doesn't behave like you think it should?

>>17573686
I would, and I am female.

Then again, to me sex does not come easily unless I trust the person and have been in a relationship for many months. That is just my opinion, you're free to fuck however many people you want imo if that's your belief and if you don't hurt other people emotionally in the process.

I'm married, but I've only had 2 partners (including him) all my life.

But if you both seek the same things from sex, then there is no issue. Obviously in this situation sex doesn't mean the same to him as it does to you, so at least you found that out to break it off.

>>17573671
>Would you still date someone who'd had 11 sex partners at 22?

From my experience, chicks's partner count directly correlated with how emotionally unstable they were, the more promiscuous - the more batshit crazy. Women are hard enough to deal with already, so I'd rather fucking die alone than marry someone who has fucked so many at such a young age.

>>17575442
that's an awful lot of defense, but I think I've made my point that you don't know you can be in a committed relationship.
You're confident you can be, but you don't *know* which is my point. Once you've done it, you'll have some room.

>>17575453
they probably did a lot of drugs and had some orgies, so they'd knock out 10-15 guys in one weekend, and then do that once a month during summer.

>>17575467
My insecurity is never having been in a real long-term relationship. I've never been with anyone for longer than a few weeks.

>>17575476
Maybe don't enter the physically intense part of the relationship before you learn what commitment entails, from both parties.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/here-is-when-each-generation-begins-and-ends-according-to-facts/359589/

>>17575476
it's easy. just don't fuck them for 2 months until you're sure you like each other

>>17573671

Male here one year older and double your partners.

First of all, to slut shame you is a fucking vile thing to do let alone from your friend. He is certainly an insecure prick who needs to learn how basic respect of people works.

Personally it doesnt matter how many but rather who with and why they had sex. And also if they have been tested. If they went out and bought prostitutes because they had low self-esteem i would be less interested in the person. Or if they were running away from something by using sex to distract them that is problematic But if they genuinely liked sex and found safe and comfortable partners which they got along with then it is merely a number.

>That's literally a new partner every 6 days or so.
There is a limit to when the absolute number has a why behind it that is bad. A new partner every six days is indicative of something emotionally wrong with an individual.

But if you had one new sex partner every 3 months for a span of 4 years, it doesnt mean anything bad so long as you are emotionally and physically healthy.

Dump that friend.

>>17575490
t. Future "How do I stay committed" thread starter

>>17575476
well that's your answer.
You're jumping into bed way too fast. If you've never had a real relationship before (a few weeks doesn't count, I'm sorry) then abstaining from sex is a great way to figure out if you'll work with them. Sex takes up time, and in the early phase of a relationship, the more time spent making out and having sex the less time you actually spend building the relationship.
in 5 weeks you're basically still strangers if you bang every time you see each other.
It sounds like you just weren't aware of how powerful of a change sex really has on the relationship (a common issue for young, so don't feel bad).
What is usually the reason things don't last, if you don't mind me asking?

>>17575444
I disagree; it's never been more appropriate. we have banana flavored spermicidal lube, condoms, IUDs, tubal ligation, birth control, implants, patch, vasectomy all pretty cheap, and are able to cure the majority of STDs. it's never been safer to fuck everything that moves!

my boyfriend's had 30-something partners. it's pretty common- people just don't talk about it openly because a lot of folks have the same sexual views as my great-grandma.

>>17575451
>new partner every 6 days or so.
>It's so high that it's hard to believe anyone could pull that off as a mere teenager.

Do tell me more about how a hot 16 y/o girl would have trouble getting laid once a week.

>>17575453
It was about 18 months total of sexual activity- that is, not counting times when I was in a monogamous relationship. Thats... 540 days, so about one partner every 5 days; so one or two each weekend. I had an extremely high libido in high school. Really tell me- if you had been able to fuck every single one of the hottest girls- the volleyball players and cheerleaders, they were all fucking drooling over you, you'd probably do all of them. Sex is fun. Sex with attractive people is even more fun. We all have different priorities, and that's ok. Mine was getting laid lmao. It was a load of fun, and I value the experience. It's made me very sexually confident, and given me a unique perspective on human sexuality.

>>17575472
ehh i've only had 2 threesomes- both entirely sober. some people just like sex

>>17575488
guess what morons, generations are arbitrary meaningless bullshit.

"millennial" is a word that sounds youthful and vaguely perjorative, and so people say it in order to describe young people who they don't like.

>>17575490
>dump that friend
this shit needs to stop
"slut shaming" is usually applied to people who are just being rude/angry when pointing out the legitimate concern with the dangerous and unhealthy behavior their friend displayed.
If you want to have good friends you HAVE to be able to look past when they're offensive and see the reasons and emotions behind it. To cut them out because you don't like the type of rhetoric they use is silly.

Also, every 3 months for 4 years is pretty bad because it means you're not building any relationships and becoming detached from something that is a huge part of a relationship. Even having a long term fuck buddy is healthier than a random hookup every season.

>>17575490
lol you're a gigantic fucking hypocrite.

>>17575308
>I don't think I'll be able to abstain for a few years
See. This is why people slut shame. You have no goddamn self-restraint or discipline. I sincerely hope you're not planning on getting married or having children.
> oh no, it looks are not as forgiving of my poor choices as I thought they would be
>what to do? I know, I'll lie?
Kek. You're a disgrace

>>17575508
You didn't have a high libido. You were clearly using sex as a self esteem booster.
Were you that worried about not being valued if you were ugly? Were you teased as a kid or something, or did you just have a desire to "prove" how you were better than others?
You should probably see a therapist, I think it's too much for /adv/

>>17575490
Why is having a new partner every six days indicative of emotional problems? Maybe that person just likes to have sex with different people frequently. If that's what they enjoy doing, I don't see a problem.

Meanwhile, finding one new person every couple of months is infrequent, yet persisting behavior.

If somebody goes out to drink every week, that's not necessarily a problem. If somebody goes for months without alcohol and then suddenly binge drinks, that could be far more destructive behavior.

>>17575308
>can abstain
Then this has taken on a whole different tone. This is sex addiction. Why lie? That is even worse.

If you cannot abstain, then you have a psychological addiction which needs attention.

Of course, if you are in a long term relationship this doesn't matter. You can fuck all you want. As long as it is with someone you've established a long relationship with.

>>17575528
lol you're a joke. I'm not that slut, but seriously, "I'm not a therapist but I'm going to psychoanalyze you anyway and tell you what your behavior means based on some 4chan posts".

>>17575534
>If that's what they enjoy doing, I don't see a problem.
a hell of a lot of behaviors that are indicative of emotional problems are what people like doing.
>If they get drunk once a week, maybe that person just likes to have a good time, I don't see the problem
>If they get stoned once a week, maybe that person just likes to relax, I don't see a problem
>if they go gambling once a week, maybe that person just likes to test the odds, I don't see a problem
>if they go street racing once a week, maybe that person just likes the thrill, I don't see a problem.

"Having a good time" and "engaging in extremely risky/unhealthy behavior to have a good time" are two different things.

>>17575544
What is extremely risky and unhealthy about having protected sex with lots of people?

>>17575541
>offer a vague conclusion based on post
>ask a couple questions
>comment that it's probably too serious for 4chan
And that's absurd why?
and if you weren't the person I was responding to, why did you respond claiming that the person was a hot 16 year old girl back when they had all the sex?
You can't get mad at people for mistaking you for another anon when you answer on their behalf with an imaginary scenario.

>>17575540
>if you aren't willing to not do something, it means you're addicted.

loving your retarded armchair psychology

>>17575546
you sound like a sex addict. why do you need to fuck so many different people?

>>17575546
Because you don't know all of those people
the mere act of sex is to make yourself extremely vulnerable.
purposefully exposing your vulnerability to individuals that you haven't been able to gauge the risk factor is, well, risky.

>>17575555
Not that anon, but he was commenting on her saying she was unable to, not unwilling to.

>>17575552
Oh yeah "I'm just asking some questions".

No shitbag, you're clearly fucking SEETHING at the idea that this girl had lots of sex as a teenager and you didn't.

Your concern trolling doesn't conceal your virginal rage.

>>17575561
Have you confused me with another anon?

>>17575560
I don't think I'll be able to abstain from eating pizza for the next few years. Guess I must be a pizza addict.

>>17575563
No, I haven't, you fucking idiot.

>>17575557
What are the risk factors?

Oh no if I get naked in bed with this person, they might pull a knife on me.

>>17575564
You must be. Or pregnant.

>>17575575
You're joking right? Sexual assault for one. Being up for sex doesn't mean you're up for whatever they want to do to you.
that's not even counting the darker crimes.