Am I the only person that is off put by sluts...? Not even sluts

Go date a mormon if you're looking for your ~perfect virgin waifu~. That or just don't ask.

>>17785437
>And usually the number is higher than mine
Yeah, it's because you have a confidence issue.
I'm a female, and it's off-putting when men tell me they've been with a lot of women too.

But it's pretty fucked up you try to make them feel bad to make yourself feel better.
And it's pretty crappy to keep calling them "slut".

If it's that big of an issue for you, then idk, don't date them.
But it could also be because to you sex is a valuable, intimate, romantic thing only to be shared with people you love.
Which I mean, that's great, but sex isn't like that for a lot of people.
If they're happy, they're happy. Don't rain on their parade.

The reason society "praises" "sluts" is because they're shamed so much for not having a certain view of sex.
Some people see sex as this special thing, but some have a looser value of it.
Both sides are ok, neither one is better.
If you want someone who doesn't have a loose outlook of sex, then don't be with someone who is as such. Plain and simple.

File: Untitled.png (145KB, 943x650px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 943x650px

>>17785461
Sorry if I'm being confusing, I'm really tired lol.

Basically, it's ok for you to be turned off by women not having a certain standpoint of sex
But it's also ok for women to have that standpoint of sex, you know?
Everyone is different, so accept that and don't shame people for having a different standard/belief when it comes to sex than you do.
Like shaming that person isn't going to make her any more right for you or you any more right for her.
If it's that important to you, just move on and don't make a big deal about it.
Invest your energy into finding someone who's right for you

no I feel the same, and I made it known to these two sluts I was having the exact same conversation with. They then try to belittle me by saying im sensitive and all that shit but in reality, I'm just normal and it is them who is trying to justify their slutty behaviour.

>>17785495
> I have no feeling for the girls I slept with before
Then you're just as bad as them. Maybe you dislike them because you feel guilty for your actions.
Seek therapy or something man :(

Idk if you'd have me OP, but I'm a female that has had sex with many guys (17) and I've only had one guy I met that day and slept with.
Everyone else I saw on several occasions.
I have an issue letting go of people, so I stay on a casual basis with people for prolonged periods of time (think years).

If you don't want to know my number is 17, don't ask. Most people don't ask, and if they do, I dodge it by asking why they want to know, like do they want to know when I was last tested for STDs? I can provide that information. Do they want to know about kinky things I've tried? I can tell them specifically if they give me more info. I guess I don't feel like the number means much. It's like asking someone "how many books do you keep at your house?", like, does it really matter?

>>17785461
She summed it up perfectly. Same as you anon, and it's all a confidence issue.
So far, I patched things up in my mind by realising that I'm not as loser as I think and that I can get girls into me. I won't shit far with that, it's a duct tape patching job, but right it does the trick and I'm feeling the best since the last 2-3 years.
You're not forced to date these women. Let em be and try to find someone who meets your standards. Shaming them is really beta, it's quite retarded and immature ("If I can't be happy, then you won't be too").
And if it's that much of an issue for you, go get some pussy on tinder or something. Become what you hate so you won't feel belittled talking to them.

>>17785437
Yes, you're the only guy on the planet that doesn't like sluts.
But on a serious note, just ignore them. I'm looking to wait for marriage and the best thing I did was stop getting caught up on frustration. Ask, if you don't like the answer just end it, no point in getting all upset.

>>17785461
>>17785475
Thanks for the reply.
I do feel bad for shaming them after...and I do tend to do it just to make myself feel better. It's sad but I make myself more angry and throw more insults at them so it's not really helping when i do it.
OK here's the thing...this may make me out to be a complete asshole
The majority of the girls I've slept with have been causal....so why do i feel the need to do this when i meet a girl I like. Granted the girls I've been with I've not felt anything for....but I feel really shitty when a girl i meet who I really like has slept with more guys than me...in a casual sense.....

>>17785519
>>17785500
Like I said, go to therapy. It's a confidence/egotistical thing. ):
I understand feeling less-than because someone you like has been with a lot of people.
But you just need to understand that sex isn't a definer of worth.
Go see a therapist, I'm not joking. It's probably some deep-rooted issue.

>>17785526
>Sex isn't a definer of worth
Keep telling yourself that.

I'm willing to bet you dont need therepy. 9/10 of us wouldnt like the idea of someone we like sleeping with multiple people and if you are ok with that thought, YOU are the one that needs therepy.

>>17785526
It's funny you say that..cause I've seen someone about my depression before. They know about the stuff I tell you and like you said it's normal to think of sex as highly as I do...And he fact I know it's wrong to belittle these girls just cause of their past is wrong...I mean it happens at instinct. I obviously feel bad after and say sorry (if they haven't already blocked me...)
Can you believe one of the things he told me was "ermmm anon...i think the root of your problem is...you just need a gf)...thanks doc haha

Another note is the girls I have been with have been average looking. I mean the main reason I dont take it further with them is cause I know deep down I know I could do better...so I just stick with them for the sex....since I have a high sex drive.
It most defo must be a confidence issue....but how can i change it?

>>17785540
Obviously, but this board of full of sluts that don't want to feel bad about their past. Aside from the rare degenerate guys will lose interest the moment their girl mentions sex with others.

Literally why the fuck do you care about what other people do with their lives.

Sorry that you're so hurt because girls aren't made to cater to your highly specific needs. Honestly, I can't believe some of you are so sensitive that you bat an eyelid at such shit.

>>17785567
I...I dont know

Why is it so hard to understand that each additional partner devalues everything?

>>17785437

>This thread
>Everyday
>For all eternity

>>17785549
>I know deep down I know I could do better
an egotistical issue too

Like I said, see a therapist. Just because that one was shit doesn't mean there isn't a good one out there for you :(

>>17785659
What? I dont usually come here...is this a regular topic?

>>17785437
>but I want to know if anyone else is the same?
There are at least two boards dedicated to that.

Your real issue is shitty self worth which you try to boost by lowering the worth of others. Accomplish shit in your life, be your own man and you'll stop caring about dumb shit like that.

>>17785705
But I won't. Why would you settle for gutter trash when you're Martin Shkreli if you wouldn't settle for it when you were Beavis?

>>17785718
As a self hating faggot your options are limited to other self hating people and the one or two decent people who are deluded enough to think they could fix you.

>>17785728
>As a self hating faggot your options are limited to other self hating people
You mean the only reason people don't have tons of sex is self loathing?

What?

>>17785733
It's not about having tons of sex or being a virgin. It's about looking for arbitrary shit attempting to pull down others in your head.

>>17785741
Is a drug addiction arbitrary? What about religion, education or life goals? I don't think ones beliefs about intimacy are arbitrary at all, I think they're central.

>>17785748
>drug addiction
People usually don't go their way out to become addicts. It's a side effect of shitty life and dumb decisions, that are again a side effect of shitty life, etc, etc, etc. Similar with other things too. Some nigger growing up in the hood, having friends from the hood, deadbeat parents and shit-tier teachers is unlikely to aspire becoming a doctor.

Also you're missing the point completely, it's alright to have certain beliefs about intimacy, shittalking others who have different ones (that don't affect you the least) is the problem and not related to your beliefs but insecurity.

>>17785762
Oh.

Yeah I'm not OP so okay.

>>17785667

Yes usually from people like you who don't come here and think you're so profound for making it.

>>17785501
Kill yourself, worthless slut.

>>17785526
Fuck off roastie, a whore is a whore. OP the reason you're put off by them is the same reason as any other man, deep inside you know they are disloyal and unworthy of bearing children. Don't let these sluts confuse you. You're a man, go after quality women.

>>17785456
I've never met an even mildly pure mormon girl

I think the idea is the more sexual partners the higher risk of stds. And that's valid to be turned off by. Women who fuck just to fuck are like rental cars, do what you need to do and move on. You still might feel like if you just fapped you'd be better off. My rule is don't ask how many dicks she's let inside her. Unless you're a cuck, at that point you're not a man anymore.

If a girl has had sex with more than two guys I usually call them whores to their face.

You are not even selling your body for money, you are giving it away. I do not want somebody elses trash.

>>17785896

Move to Utah then and quit soiling the board with your stupidity.

>>17785949
How many times have you been hit after that?

>>17786018
None. Women can't beat a guy up by themselves.

>>17785949

Well aren't you the macho man.

>>17785519
Why are you bitching when you are a slut as well? That's low key sexism.

File: 1479703270103.gif (360KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 500x375px

>>17785437
I understand completely OP, particularly the bit about having a higher partner count. There's a girl that's into me but I'm a khv while she's had many partners. I can't handle that thought even though she's probably my only chance at a relationship ever.

>>17785949
I'd settle for trash at this point.
Wizardry is just two years away.

>>17785437
What's the difference between fucking 10 guys and fucking 1 guy 10 times?

>>17786218
10 different dicks...idiot

>>17785437
>>17786186

You lack confidence in your own sexual ability and cannot help but feel that you must be inferior to the men she as slept with before.

This is what causes your feelings of revolt and disgust, its self loathing.
You just project all that self loathing onto the woman who made you feel insecure in the first place

>>17786247
But in the end what difference does it actually make

Ive been with my highschool gf since, well, highschool. I dont see women as potential lovers at all, well at least not 99% of the time. That being said i really enjoy the company of sluts, or sexually liberal girls. I think they are a lot more fun to be around.

>>17785437
Sluts are for fucking you idiot.
Obviously you never date any girl who's had 5+ partners since it clearly shows she's an easy, unstable whore and only cucks will treat another man's trashy cumguzzler like their princess.

But fucking them is fair game, remember you don't have to worry about impressing them or anything since they're pretty worthless, so just fuck them, get your confidence up and when a decent non-slut girl comes along you can do things seriously with her.

>>17785437
My current gf has like double digits number of sex partners at 20. I'm 26 and had been dating one girl since high school until our break up at 24 (thanks quarter life crisis!). It's hard for me to find a girl as attractive as my ex, and when I met one even if she had a promiscuous past I had to treasure her. I never thought about this question until recently, mildly uncomfortable but in the end she has been good to me so that's the most important thing. Plus it's not like I have to marry her.

>>17786279
Hahahaha, fucking cuck.
Enjoy putting on the pedestal what other men got for free.
Lmao, having to respect a bitch and treat her good while 20 other guys just slapped and rode her whore ass after a night out.

>>17786281
>Enjoy putting on the pedestal what other men got for free.
But that's not true! She's very attractive and has only dated attractive people.

>>17786284
Whatever cuckboy

File: 1478350552669.png (244KB, 1200x4168px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1200x4168px

>>17786218
It's not a problem if you're just trying to get your dick wet (and don't care about the increased risk of STDs), but the way most women today treat sex and relationships makes it nearly impossible to find someone worth investing time and resources in if you're looking for a good partner for the long run.

Before we started dating, my girlfriend was pretty promiscuous. I was a virgin. I've never asked her number, but I can guess it's at least 5 from incidental conversations. Probably in the double digits, maybe 20+. I can't help but feel disgusted whenever the thought of her with someone else crosses my mind. It's a massive turn off and makes me not want to touch her.

I know her past doesn't make her love me any less and realize my thoughts are irrational. But the revulsion is just so intrusive, like it's on an instinctual level. This crosses over to resentment over her lower libido and weight gain. I feel cheated, like I put a great deal of emotional and physical effort into our relationship and she's half-assing the physical part for me.

>>17786439
I was waiting for some bitter /r9k/ virgin to post that graph again. Never change.

>>17786471
Well, that graph still provides facts. Gotta love how the best results show you should have your first sex at 21 years.

>>17786471
> le /r9k/ virgin insult
It's literally scientifically proven that women who have many relationships and sexual partners become exponentially less capable of bonding as the body counts go up, because the part of the brain that releases those good toxins into the bloodstream eventually become numbed from overstimulation.

Years and years of casual sex and/or jumping from one short relationship after the other is making the vast majority of western women unfit as lifelong partners on a biological level, but hey, if you're fine with gambling everything you've ever worked for in life (assuming you're a man here) on all these studies and the thousands of years of human history where humans KNEW the dangers of these things being wrong, then I'm going to stop you.

>>17786497
>the thousands of years of human history where humans KNEW the dangers of these things
The reason why women weren't allowed to be sexually promiscuous was purely practical. There were no contraception method and no paternity test existed.
It was important for women to stay virgins till marriage because if you fucked a virgin you knew that the child was yours (which is the reason why the first child was the one who had the noble title - because he was the only one that was yours for sure).
If women were promiscuous and fucked with, I don't know, 10 men how would you know who was your kid?
It was a purely practical reason and now it doesn't even make any sense.

>>17786507

This. Plus, being a wife was the only job a woman could get for thousands of years, so having that one husband was pretty damn important. No room for promiscuity if your living depends on the life-like partner. Societies change and social norms with them.

>>17786510
This is why Islam has taken off

Puts women where they belong

>the amount of unhelpful, butthurt women in this thread
How about you guys try to help someone for once instead of bitch and demean a guy asking a genuine question?

>>17786468
Always trust your male instincts and don't let asshurt sluts on /adv/ convince you otherwise.
Promiscous women are only good for fucking, don't invest anything more than that into them.

>>17786605
>try to help someone for once

How can /adv/ even help, OP? He's having feelings he can't control over an issue that cannot be changed. Sounds like another thread wishing for a shitstorm to me.

>>17785437
Literally could not care at all. I'm an American male and I'm disgusted by the prudishness of my countrymen. I want women to sleep around, that ups all of our chances of getting laid retards

>>17785437
Stop acting like you own women; you're an unlovable piece of shit, why is that her problem?

>>17786264
>one shows she has loyalty to a man with a dick

>one shows she has loyalty to the dick

>>17786264
this must be bait, no one is this retarded and can still use electronic devices.

>all of the sluts ITT
Am I on /soc/?

>>17786670
>i'm a desperate beta
I feel sorry for you.

>>17786884

What if the virgin girl you marry is terrible in bed or has some kind of disease which makes good sex almost in possible?

>>17786884
>getting laid is beta

The doublespeak lmao

File: 1436113742790.jpg (141KB, 552x581px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 552x581px

>>17785437
> Stupidly I ask how many guys she's been with
What? Before the first date? That IS stupid. Don't do that.

> (I'm sure every guy asks a girl that)
Unfortunately you're right there.

Let me clue you in. Girls ... lie. If a girl likes you, that number will go down. If she's in a new area where her reputation hasn't followed her, she may even become a virgin again.

If she doesn't like you, or you are being creepy, that number will go up. She will be the whore of Babylon.

Why? Because guys can't take no for an answer. If we tell you, "I'm sorry, but you are a fat, smelly jelly belly with no personality whose mother dresses you funny," you will get pissed.

The biggest "slut" you can imagine has still turned down more sex than you'll ever get offered in your entire life. You need to pull your head out of your ass a bit. If you could get sex at the drop of a hat, you would take advantage of it sometimes, because guess what, sex is fun.

File: 1449588154763.png (117KB, 256x253px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 256x253px

>>17786964
> waste resources (time and money the bare minimum) and risk contracting incurable diseases for some "fun", when a ten minute wank yields the same end result with none of the drawbacks

I will never understand what people see in having casual sex with a person you don't give a shit about.

File: 1479429391594.jpg (94KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1280x720px

>>17787031

Versus being a sexually frustrated virgin who holds this world view and will so agitated that other people are having healthy sex lives he will inevitably buy a hooker.

Happens all the time since I started going on /adv/ faggot. Anons think wanking is enough to satisfy their sexual frustration but eventually they want real pussy instead of wanking off to a picture or video of it.

>>17787037
Ancient scrolls describe a golden middle ground to these two extremes called long-term monogamous relationships.

>>17786480
how you know the cause of the lasting of those marriages isnt love, or any positive feelings, but fear due to lack of experience or sense that you can be left alone for your entire life, while experienced people do whatever they want because they dont have less fears? also, not putting money on this equation at all. I´m sure economically independent people divorce more, because marriage can be awfull. you want to be married forever, wtf that is almost impossible, people are insufferable

>>17785437
I don't know why you have to make them feel bad about it. That just makes you look like a faggot.

I do agree with the slut thing though. I don't generally have any attraction to slut and you can usually tell who the sluts are before you engage too much with them.

>>17785437
What number is slut for you?

>>17787300
More than 1 every 2 years after age 16

>>17787303
What if she lies, you are in a relationship for a year or 2, then you find out she had sex with like 25 man... what would you do?

>>17787331
Break up with her for lying

I'd rather have a slut than a liar

>>17785437
>Not even sluts but girls that have had sex with quite a few different guys in casual situations.
So sluts?
And no, I'm disgusted by sluts too.

>>17785437
For me, it's more about attitude than anything else. For example that girl in your picture is completely dick killing for me, but I would not care about how dicks has she sucked as long as she behaved like a normal person.

I've been with massive sluts and even with escorts, and it's all fine and dandy as long as they behave like normal women. Same for nuns, it's okay if you only fucked half a dick in 25 years, but you better behave normal. I don't care about how pure or full of cum is your cunt.

>>17786257
>You lack confidence in your own sexual ability and cannot help but feel that you must be inferior to the men she as slept with before.
Partially. I do indeed lack sexual confidence, how could I not being a virgin? However it's not a matter of feeling inferior to other men. If some girl had one previous partner who was a complete perfect chad with an 8-inch cock then I wouldn't care. It's the number of partners (and probability of casual hookups) thats are offputting and there's nothing wrong with having such views.

File: b417a2fdbc638fd2ff930add26eaa077d716c74e78295fa920355fe19cf5142c.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>17787037
>And then you faggots get chrono trigged when some anon brags about fucking with drunk girls

Boo fucking hoo

You don't really care about everyone getting to fuck as much as they want and lashing out at anyone who objects to it
You care about people you like/ have no problem with getting to fuck, and people you view as beneath you, you want them to "know their place" and never get laid


Cry moar about how easy it is to fuck drunk girls at parties

Cry moar about how the other guys know what your doing and dont even try to interfere

File: 1454695906800.jpg (4KB, 173x155px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 173x155px

Most men are disgusted by women who sleep around. It's a basic instinct. Men have a base desire to breed, a woman who sleeps around is "breeding" with a lot of men (and any kid she shits out has an increasingly high chance of not being yours.) Women and men who act like women can dance around this issue all they want but it's true, and they're kidding themselves if they insist otherwise.

Another fact of the matter is that if you're celibate (even involuntarily so) there is no reason you should "settle" for a woman with no self-control. Unless they live in their mom's basement and get fat, men only get more and more valuable as they get older thanks to attaining more saved up money and power. Women are the opposite because, as I have stated, they are less adept at the whole baby-making thing. Base instincts, etc.

If you're sleeping around you don't have an excuse, but if you're extremely selective or abstain from sex entirely then you are entirely justified to reject a slut.

>>17785437
>(I'm sure every guy asks a girl that)

Justifying yourself to no one is a sure sign you know you're fucking retarded but don't want to admit it. Manchildren, virgins, guys who WANT virgins, and insecure men from teenagers to adults ask this question. Most people don't give a shit unless they suspect a woman is ACTUALLY a slut for reasons they can think of.

>>17785659
Exactly. And I feel like it's always the same fucktards going at each other with the same points.
>Sex isn't that special, you're just a virgin with self esteem issues
>Divorce rate goes up with partner count, STD's, redpill, morals

>>17786915
Being this thirsty and desperate to get laid is beta af.

>>17785437
Op i feel the same, my ex was a "slut"(22 guys at the age of 19) and it got to me and i couldn't see her as long term. (we were together for two years and i still didn't see her as long term)
Now I'm with a QT3.14 that's only had 4 guys including me and it feels pretty amazing.
Although i do feel like a hypocrite seeing as ive had 50+ girls but its just not the same.

>>17788411
Women are the gatekeepers of sex, that's why a promiscuous guy isn't a big deal and it can even be seen as desirable while a slut is not.

>>17785437
This is really natural, anon.
No one wants to form long lasting relationships with promoscous people.

File: 1474525051878.jpg (660KB, 1825x4361px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 1825x4361px

>>17785437
>>17785437

Nope. Don't date sluts.

Join a church, anon. It was the best decision I ever made.

Ignore the whores in this thread saying "It's no big deal!" The higher a woman's partner count:

>The more likely she is to get divorced/have commitment issues
>The lower her marital/relationship happiness will be
>The harder it will be for her to pair-bond properly.

etc.

>>17788627
You forgot to mention that infidelity also goes up with the number of partners

>tfw sluts turn me on
>tfw drunk sluts turn me on more

Wtf m8s

>>17788627
classic example of thinking correlation equals causation.

it's not that the more partner she's had the more likely she is to do those things. it's that the kind of people that do those things, are more likely to have more partners.

>>17788645
you too, ur both idjits

>>17788757
>it's not that the more partner she's had the more likely she is to do those things. it's that the kind of people that do those things, are more likely to have more partners.
So there's causation

There's nothing wrong with being off-put by a lot of sexual partners. I personally don't think it should be something that determines someone's worth as a person, but as far as dating goes everyone is allowed their preferences. You can appreciate a more conservative partner without being judgmental of those who don't.

That being said, I have a decent number under my belt, enough where some think it's a lot and others do not. I prefer the "don't ask, don't tell" approach. I don't enjoy talking about my sexual past, and since I'm the jealous type, I don't particularly like hearing about old flames from my S/O, either. I'm perfectly happy knowing that my partner is clean and enjoys my company.

>>17788875
spotted the homo

You know, just from this thread, it seems to me that men really do put more value on sex than women do. I wonder if it is simply because sex is generally easier for a woman to get than it is for a man, or if some other factor is involved?

File: Rad Brad.jpg (27KB, 300x391px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x391px

>>17785437
>Stupidly I ask how many guys she's been with (I'm sure every guy asks a girl that)

Literally never done this before

>conservatives never read their own studies, the thread

how many times does this shit need to be debunked? Correlation isn't causation, retards. There's perfectly good explanations for why # of partners and marriage failure rates that go hand in hand that have nothing to do with the ability to bond, and the oxytocin bullshit doesn't work because that hormone is released at other times too, like birth, and women don't lose the ability to bond with their kids after birth, dumbasses. Why don't you fuckwits read your own shit once in awhile?

>>17785896
TradCath Catholic then?

>>17785437

It's normal to have those insecurities with a new relationship, I remember I had a little trouble swallowing the fact that my ex had a one night stand once in her life, and a few flings as well in the space of a few years. I think everyone has their person view on what is acceptable and what isn't I would say to try to determine where that line lays and if you can't look past it then to not pursue things further.

Don't call them sluts for making different decisions than you, and don't shame them for it, just move on.

>>17786279

When you say quarter life crisis did you bail on your ex or did she bail on you?

Also 20 partners is a hell of a lot, she likely has very low self respect, self worth and confidence, all of which will leak out over time, basically you will find out why those 20 other guys fucked off after banging her.

>>17788928
Idk, I'm a guy and I've been offered easy sex a few times and I turned it down because it wouldn't have been meaningful.

>>17786468

You should actually talk about it and clear the air, I had a similar situation with my ex but after we talked about it I eventually got over it, her number was 9-10 if I recall. If you leave it up for interpretation you will always consider the possibility that it's 20+ and that is something a lot of people wouldn't be able to look past.

>>17786902

Why throw around such arbitrary what ifs? What if the slut that you end up fucking at the club turns out to be a dude and you get aids?

>>17789896
>What if the slut that you end up fucking at the club turns out to be a dude and you get aids?

Then you know you don't need glasses because you're blind, and that you need an anatomy book instead.

I've been with about 30 dudes and I'm 21. It's mostly because I got bored in high school and there were no other gay dudes at my school, and it was fun.

I never ended up getting anything until college, where I slowed down massively. I almost immediately got the clap and completely stopped sleeping around except for my fuck buddies. One I had met up at school and wanted to date, and the other I had been seeing for a few years back at home.

The one back home ended up giving me herpes in that spring. What did I learn from this? Casual sex is okay, but always wear a condom. Don't trust someone just because it's been an amount of time, unless they've specifically gotten tested. I get so much shit when I say I use condoms for oral now, some guys don't even bother.

Also OP I go for older dudes because they have more experience. I don't see why you would want someone who has no idea what they're doing. If someone has seen a bunch of movies and chooses one as their favorite, I value their opinion more than someone who's never seen a film at all.

My gf used to be a slut in her teens/early 20s. She used to be fat and she had self confidence issues - she said it was the only way she could get guys to pay attention to her. Then for the past 5-6 years she was in a steady relationship with a guy, then me.

She told me all this before we even started dating. At first I thought, there's no way I'm gonna date this girl, fuck that shit. She won me over though - she cooks for me, cleans, is so sweet and easygoing, never gets old spending time with her, and the sex as you would imagine is incredible and happens all the time. Oh yeah, she's also cool with MFF threesomes (she said she has no interest in a devil's 3way) and brings her girlfriends around for us to fuck together. She's literally the perfect gf

Way better than my previous gf who had only ever fucked 1 other guy, was a total controlling bitch and only wanted to fuck a couple times a month.

I've changed how I used to view sluts. I feel bad for the ones who are just using their pussy just to be accepted and feel loved. However, I'm not fucking with the ones who are using it just to manipulate and get material things they want.

>>17789949

I think a lot of the issue people have with so called "sluts" is once you have had so much of something the value of it decreases and you are much more likely to want to have more. If you're someones 20th partner as opposed to their 2nd or 3rd then you're not really special to them beyond a temporary connection, once shit gets stale despite how much you try to spice things up they will want to jump ship.

>>17789955
>If you're someones 20th partner as opposed to their 2nd or 3rd then you're not really special to them beyond a temporary connection.

That's not true though. Thinking that way is only because of your own insecurities making you think you're not "special" enough.

The number of times my dick has been in a pussy doesn't dictate how special I find the person I'm with. It's dictated by how attractive I find them, how they treat me, etc.

>>17787715
But divorce rates do go up in correlation with partner count. You inherently invalidate the intimacy of your marriage because there are no expressions of intimacy that are special to you.

>>17789970
>Correlation = causation

Stop.

>>17789966

Yeah and having 19 other girls before her that you also found attractive and also treated you right means what?

The way I see it is if you're willing to replace 19 people consecutively the 20th won't be much different. We are all flawed, you're no better than the others, if they replaced that many to get to you then you're very likely next on the chopping block.

>>17789966

It's specifically for the reason that no one is special that what I said stands true. The more you hop from person to person the more likely you are to continue to do so, your value on people decreases with each partner whether you admit to that or not. It's only because most people don't experience enough in their lifetime that they think what they have is so "special". If everyone in this world had 50 partners in their lifetime they would all think less of the one they are currently with.

>>17789977

We're talking about sexual partners, not people you fell in love with and shared deeply intimate moments/secrets with.

Believe it or not, many people have casual and recreational sex because it feels good and it's fun. There are plenty of girls I've fucked but did not want to hang out with after (and I'm sure the feeling was often mutual). Those kind of hook-ups and flings are extremely different to being in a loving relationship with someone for an extended amount of time.

So, to me, your point is only valid if I was 'deeply in love' with those 19 other girls. Otherwise, you're comparing apples and oranges. A spring break fling is a far cry from an actual relationship. The latter is wayyy more special, meaningful and satisfying.

>>17789971
I clearly said correlation and not causation. But it seems you dont know what a correlation is.

>>17789985
Hooking up lessens the value you could possible have in future relationships. And increases your chance of getting a divorce.

>>17789970
Correlation is not causation.
The idea that someone promiscuous is absolutely unable to love is silly. There are plenty of examples of this not being true.
There is a correlation between divorce rates and partner count, for sure, but in my opinion it's a bit superficial to go "oh she fucked 15 dudes, she cannot feel love for anyone, it cannot be special for her".
Many studies show how people who come from broken households, or felt unhappy and unloved during their childhood ended up being more promiscuous. The reason why it happens seems pretty intuitive to me, but feel free to disagree - if someone doesn't feel loved in his family, or doesn't have an example of an healthy relationships, tries to seek affection and validation outside of his family. Sex is a way to keep people close to you, to make people like you, etc. I think that promiscuity doesn't make you necessarily unfit for marriage as much as the emotional issues that caused your promiscuity in the first place do. In fact there are many studies which show the strong link between parents being divorced/unhappy together and kids divorcing themselves.
Then, feel free to disagree.

>>17789986
>But divorce rates do go up in correlation with partner count.
Correct.

>You inherently invalidate the intimacy of your marriage because there are no expressions of intimacy that are special to you.
You just drew a conclusion based solely on a correlation - in other words assuming that the high partner count is the cause for the high divorce rate. You confused correlation with causation.

>>17789989
>Hooking up lessens the value you could possible have in future relationships.

I disagree.

>And increases your chance of getting a divorce.
Statistically, but I'm not dumb enough to believe that having fun in my college days means I'm going to be a divorcee when I'm older. See the correlation vs. causation argument above

>>17789991
Never said correlation equals causation. But do not mistake this for those statistics that say the number of kids who drown correlate to ice cream sales. This is an isolated scenario so there is some direct link where as with the kids the indirect link is it being summer. Hence its like saying the pressure correlates to temperature.
>The idea that someone promiscuous is absolutely unable to love is silly
No its not. But ill recognize that people have different opinions of what love is. And people with your opinion of love are more likely to get divorced.
>oh she fucked 15 dudes, she cannot feel love for anyone, it cannot be special for her
This is absolutely true. It may be "special" in her eyes, but intimacy itself is worthless. Might as well replace sex with watching tv because the act isnt special. You just like doing it more with a particular person.

File: 48793274283.jpg (29KB, 487x453px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 487x453px

>babby who took statistics 101 keeps repeating correlation =/= causation despite no-one deducing such a connection in order to discredit their arguments

ah yes

>>17790002
> I'm going to be a divorcee when I'm older
Ah yes, the my actions dont have consequences argument. Have fun with that divorce.

>>17785456
mormon girls are hypocrite sluts too

>>17789995
>You just drew a conclusion based solely on a correlation
Thats an independent argument. Please take read comp again.

>>17789985

Most people fall "in love" more than once, it is a chemical feeling after all, and that feeling fades, once it does your promiscuity will rise back up and you will be looking for the next high.

This is the reason most people are hesitant to settle down with someone with a partner count as high as 20, it's not a matter of insecurity of not being as good as the others, it's that the person has a diminished value of people in general.

The problem with arguing with divorce rate statistics is that you aren't considering

1. The REASON for the promiscuity (personal gain? need for acceptance? normalizing history of sexual abuse? power over the opposite sex?)

and

2. The reason for the divorce

Both of those things greatly change the context of the situation. It's not a black/white 'all sluts are soulless, all virgins are pure and sweet' binary thing

>>17786507
paternity testing is illegal in France without the consent of the mother. women can't be trusted.

>>17790006
It isn't an isolated scenario, and I pointed out how it is not.
If you read the rest of my post I pointed out how unresolved emotional issues could lead both to promiscuity and high divorce rate, and how it is proven that kids who grew up in broken household have higher rates of promiscuity (and this is true especially for girls) and higher rates of divorce. But, no worries.

>people with your opinion of love are more likely to get divorced.
My opinion of love?

>This is absolutely true.
This isn't true at all.
Do you feel the same way when you old a random kid and when you old your own? What's special - holding a kid or the fact that the kid is yours?
It's the way you feel for the person that gives significance to the act, it doesn't work the other way round.

>>17790023
Its not a problem with the statistic. The statistic is pretty clear. The more sexual partners you have the more likely you will get divorces. If you have even more than 1 partner you rates skyrockets to 50% whereas 1 or less have a rate of like 10%. You can argue the statistic all you want, but statistics represent reality. Its the mathematical principle of the law of large numbers at work. Thats why we use statistics.

>>17790030
Thats still isolated to the person. Drowning and ice cream sales are a indirect correlation. A person drowning isnt linked to ice cream sales. A person being an emotional rekt is linked to promiscuity and divorce. It really shouldnt be this hard to understand. Do people not take basic statistics classes.

>>17790031

I'm not arguing the statistic. I'm arguing the conclusions you're drawing from the statistics.

>>17790030
intimacy and holding a kid are in no way related. The way you express love for your child isnt intimate at all. Can you imagine your child saying that you cheated on him because you held another child. Thats a really shit argument desu. But thats for proving my point that intimacy to you is worthless.

>>17790042
The conclusion is the more sexual partners you have the more likely you are to get a divorce. Pretty straightforward and based on math.

>>17790043
>intimacy and holding a kid are in no way related. The way you express love for your child isnt intimate at all.

Anon you seriously sound like a sociopath.

>>17790049
Says the person who cant grasp the concept of love. I hope when you do get married your husband cheats on you. Then says that it doesnt mean anything because it only is special when he does it with you. Then you get a divorce and add to the statistic proving my point further. Im laughing at the thought.

>>17790047
Stop being purposely obtuse. We've established the statistic, there's no point in parroting it like a broken record. Everyone understood the first time. The real importance is the question: How and why does having more sexual partners make you more likely to get a divorce?

>>17790031

You're failing to look at the reason for the statistical differences, the data draws from all couples, religious included. If you have 2 or more partners you suddenly fall into the non-religious category and therefore your divorce skyrockets. I'm sure if it only looked at non-religious people the divorce rates between people with 1 partner through to 5 wouldn't be significant at all.

It's the same as the gender wage gap, looking at statistics alone isn't enough you need to understand the reasons why.

>>17790054

Yep, confirmed sociopath!

>>17790062
>How and why does having more sexual partners make you more likely to get a divorce?
Doesnt matter because you are. Really all there is to it.

>>17790063
>If you have 2 or more partners you suddenly fall into the non-religious category and therefore your divorce skyrockets
You realize you are only proving my point right. religious people value sex. Non religious people dont. Also kek at thinking religious people dont fornicate. They just accept that they are wrong for doing it.

>>17790066
Just be sure to make a post here about it so I can add you to the tally.

>>17790068
Okay. So what is your point exactly? Divorce is bad, so everyone should fuck 1 person for their entire life to minimize their chances of divorce? Or maybe, if nobody ever got married in the first place, divorce rates would plummet and everything would be fine? Like what are you even arguing here?

>>17790035
God, you're dense.
Being promiscuous doesn't directly cause divorce.
Having emotional issues might cause both divorce and promiscuity, which explains why they are statistically correlated.
But it also explains how there are plenty of people who are promiscuous and have happy marriages, and plenty of people who are not promiscuous and have unhappy marriages.

>>17790043
Are you legitimately a sociopath?
The relationship between a parent and a child is one of the most intimate relationships ever.

Intimacy for me is far from worthless and I am married to the guy I lost my virginity to.
This doesn't make me retarded and I still can understand that not everyone has the same values and it is normal to do the same thing with different people and giving it different value. Or that fucking around doesn't instantly make you a psychopath who is unable to love.

>>17790070
They're also incredibly repressed and sexually frustrated enough to resort to molesting little kids and waging holy wars, so there's that lol

>>17790070

They are bound by their religions to stick it through, the value of sex means very little when the person they are with 9/10 times isn't right for them. Not to mention arranged marriages also fall into this category.

It's not a fair statistic, if a person not bound by anything had one partner which they married and the discrepancy between him and someone with 2+ partners was 40% like your statistic says then I would see your point. Comparing people that are literally bound into failing marriages or arranged ones skews the results tremendously.

File: 1460454397740.jpg (330KB, 1221x1570px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1221x1570px

>>17790091
Thats a cute attempt. Hate to break it to you but those people are HAPPILY married. Happiness also scales with your amount of sexual partners.
>>17790086
Trying to discount religion because a Royal family in Rome abused it only says how desperate you are. Your reasoning is also uneducated which makes it worse.

>>17790083
>I cant understand the difference between a initimate relationship and an intimate act.
I get it now. Lost cause.
>I still can understand that not everyone has the same values
Which is exactly why people cheat and get cheated on. Its not really a big deal desu. Sex isnt intimate. I wouldnt be surprised if you were already cheated on.

>>17790083
>Being promiscuous doesn't directly cause divorce.
Wheres your source.
>But it also explains how there are plenty of people who are promiscuous and have happy marriages, and plenty of people who are not promiscuous and have unhappy marriages.
See the image in this post. Glad >>17790112
Statistically you are simply wrong.

>>17790112

Lol oh sorry my mistake, it's clear you have complete insight into the minds of every religious married person literally forced into staying with the person they lost their virginity to otherwise suffer an eternity in hell. You're right it's the happily married portion keeping them together not the incentive of not burning in hell.

>>17790112
>>17790119
>>17790125

ITT neckbeards compensate their lack of life experience (read: sex with women, loving relationships) with statistics they interpret to mean they are justified in their isolation and misanthropy

I guess I am a statistical anomaly then because I fuck like crazy and couldn't be happier lol. You guys do your thing though

>>17790149
There are so many things wrong and awful about your argument which show how desperate you are.
1) You blame people having a low partner count of being religious. Sorry but unless you have a source on that you are just bullshitting. Not everyone who isnt religious is a slut.
2) You assume that most people who are religious dont get divorced.
While marriage is important to religious people and theres no way that a person who is a slut would see marriage as important. About 1/3 of christians get a divorce. So theres no correlation and more of your desperate attempts.
Its so bad. I cant tell if I should feel pity for your desperate attempts or laugh.

>>17790112
A royal family in rome? Yeah sure, that's all it was

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

>>17790161
The good ole, "youre just mad youre a virgin" argument.
Im not even a virgin but this argument is such a pathetic way of admitting defeat.

>>17790166

I didn't say not everyone who isn't religious is a slut, I'm simply saying the large discrepancy in the statistics you linked is largely due to the fact that it includes religious people and they tend to only have 1 partner and are bound in marriage for life.

I'm saying that if the results looked at non-religious people alone and you compared a person who has only had 1 partner and a person with 2 partners in their life the divorce rate difference between the two would not equal 40%, the number I believe would be much lower, almost negligible.

Question- Is it slutty that I have had sex with two men before my current bf with who I plan to marry? The first two had been year long relationships which I had hoped to be serious but didn't work out. I am 19 years old.

>>17790181
>it includes religious people and they tend to only have 1
This is just wrong. Stop making assumptions. it reflects poorly on you. The statistic was done of religious people only and is pretty much mirrored the overall statistic proving that religion has nothing to do with it. Youre like a drowning kitten. It hurts to watch.

>>17790175
Im not Christian but Im not so uneducated that I understand that the world extends to more than europe and sexually abusing children has been prevalent in the world regardless of religion. You are literally western swine who doesnt realize theres more to the world.

>>17790184
You were fine until you said
>I am 19 years old.
You arent getting married any time soon. And by the time you are of age to marry at your rate youll have like 15 partners.

>>17790180
I didn't call anyone a virgin, I was just pointing out the fact that people who are lacking in experience love to focus on how awful and evil promiscuity is, because it burns them up that other people are out there enjoying their lives and expressing their sexuality freely, while people like you are rationalizing their stale sex lives with shit like, "w-well at least I won't get a divorce! the s-statistics say so!"

>>17790197
You cant seem to grasp that people who arent sluts usually have morals and it burns them up inside seeing people violate them. I mean it burns me up that people sell drugs as well but thats a different story.

>>17790191

Yeah, but the statistics show that if you're a Catholic priest you're far more likely to rape a little kid than if you aren't. The numbers don't lie my friend.

>>17790200
No, what burns me up is when people think that their "morals" put them on some high horse that should allow them to dictate how other people behave.

Just because you can't get as much pussy as Chad and Stacy doesn't mean you aren't just as morally bankrupt as they are. If you weren't, you wouldn't have a problem with something as harmless as recreational SAFE sex

>>17790119
In my opinion, according to my values, sex is something that needs to happen between two people who are in a loving, long term, committed relationship. I don't find the idea of having casual sex appealing, I don't want to have casual sex, I never had casual sex.
On the other hand, I am not totally retarded and I can understand that not everyone needs to share my opinion and my values to live happily.
Also - thanks for your concerns about my marriage, but go suck a dick.

Sex isn't inherently special. Naturally, it is not - it is a very pleasurable reproductive system. We give it a value, we find it intimate and special, but it is completely arbitrary.
Sex is special because we choose it is special. Like other acts (as in the example I did - holding your child) it is special because you do it with someone who is special for you.
The idea that once you had non-intimate, non-loving sex you are doomed for eternity and you will never be able to have intimate sex, ever again is silly. I had plenty of non-intimate, non-loving sex with my husband and we can still have intimate, loving sex. Sometimes we just fuck because we're horny and we want to get off, not because we want to show each other how much we are in love.
It is not that hard for me to understand that even if I personally do not find any appeal in casual sex, some other people might enjoy sex just because it is pleasurable and it gets them off, and might be attracted to it without giving it any particular meaning. I also understand that this doesn't make them unable to have intimate, loving sex ever again and it doesn't make them worse individuals.

Not having casual sex is a choice. A respectable choice, that I did too, but it's purely your choice.
Not being able to understand that some people might disagree with you makes you kinda dumb.

>>17790125
Correlation is not causation. I explained the reasoning 75 times and I'm tired of doing it. Go back and read, reply if you want.

>>17790207
>if you're a Catholic priest you're far more likely to rape a little kid than if you aren't.
That sounds extremely unlikely. Find a me a source that says that. Then find me one that does in compared to the world an NOT just the part europeans have taken over.

>>17790218
I cant seriously have this argument. You whole heartedly believe that only people who are unappealing have moral values and its too pathetic to take serious. The fundamental foundation of your argument is a baseless assumption not backed up by statistics that you are using to validate and try to make yourself feel better with. Heres a hint, the majority of people who arent promiscuous dont live in the US where sluts are rampant.

File: 487326472384.jpg (55KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1280x720px

>>17790196
>ruling out someone else's relationship because of your own ideological delusions

>>17790222
>I explained the reasoning 75 times
Making unfounded and false assumptions isnt explaining anything. You need some evidence that shows a correlation.
>If I keep repeating my fanfic it will become true
Ill take that as a sign you dont have an argument then.

>>17790222
>Sex isn't inherently special.
kek. You are also implying reproduction isnt special. Which to me it is. But Im glad to know that children arent special to you.
>Like other acts (as in the example I did - holding your child) it is special because you do it with someone who is special for you.
This argument is bad. It reminds me of this one time this guy said its not gay unless you are attracted to men. Hate to break it to you but the act has meaning inherently. You can defeat the importance of the act, but then you might as well replace the act with anything because its worthless.
If you are intimate with everyone you are intimate with no one. Its a basic fact. I dont understand why you want to argue with the basics so much.

>>17790235
Statistics arent delusions anon.

>>17790233
>You whole heartedly believe that only people who are unappealing have moral values
That's not true. I think every human has moral values, and they vary based on their worldview, and that some are more valid than others

>and its too pathetic to take serious.
I do believe that thinking recreational sex is immoral is too pathetic to take seriously, yes.


>The fundamental foundation of your argument is a baseless assumption not backed up by statistics
That safe sex between consenting adults is not a bad thing? This isn't based on an assumption. It's based on what I learned in an entry level psychology and sexual education class.

>that you are using to validate and try to make yourself feel better with.
I have absolutely no guilt or regret with regards to my sexual habits. In fact, the reason I'm arguing in their favor is because it's worked out so well for me.

>Heres a hint, the majority of people who arent promiscuous dont live in the US where sluts are rampant.
Now who's making baseless assumptions? Have a little self-awareness at least

>>17790247
Her future is an illusion, whereupon you project your """"statistics"""". It is an unrealized view of reality, and therefore a delusion.

Quantitative data is not gospel.

>>17790237
There is no proof that promiscuity causes divorce. There is evidence that they are correlated, but not that one causes the other.
There are plenty of studies about the intergenerational transmission of divorce that explain how divorced kids (especially the girls) are deeply affected by divorces, and a few studies that show how this also might lead to promiscuity. And lots of studies about how they're not just statistically correlated but one causes the other.

>>17790246
I am arguing that any higher meaning you give to sex is totally arbitrary. It isn't inherently meaningful. You have yet to prove me how it is.
We do not fuck for the sole purpose of reproduction, also.

>children arent special to you.
The act of reproduction and the result of the reproduction aren't exactly the same thing. And random children aren't special for me, no. Mine, meh, yeah.

>Hate to break it to you but the act has meaning inherently.
Show me.

>>17790258
>That's not true.
Thats exactly what you are arguing
>that some are more valid than others
Morals arent opinions. They are mutually exclusive and you cant both be right. Or do you think slavery is only bad because of the world view. Morals are an inherent property. you either believe that or you dont believe in morals.
>I do believe that thinking recreational sex is immoral is too pathetic to take seriously, yes.
Have fun with your divorce lol
>That safe sex between consenting adults is not a bad thing?
Statistically higher chance of divorce. And your argument is piss weak. I could extend that to any crime that doesnt direct cause injury to someone.
>I have absolutely no guilt or regret with regards to my sexual habits
Of course not. Because you make assumptions about people who oppose you just being jealous. A pathetically small man desu.
>I'm arguing in their favor is because it's worked out so well for me.
Saying people are jealous of you isnt an argument. It makes you look like an empty shell hiding his sorrow. Its okay. I dont expect you to admit it.
>Now who's making baseless assumptions?
thats a fact. Do you have evidence that says otherwise. Because I have plenty and its not hard to surmise seeing has how sexual enlightenment is a western thing.

OP here...what the fuck have you guys done to my thread.....

File: 1453088690004.png (678KB, 625x468px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 625x468px

>>17790259
>statistical probabilities are delusions

>>17790261
>There is no proof that promiscuity causes divorce
But there is supporting evidence for it which supports my argument.
>There is evidence that they are correlated
The rest of you post just says that theres more than one factor that cause a divorce. Pretty useless. If there werent it wouldnt percentages.
>a few studies that show how this also might lead to promiscuity
Irrelevant unless you are argue that a significant portion of people who are promiscuous fall in this category. The point of a statistic is to poll every group. So one groups circumstance is irrelevant. I shouldnt have to be teaching statistics.
>they're not just statistically correlated but one causes the other.
I never said promiscuous people arent broken. I dont believe you can be promiscuous otherwise.

File: 1479833500055.png (346KB, 1829x788px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1829x788px

>>17790278
>probability, that is to say, a collection of data of past phenomena, is totalizing and predict specific, unraveled futures where everyone will tend to the exact mean of that probability

ah yes

>>17790270
>Morals are binary good vs bad, you got em or you don't
>You're only happy because you think everyone is jealous (?)
>My assumption is fact because prove me wrong

Okay man. You do your thing and I'll do mine. People that think like you will never have my respect or hold any sway over my morals (or lack thereof, apparently)

All I know is I'm in a happy, loving, monogamous relationship, and that having had recreational sex beforehand has in no way detracted from it. If you like saving it for marriage, go right ahead.

>>17790261
>And random children aren't special for me
Glad to know you dont feel like children are special. Explains a lot about what you are saying.
>It isn't inherently meaningful
It isnt once you have sex casually with multiple people. Sex only has inherent meaning for people who understand intimate acts are special. Otherwise sex is just as special as watching tv.
>Show me.
Alright when your husband cheats on you, remember that the act doesnt have meaning. I dont have time to explain something so simple. Just remember when he does cheat that you believe the act doesnt have meaning.

>>17790290
>everyone will tend to the exact mean of that probability
You dont even know what a statistic is. You statement literally screams uneducated because by its natures, it is axiomatically false.

>>17785437
I know why you posted this thread in /adv/ anon, and my advice is stop watching anime

>Like I can be chatting to a hot girl I'm getting on with really well
another thing, it is pointless to lie on anonymous imageboard

>>17790286
There is a study that correlates them statistically.
The whole point here is that promiscuity somehow destroys your chances of being in a long term relationship.
While I am arguing that promiscuity and divorce can be caused by the same thing, but promiscuity does not cause higher divorce rate.
There are much stronger links between divorce rates and poverty, young age of the spouses, coming from a broken household. I don't think that promiscuity and divorce aren't correlated, I think you are oversimplifying it and misinterpreting it.

>>17790291
>>Morals are binary good vs bad, you got em or you don't
Name a moral that isnt whats good and bad. Morals are literally about good vs evil. Thanks for proving you dont know what morals are.
>You're only happy because you think everyone is jealous
When your only rationalization is people are jealous of you, yeah.

I never wanted your respect. I have none for. It would make me feel like Im doing something wrong if a person without morals took my advice.

>>17790295
You do understand that the problem with cheating is that you promised to someone to be faithful to them and you broke that promise, right?
Also - I love how you don't have time to explain to me something simple, but you have time to bullshit me for hours.

>>17790306
>promiscuity does not cause higher divorce rate.
You have no supporting evidence for that. No study or statistic. Just you fanfic that contradicts a different statistic.
>There are much stronger links between divorce rates and poverty, young age of the spouses, coming from a broken household.
You dont understand how statistics work. The study is done of a pool of people with different backgrounds. It effectively neutralizes any other link and lets you isolate variables. Poverty can cause promiscuity which can cause divorce. You have no argument here. Other things causing divorce are irrelevant.

>>17790313
>the problem with cheating is that you promised to someone to be faithful to them and you broke that promise
Cheating is breaking much more than a promise to me. Just goes to show how little you think of intimacy.
You think Im just sitting here talking to you. Cute. I have plenty of time for a short break to type why you are wrong. But if you think Im about to explain why the sky is blue go ask someone else.

File: 1450924870424.gif (1MB, 224x178px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 224x178px

>>17785437

Fuck this thread and every single thread like it. You guys suck.

>>17790327
See you tomorrow

>>17790318
>Just you fanfic that contradicts a different statistic.
Go on, post a modern statistic where the researchers support your silly point.

>>17790318
Kek.
You cannot prove that something doesn't exist. You have to prove that something exists.
I can easily prove how divorce kids have higher chances of divorce, and have strong evidence about how one causes the other. And plenty of studies to prove so. You have absolutely no proof of causation and a study which shows correlation.

>>17790322
Cheating means breaking a commitment. It has nothing to do with breaking "intimacy".
You haven't exactly proven how sex is inherently meaningful, so your whole argument is pointless and just subjective.

File: 4789324723.jpg (58KB, 640x619px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x619px

>>17790297
>"a" statistic
huh? Yeah, what is that? What is "a" statistic? Some kind of ontology that predicts people's actions?

>You statement literally screams uneducated
this was unnecessary, you do not need to discredit me like that

>by its natures, it is axiomatically false.
I was interpreting your position, where you asserted that she and her sexual and romantic future was going to be articulated in the ""statistic"" of not getting married and having 15 partners when she does marry.

You are declaring your own proposition to be axiomatically false.

I acknowledge normal distribution.

>>17790333
Trying to discount statistics without giving a different one that says it is wrong is just admitting you are wrong.

>>17790334
>It has nothing to do with breaking "intimacy".
You are literally saying sex isnt intimate. Which is what Ive been saying is true for you the entire time. Thanks for wasting so much of my time.

>>17790334
Anon you might actually be stupid if you can't see how divorce rates are unrelated
>Medical community has found a correlation between diet and cancer
>HURR I can easily prove how lead has higher chances of causing cancer, and have strong evidence about how one causes the other. And plenty of studies to prove so. You have absolutely no proof of causation and a study which shows correlation.
Actually retarded.

>>17790343

>You are literally saying sex isnt intimate.

Intimacy isn't static. It varies person to person. I'm not so sure why this is such a hard concept for all the robots here to understand.

>>17790336
Bro if you didnt know what statistic meant you could have just asked google.
>a fact or piece of data from a study of a large quantity of numerical data.
>this was unnecessary, you do not need to discredit me like that
Im not trying to discredit you. the post you made before did
>I was interpreting your position, where you asserted that she and her sexual and romantic future was going to be articulated in the ""statistic"" of not getting married and having 15 partners when she does marry.
You cant read. I had assumed you were retarded but yeah. Read the post again and if you still cant get it Ill explain why you are so dumb.

>>17790360
>Intimacy isn't static. It varies person to person
Thank you for re articulating the point I made earlier about people who have casual sex and how they cant into intimacy.

>we're having this fucking thread again

For fuck's sake people. You're entitled to your own preferences and feelings. You're entitled to choose your romantic partners based on whatever criteria matters to you. So is everyone else. It's natural to "judge" people when their values/choices are different from your own, but it's best to keep those judgments to yourself when nobody's getting hurt. That is all.

Can we stop doing this every single day?

>>17790379
>it's best to keep those judgments to yourself when nobody's getting hurt
And just watch as people are being wrong around me. Never!

>>17790367
here it is
>You arent getting married any time soon. And by the time you are of age to marry at your rate youll have like 15 partners.

I assume you are basing this off a ""statistic"", a study. You cannot really say that you can totalize the result of this study, its average, mean and so on and APPLY it ON ONE, FOR NOW, UNOBSERVED AND NOT EVEN INCLUDED STRAIN OF DATA (HER FUTURE). MEANS/AVERAGE ARE ONLY FOR A TOTALIZED PICTURE OF THE STUDY'S FINDINGS.

>>17790383
This
you aren't going to sit back watching someone try and push a pull door and not say anything...you laugh at first but then you get worried and need to tell them how to do it right.

>>17785437
>Am I the only person that is off put by sluts...?
no, this is a very common thing to say as a permavirgin on 4chan
>Like I can be chatting to a hot girl
lie
>Stupidly I ask how many guys she's been with
you mean you overheard a conversation between someone else
>And usually the number is higher than mine
you mean their number is higher than zero
>that's when I get this strange feeling in my stomach
it's you almost realizing that you will never be your favorite anime character awkwardly dating his virgin anime gf
>I need to ask if they were any one night stands
deep down you already know the answer, since this girl isn't an anime girl.
>I don't want to speak to them anymore
I don't think you have any conversations with a girl that isn't your cousin in the first place
>I'm a horrible person
no you're not, you are probably a good person but you're pathetic and you know it
>but I want to know if anyone else is the same?
yes, there are plenty of people that try to make up bullshit to pretend their virgins by choice

SLuts need love too.

Never leave a real wifey, too many sluts have taken the seed of many heritages (travel sluts).

>>17785437
>Prostitution is the oldest profession

Lighten up Virgil.
Get your cock sorted out, it's like plumbing.

>>17790396
>I assume you are basing this off a ""statistic"", a study.
Alright reasons why you are stupid. I never mentioned the statistic and it doesnt have any relevance on the post you made. you are literally retarded so Ill explain for retards.
People dont get married until like 28 yrs old on average. You can call it a gauss but shes extremely unlikely to get married.
Second part, for the mentally handicap, says at the rate shes going X is likely to happen. Theres no peering into the future. Just you being retarded. Further represented by you typing in caps. It just hurts to read at this point.

>>17790414
My sides every time. Anti slut fags give statistics and logic as to why sluts are horrible disgusting human beings who can understand the value of a human connection. And slut fags just say
>u mad permavirgin

>>17790464
>statistics and logic

>>17790416
Sluts only get pretend "love"
Can't turn a ho into a housewife

>>17789955
It depends on the novelty of it friendo.

It's more than just being the right person, it's also doing the right things at the right time in another person's life. Really wierd how shit's complicated out of Congolese public shitting houses

>>17790343
What is intimacy - the feeling of togetherness, familiarity.
Cheating breaks trust because it breaks the commitment you made. It doesn't break the feeling of familiarity.
Really, you do not even understand the words you use.

>>17790588
>It doesn't break the feeling of familiarity.
t. cheater

>>17790612
Never cheated or desireded to.
thanks for your great argumentation, really changed my views.

>>17785437
I feel just like you, the only difference is, i didn't ask her, i just assumed her number is same as mine, after 2 years we had a open chat. The number was alot higher... Wwyd? I guess i answered your question.

>>17785501
Lol at this degenerate trying to justify her behavior

File: 472389473294.jpg (41KB, 926x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 926x450px

>>17790458
>I never mentioned the statistic and it doesnt have any relevance on the post you made.
Oh really, but how do you assume
>>You arent getting married any time soon. And by the time you are of age to marry at your rate youll have like 15 partners.
without "the statistic"?

>People dont get married until like 28 yrs old on average.
Ah so now you are presenting your "statistic"?

also
>on average.
this signifies nothing

>Theres no peering into the future.
Then why did you assume those things about her? Because of le probability??

>you are stupid.
>you are literally retarded
>Ill explain for retards.
>for the mentally handicap
>Just you being retarded.
This is disgraceful.

>>17785437
Bang all sluts you find, your number gets 30+, rarely you find a girls sluttier then you... Problem solved

File: tmp_28522-1478478695743-1521152953.jpg (59KB, 896x921px)

59KB, 896x921px

>>17785437
Same way here bro.. i work at a warehouse full with guys with like 5 girls as well... everyone hits on them so i dont even aknowledge them because i cant be a dog in line like them and boost their ego if im not going to fuck them then theres no point talking to them

>>17785501
Youre a slut . Quit trying to justify your slutty ways

>>17790930
The average age of marriage is 28. By not being stupid you cant surmise facts.
I swear people are dumb.

>>17785501
>I guess I don't feel like the number means much
I ask specifically so that I can know this about you. If you dodge the question Id probably dump you and assume you are a whore with a lot to hide.