Dear men of /adv/, Which do you see as more "pure"?

>>18445149

Pure is either 100% or not at all.

>>18445149
Neither?

>>18445149

The concept of 'purity' is bullshit for religious nuts. Avoid any man who cares about 'purity'. He'll be rent asunder by the Madonna-whore complex and forever doomed to hate and fear what he loves, for one cannot have their cake and eat it, too.

>>18445149
the one who slept with five guys. bisexually is usually a sign of promiscuity, and fifteen is a lot bigger than five.

>>18445194
also fuckin lmao no keep telling yourself that

obviously each *individual case* is different, but generally speaking promiscuity is a sign of a lot of problems, primarily being unable to invest in a monogamous relationship: ie serial dating, multiple divorces

nice pseudo intellectualism though

>>18445205
And how is your post any less "pseudo intellectual"?

>>18445205
>generally speaking promiscuity is a sign of a lot of problems
>primarily being unable to invest in a monogamous relationship
>nice pseudo intellectualism

My man.. you're fucking dumb lmao

>>18445194
Get some dignity. Nobody is going to want to fuck a girl who opens up her legs every weekend and it's healthy to not want a slut.

>>18445245
kind of being extreme here, but the general sentiment is true, except for desperate and whipped guys who are starved for affection from almost anyone


>>18445225
because there are statistical facts to support that promiscuity can point to other problems and often correlates with increased dating-and-dumping and/or divorce rates.

and if you can't tell that a logical train of thought using concrete examples is better than blaming religion and saying trite things like you can't have a cake and eat it (what they mean by this???), then I don't think there's much of a point in having a discussion at this time

>citation
I understand why you would want a citation, but I'm not crazy enough to carry around citations for use in 4chan. If you're really curious, you'll just have to do the research yourself.

>>18445237
>man you're fucking dumb lmao
if that's your substitute for an argument I'm a little bit concerned. 4chan is really pathetic.

I don't really give a shit about partner count as long as they're past it and just want to be with me. Purity is stupid.

But I'd be a little more hesitant about the bisexual with 15 girls, because it would imply she really likes it and that there is something I'll never be able to give her. I dated one once and it was cool, but she was definitely missing something she wanted and I wasn't cool with her hooking up with girls on the side.

>>18445269
>purity is stupid
literally every one of my friends who has had 15-20 partners will cheap, lie, and dump people at the drop of a hat. they have also been molested.

I don't think wanting to avoid something like that is stupid.

also you contradicted yourself completely.

File: 1498007901640.gif (3MB, 200x228px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x228px

Both and neither. This "purity" and "slut" business is all personal opinion and perspective. I get a real kick out of these threads regardless if they're bait or not cause i think this shit is fucking stupid. Date someone if you like them, don't date them if you don't.

>i'm a mid 20s male who has slept with over 60 women and is in a long term committed relationship with a girl who has slept with 4 men

You mad?

and if someone is a player who wants to fuck the entire world, can't maintain or be satisfied with a relationship with one person, and is likely to lie dump and manipulate people on a regular basis, then they are 'impure' in their character, and that's not very desirable.

you can be asswounded about it all you want, but it's true.

you can be the exception if you want to put that sort of effort out, but being in denial is actually not going to help you be the exception.

Guess it sort of depends on the person. Someone who is promiscuous is going to be okay being with someone else who is promiscuous, while someone who is pure will want someone else pure. My ex boyfriend was my first and only and he had told me he only slept with three girls. Later on I found out he slept with a lot more than that and it made me uncomfortable...I guess it shows that they have a different personality and different values compared to you. I see sex as something important and should only be with a person you love and wait for, I like to be with someone who see it similarly.

>>18445281
yeah but you are behaving like a wild animal dude. you're likely none of them got pregnant. most of the guys I know who have slept with 30 are running into problems.

you can say I'm being emotional and biased, but I just don't want to get involved with sluts, and the person who is saying
>haha that opinion is just DUMB
is probably the one who is biased. that's just an obvious display of emotional bias and intellectual deficit and/or laziness.

>>18445292

>i don't want to get involved with sluts

What constitutes a 'slut' in your eyes? Someone who has had the same or less partners than you?

Does an animal care about the number of partners its mate has had? No. Do I? No, because i think living life in a constant state of worry over something so insignificant and silly is absurd. Does my girlfriend care? No, because she knows that i love her and that i am hers. I also know that she's thankful that i am experienced - she's never had a guy who knows how to read a body like i do.

I think that you, as well as many other young men, need to stop caring about this topic. Stop obsessing over it.

There's only a problem if you create one, and you certainly are creating one. It's all in your head, dude.

>>18445337
I think it depends on culture, although I would say that the average person who has had 60 partners is at serious risk for unwanted pregnancy.

In my specific little corner of American culture, those who have a lot of partners are usually damaged goods and have personality disorders so to speak.

Like I said, every specific case is different, and you might be a perfectly cool guy. Statistically speaking, though, I think it is wise to avoid someone who has had sixty partners. I would go as far as to say sixty is *extreme*, and pretty concerning.

I try not to lose my noodle over women who have had ten or so partners, like you're suggesting, but tendencies show themselves even in those cases.

I could get along just fine with someone who has had fifteen partners or so, hypothetically, but if I can choose between them and someone who has had less then I'm going to pick the person who has had less. It's not being obsessive. It's just being discerning.

Also I'm only trusting your self-report that you are a cool guy. I'm sorry but as far as I know you could be a nightmare. I think those who admit their faults are more trustworthy than people trying to convince others that they are fine.

>>18445149
Lie. Pick number he cant prove otherwise.

Say you had 2 bf and slept only with one and deny any one night stands. Never talk about exes and instead
>ew, i have done this with tyrone and no
do
>sweety, lets do this instead

Lie for both your partnet and your own sake. We want to feel you are exclusive, not cock carousel.

Please lie.

>>18445268
>there are statistical facts to support that promiscuity can point to other problems
What statistical facts?

>and often correlates with increased dating-and-dumping and/or divorce rates
This is why I said you're fucking dumb.
Obviously people who are in shorter/more frequent relationships will be more promiscuous than those who stay in longer relationships. The more people you date, the more people you have sex with. Shocking.

The divorce rate statistic is also stupid, because it in no way shows that promiscuity leads to divorce. Correlation =/ causation. That's not even mentioning the fact that divorce and promuscuity are both taboo in many religions, so obviously puritanical bible thumper retards are less likely to be promiscuous AND less likely to get a divorce. Otherwise they would be shunned by their bible thumper friends and maybe even excommunicated from the church. Even you can see how this undermines the conclusion you're trying to jump to.

The fact is that people like you use these bullshit statistics as factual evidence to prove your point that "Sex with lots of people is BAD BAD BAD" - either because you're an incel who needs this validation to make you feel better that nobody wants to fuck you, or you've been brainwashed by your fat inbred jesus freak peers.

Either way, you're fucking dumb.

>>18445245
>. Nobody is going to want to fuck a girl who opens up her legs every weekend

Well obviously someone is going to want to fuck her, or she wouldn't be able to open her legs every weekend.

You gotta work on that logic.

>>18445355

One fact of life is that everybody has baggage or is "damaged goods" in one way or another. You've got to find the people who can handle their own shit so that you don't have to. You'll find just as many crazy virgins as you will crazy 'sluts'.

As long as my partners practice safe sex, they're honest with me, and they do not intentionally try to hurt me or my friends, then who am I to judge them on their past? Their past is irrelevant to me as long as they show love and respect towards others.. But i digress.

I hope you eventually find what you're looking for.

>>18445371
>>18445371
>what are statistical facts
facts that have been gathered using cold numbers instead of assumptions and bias

>this is why I said you are fucking dumb
try to contribute something of value to the thread instead of lowering it

>there is no statistical correlation between promiscuity and divorce
let me use Google for you
http://www.askmen.com/news/dating/science-discovers-strange-link-between-promiscuity-and-divorce.html
it's AskMen (a terrible site) because that's the first result. you can use Google yourself and read about it on whatever site you prefer

https://www.recoveryplace.com/blog/promiscuity-linked-to-drug-addiction/
link between promiscuity and drug addiction. again you can just use google if you aren't satisfied with this, but you're likely only interested in things that confirm your bias.

correlation =/= causation
what do you think the cause of the divorces is, If not the promiscuity?

the study goes - general population with low promiscuity vs general population with high promiscuity. the only unwanted variable (they did this with election predictions in 2016) is that you can only sample people who are willing to take the survey.

but basically I don't think you have any statistical evidence to support your claims.

>>"Sex with lots of people is BAD BAD BAD"
what the fuck are you talking about?

>you're an incel
it has been about six months since I got laid, which is quite frustrating.

if you want to ask about my life experience instead of make false prediction because you're upset, my personal bias includes really bad experiences with people who were promiscuous manipulative and deceitful, and experience with promiscuous friends who I know are borderline abusive and were molested as children.

>either way you're fucking dumb
saying "no no no you're fucking dumb what you're saying is not true la la la I'm plugging my ears" is once again not an argument, and you are only being an infant this way.

you seem a bit unstable.

File: image.jpg (198KB, 666x692px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 666x692px

Repeated piv causes women to be sluts and lesl pure

>>18445371
>t. Roastie

>>18445373
yeah let me clarify what he probably meant

>less people are going to want to start a committed, loving relationship with someone who is getting banged by characters who are not very important to them on the regular

>>18445384
>you'll find as many crazy virgins as crazy sluts
I well extremes are usually concerning. I would wonder why someone is a slut or why they were a virgin.

I would rather have someone with a moderate amount of partners. I'd rather be in a monogamous sexual relationship with someone who's neurosis is smoking or being cranky rather than going out and banging a bunch of people.

>>18445373
Only subhumans are going to want to fuck her

>>18445422
>subhuman
you're poisoning the well by acting like this, invalidating your own argument and those who share the same opinions as you

>>>/r9k/

>>18445409

My point was that you're going to find crazy people everywhere you look. Judge them on their personality and the way that they act, not their past.

>>18445397
I never said there was no statistical correlation you imbecile. I said that correlations does not equal causation. If you had read my post and understood it, you would realize that all the links and statistics you're referring to do jack shit to prove this point you're trying to make:
"Promiscuity before marriage leads to divorce."

Showing a correlation between the two doesn't mean shit. You're only further proving my point. You don't understand how statistics are just data, and your interpretation of said data is that of a drooling retard who has far overestimated his own intelligence.

So, once again, you're dumb.

No, trust me. I read every word of your posts and thoroughly understood what you're getting at. I'm not just accusing you of stupidity as an ad hominem to distract from your argument. You're legitimately fucking dumb and your argument sucks ass for the reasons detailed in this post and the one I made before it. Reasons which you have completely failed to address, I might add.

>>18445427
Sorry for speaking my mind, I'll remember to censor my opinions next time

>>18445452
no by all means keep calling people subhuman. I'll just let you know it's whacky.

>>18445428
but I can't read people's minds to check their personality, so I have to use a flag system like we all do. I just don't choose to ignore past relationships, because I don't have bias towards ignoring that.

I think when someone is thirty or forty they are very capable of making a change. If I see someone who just yesterday had a train run on them, I'm going to stay away.

>>18445436
>imbecile
>dumb
>drooling
>stupidity
>dumb
Why don't you take some deep breaths, "roastie"?

I know that statistics and life experience is not some kind of ultimate truth, but why do you think scientists are pooling this data if it's completely meaningless? Do you realize the kinds of resources that need to go into studies like this? Even if it is a simple filling out of a survey, it is expensive by comparison to...some shit that was hastily assumed by a biased person on 4chan.

So I know I'm asking you more questions. You haven't really clearly asked anything from, at least not as much as you have been slamming insults into the keyboard.

Do you want me to consult some omnipresent God to determine whether or not these correlations that scientists are collecting indicate any kind of causation, or are you just hiding behind the fact that correlation doesn't *necessarily* indicate causation?

I'm not a scientist.
>I know you're not a scientist. hur hur dumb.
but I'm sure that if you were willing to do research at all and weren't just biased, you could look up the full detailed study and figure out why the scientists are collecting data about these correlations.

Anyway you are just hiding behind a faux argument that you probably picked up in community college.

How is a correlation not a significant deterrent? Can you explain this?

No. You're a difficult, angry promiscuous personality, or just a normal person who is deeply afraid they're too promiscuous.

>>18445479
I thought I already spelled it out clearly enough, but I'll try again. It seems like you missed the point because of the insults I threw at you. I promise I won't use any mean words this time.

I want you to understand that showing a correlation between two things does not determine their relationship. I am not "hiding behind" this fact. It is the main point of my argument against why the statistics you're posting do not support your argument the way you think they do.

In my earlier post, >>18445371 I explained how the religion of the poll respondents can skew the data. You chose to ignore that for whatever reason.

There is even an algorithm some guy developed that takes public data and finds correlations: www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

If you take a look, you'll find that you can find correlations between insanely dissimilar things. The correlation in your promiscuity vs. divorce rates doesn't hold any more meaning than any of the wacky correlations on that site.

So, my point is, the conclusion you've drawn is not supported by the links and statistics you've posted. Therefore, you can step down off your "scientific statistical data" high horse, because what you have is nothing more than an opinion based off anecdotal evidence and your own confirmation bias.

P.S. The fact that scientists pooled data does not mean anything in and of itself. WHY they did it is also meaningless, provided the data was taken from a double-blind study. The only thing of interest is the data they pooled and the source they pooled it from.

>>18445181

this.

When it comes to purity and virtue there is no "off white" or grey. You're either pure or contaminated.

Most water isn't pure but it's still drinkable.

>>18445479

P.P.S. - You suck, you're stupid, and may God have mercy on your hopelessly obtuse soul.

I'm done educating you now. Bye.

>>18445149
I would rather have the one who slept with 5 guys.

The other chick is basically a porn whore.

>>18445559
>I won't say any more mean words
you don't need to condescend me for the fact that *you* have a temperance issue (maybe not for posting on 4chan but definitely for trying to have a logical discussion).

>you can see all sorts of correlations between things that are irrelevant on this website
how the hell does US spending on science and suicide rate represent divorce rates and promiscuity.

I'm talking about the divorce rates and promiscuity between *individuals* not the whole society.

so basically that's irrelevant.

>correlation does not indicate causation
alright plato well explain this

if there is a correlation, than an individual who is promiscuous is more likely to break up and divorce, *regardless* of whether or not this correlation is a causation.

so *in what way is this correlation not relevant as a flag*? if the correlation is there, than the probability than individuals who are promiscuous will break up and divorce is there.

>the conclusion you have drawn is not supported by the statistics you are citing
after this post I have made to clarify, if you do not see the relevance, then you are absolutely in denial

>high horse
you're afraid that you're on a low horse, and that's why you're having a temper and being in denial

>what the scientists did and why they did it is meaningless
care to explain?


it is now clear that you are doing mental gymnastics to protect yourself and not be wrong, sending the topic through loops of additional, unnecessary logic to distort the truth

a correlation is enough to avoid a slutty roasty. causation would be more damning, but correlation is enough to serve as a red or yellow flag, because it shows an increase statistical likelihood of the thing many are trying to avoid (break ups/divorce)

unless you can explain why what the scientists are doing is irrelevant, and why correlation is not significant enough to avoid a person, then the conversation is over and I'm sorry you are in such denial.

File: 1476871949342.jpg (413KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1536x2048px

>>18445149
Well if u had to ask, roastie op. Ur not pure at all, I seen thru ur lies.

>>18445585
look you are leaving so that you can avoid being wrong, and you are actually the one not supporting a damned thing you say

>obtuse soul
go throw a fit to your daddy.

>>18445205

I see focusing on a single individual in life is blinded devotion and also a sign of a ton of issues.

>>18445585
obviously ditching so that you don't have to read the evidence that you are wrong, tossing in another pathetic little insult

>>18445292

Do you think people who sleep with more partners don't know how to use a condom to prevent them from getting pregnant? Not getting a girl pregnant is not rocket science. How inexperienced are you?

File: huh.png (205KB, 505x431px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 505x431px

>>18445194


Is this a roastie postie?

File: 1496773028326.png (307KB, 662x618px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 662x618px

Why the fuck does she have to sleep with 15 girls?!

>>18445369
t. roastie who told the truth

>>18445619
my point is pretty alright, because you keep talking about specific instances where a guy could hypothetically fuck 60 women and be fine, but I'm pointing out to everyone that promiscuity in a man or woman is more likely to be indicative of a problem than a normal amount of partners is.

I wouldn't want to date a girl who dated LOTS of guys before me. I will seem inexperienced (which I am), boring, unworthy etc etc. ALSO, it might indict she has monogamy issues and is a "free spirit" kind of chick (at the moment at least). Though, I would still date such a girl if we have open and free communications. This way, I can trust her more despite the amount of men in the short amount of time.

>>18445624
No, the opposite.

T. Boy who wants the illusion his gf isnt slut. Is it so much to ask for?

>>18445181
Fpbp

>>18445194
Somewhat true. My bf was very controlling and insecure about partner count and me talking to other guys. Yet he refuses to fuck me after he got me pregnant. He can no longer see me as sexually desirable because he has a Madonna/whore complex. Men like this don't know how to love a woman no matter what.

>>18445149
zozzle

>>18445149
All I care about is if she has cheated as she will probably cheat again.
Also, being older now, (mid 30s) if she got divorced I like to know why. If she got divorced because "she was bored or needed a change" then she will do it again.
That's pretty much it for me. oh, and they can't do hardcore drugs, pot is fine.

>>18445149
it's less about gender and more about number of partners, and the duration of those relationships