TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

75

Not caring about n-count means that it says NOTHING about the person - positive or negative.

How can you possibly think that n-count says nothing positive or negative about someone? Choosing when and who you have sex with is a more important decision than say... choosing where to eat lunch.

So to those who do not care about it, how do you come to the conclusion that it says NOTHING about a person, positive or negative?

How can it be mean nothing at all?


[–]reeearnakedchokereeeee33 points34 points  (39 children) | Copy Link

How can you possibly think that n-count says nothing positive or negative about someone? Choosing when and who you have sex with is a more important decision than say... choosing where to eat lunch.

It says something about a person but nothing positive or negative. Is let's say living in a commune positive or negative? How about being purposefully homeless and traveling around? These things just represent different takes on life, which you may or may not be compatible with, but they're just a thing some people are doing, there's no weird value attached.

[–]peterlongcLove.Is.The.Drug7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

yes, if you ever lived in a commune it says a hell of a lot about you. yes, if you've been purposefully homeless it says a hell of a lot about you.

yes, people have different values. people who do those things have different values than Trump supporters generally speaking.

[–]reeearnakedchokereeeee1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It says something about you, I established this in my OP. But are the things that it says about you positive or negative?

[–]peterlongcLove.Is.The.Drug0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

i do see now that i was thrown off by your concluding statement regarding "weird value attachment" and failed to remember your first words; sorry about that. since i view all values as subjective then there is nothing weird about valuing one way or another.

values and meaning are both subjective and linked; what is relevant to my values is always meaningful to me. "positive or negative" are just value words and again subjective.

nonetheless, there are trends in the aggregate subjectivity of a population and we discuss those trends here at ppd.

[–]BoiledCentipedes2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

there's no weird value attached

We have the freedom and ability, as humans, to attach moral weight to actions and behaviours. To some people, travelling around the world while homeless is a positive, to others it's a negative. It's not up to you to decide the legitimacy of my personal moral weightings. If I insist on finding a virgin to date, that's my prerogative based on my personal moral compass. Sure, I may end up single and alone because of this unduly restrictive dating criterion, but that's my cross to bear.

Morality isn't objective, so saying that our actions...

say something about a person but nothing positive or negative

... is incorrect.

[–]reeearnakedchokereeeee2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

We have the freedom and ability, as humans, to attach moral weight to actions and behaviours. To some people, travelling around the world while homeless is a positive, to others it's a negative. It's not up to you to decide the legitimacy of my personal moral weightings. If I insist on finding a virgin to date, that's myprerogative based on my personal moral compass. Sure, I may end up single and alone because of this unduly restrictive dating criterion, but that's my cross to bear.

You could've just said "I get the point you're making" instead of vomiting it back at me.

Morality isn't objective, so saying that our actions...

Morality is hardly ever the arguments I see used here on this subject. It's this relationship/marriage study that and STD's this. These people try to present their morals as a fact, and that's where I take grievance and comment.

say something about a person but nothing positive or negative

Is correct, as how people make you feel can't be.

[–]BoiledCentipedes-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You could've just said "I get the point you're making" instead of vomiting it back at me

But the thing is, I don't get the point you're making, because you're wrong.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 1993-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

are you a virgin yourself?

[–]BoiledCentipedes1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

No, but my virginity status is irrelevant to the argument. Even a non-virgin is entitled to hold the requirement that any potential mates must be a virgin. Is it hypocritical? Yes. Is it advisable, from a pragmatic standpoint? No, because very few women remain virgins for long, so I'd be unduly restricting my potential dating pool, and raising my chances of dying alone.

But that doesn't change the argument, which is that people are free to place subjective value judgments on human behaviour.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 1993-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No, but my virginity status is irrelevant to the argument.

no it's not. are you a virgin yourself?

Even a non-virgin is entitled to hold the requirement that any potential mates must be a virgin.

you mean hypocritical. and yes, you will be judged for it.

you want a woman to tell you her n count but would you tell her yours and be honest about it? that's the question.

which is that people are free to place subjective value judgments on human behaviour.

as long as it's reciprocal. you dont get to be a town's bike and expect a woman to accept you for that.

[–]BoiledCentipedes0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

no it's not. are you a virgin yourself?

I answered the question with the first word of my response ("No").

you mean hypocritical.

Yes, that's the exact word I used in my response. Hypocritical.

and yes, you will be judged for it.

Fair enough! That's precisely my point.

you want a woman to tell you her n count but would you tell her yours and be honest about it? that's the question.

Well, that's NOT the question we are addressing. We are addressing whether human beings are allowed to place moral judgments (regardless of how justified they are to others) on others' behaviour.

you dont get to be a town's bike and expect a woman to accept you for that.

You're not disagreeing with me. If a woman has a problem with my N-count (whether she thinks it's too low or too high), she is 100% justified in using my N-count as a determining factor in whether she sees me as relationship material.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 1993-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If a woman has a problem with my N-count (whether she thinks it's too low or too high), she is 100% justified in using my N-count as a determining factor in whether she sees me as relationship material.

so you would tell her.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 4 points5 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

t says something about a person but nothing positive or negative. Is let's say living in a commune positive or negative? How about being purposefully homeless and traveling around?

How is this the same as choosing how many people you have sex with??

Anyway, no one thinks STDs are a positive. Or higher relationship/marriage risk. All of this is shown in data. This stuff is decidedly "negative."

[–]GracefulStoatPurple Pill Man5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Divorce risk is very important, but as an individual person, I need to consider the risk that my specific marriage to a specific person will fail, not the risk that a hypothetical generic marriage would fail. Most of the reasons that low previous partner counts are supposed to lead to low divorce risk would operate backwards in my case and actually increase my risk.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How so?

I think the point to single men (or maybe women too) is: avoid LTRing or marrying promiscuous people. That's it. There's 5x as many non promiscuous people around you can choose from.

[–]GracefulStoatPurple Pill Man3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The stability of a relationship depends on (at least) two things: the characteristics of the individuals in that the relationship and the quality of the match.

Before we match people up, we can say a priori that some types of people are less likely to divorce: educated people, old people, people with traditional religious values, etc. We can also say that some types of people are more likely to divorce: young people, poor people, secular people, highly promiscuous people, etc.

But after we pair people up, we have to consider quality of match. Marriages tend to be more stable when the partners are similar to each other in important ways, and less stable when partners are very different, especially if those differences concern their core values and beliefs.

What this means is that if you want to avoid divorce, but you personally have characteristics that are associated with higher risk of divorce, you run into a dilemma. I, for instance, happen not to be religious. I know that religious people divorce less than non-religious people, but I also know that partners with different religious beliefs divorce each more often than partners with similar beliefs. Trying to prove statistically which effect would be stronger in this case would be very difficult, but my intuition tells me that quality of match is more important. I think that I am more likely to have a successful marriage to another secularist than I would be to have a successful marriage with a religious traditionalist.

[–]PrehistoricPrincessNothing is sexier than mutual empathy and respect8 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

To play devil's advocate, how is it not? You are operating here on the assumption that it means something. What you haven't explained is why you think that, or what you think it means.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

That's a directly opposite discussion, not the OP.

[–]PrehistoricPrincessNothing is sexier than mutual empathy and respect4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

How is it not... The title of the OP is literally "N-Count Cannot Be Meaningless." You provide nothing to back that claim up with. We don't have the burden of proof; you do.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

At the very least, it says that this person is much more open to more sexual partners, which already validates my statement, "it means something."

[–]PrehistoricPrincessNothing is sexier than mutual empathy and respect7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean, I think that's inherent in the statement. If you have sex with a lot of people, you're probably okay with having sex with a lot of people. But what else does it say about you?

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] -3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

She's easier or arguably has lower standards for her partners?

Two women, same looks and personality roughtly. One is n count 2, other is n count 20.

They both go out about the same, get hit on the same. One fucked 10x more guys.

[–]frogsgoribbit7370 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What if the second has dated all the guys that she had sex with while the first had 2 casual sex relationships. You can't tell stuff like that by just a number. You could get a count of 20 by the age of 26 just by dating 2 guys a year assuming you are sexually active by 16.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why would it be objectively negative or positive? It can tell you about compatibility.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

It's a choice. Hence, analogy works.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

All choices do not have the same meaning.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

What do you even try to defend? What meaning of N counts are you defending?

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

People say they don't care about n-count because it means nothing. I say it means plenty.

[–]Luke-the-camera-guy3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I say it means plenty.

But this is reflective of you tho and not other people? Your question is like asking people to explain how certain food can taste great to them because to you it tastes awful i.e your looking for people to justify why they have different interests than you or why certain things don't cause them to react in the same way as you. Which u/reeearnakedchoke stated " These things just represent different takes on life" they don't mean more than that unless you personally add value to them.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It can have personal meaning and it can have actual (factual) meaning. There is lots of data about it.

I'm questioning a different aspect though: people who say it is meaningless. Like completely meaningless. What it means isn't even the point.

[–]Luke-the-camera-guy6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry I'm lost, when people here say "it's meaningless" they don't mean that in a literal sense as in "it has no meaning" they're just trying to say "they care less about it than other factors in a person" or that "yes it is information about that person but its information with no positive or negative value in my eyes"

[–]kayimboall gender sterotypes are true0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I couldn't draw any conclusions from a high n-count.

Maybe there are statistical correlations, but i'd have to see the numbers, i can't think of it meaning anything.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Great, to you, N-count means something. Others have decided not to weight that particular number as heavily as you have.

My husband assumed my N was a LOT higher than it actually is. He didn't learn the truth until we had been married for a few years. He assigned that particular characteristic a low value. There were other things about me that he thought were much more important. If you had come at him with your statistics about STDs and divorce rates, he would have pointed out that I, personally, didn't have any STDs, and that my parents still being married would have a far greater influence on my predisposition towards divorce than my N.

His parents are divorced, which, statistically, says that he is far more likely to be predisposed towards divorce than I am. However, I did not and do not give his parents' divorce all that much weight in assessing his value for a relationship.

It really seems to be frustrating you that others have the temerity to decide for themselves what characteristics they care about when making relationship decisions. I am not sure what to tell you about that.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And what does it mean? It tells about attitudes to sex in case of women, and possibility to have sex and attitudes to settling for women of lower leagues in case of men. But some people don't care about that through N counts.

[–]reeearnakedchokereeeee0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

How is this the same as choosing how many people you have sex with??

In that it speaks to your ideas, your personality, your socialization, but says nothing *positive* or *negative* about you as a person.

Anyway, no one thinks STDs are a positive. Or higher relationship/marriage risk. All of this is shown in data. This stuff is decidedly "negative."

Safe sex is a thing. Link to study. Why is higher relationship/marriage risk negative? Negative to people who want that maybe, but not everyone does. Higher relationship/marriage risk again is just a thing. Not positive or negative. Assuming you're right, which I don't think you are, and women who are promiscuous are worse for marriage/relationships how is that negative? It's not negative to me, send them my way and me and my gf will have a field day.

[–]ObeyTheCowGod1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

That is an interesting perspective you have. I attach a value to all the examples you have and to the n count and see no reason why not too. I find your claim to not seeing value in people choices as bordering on dishonest. Eastern mystics talk about intense training for decades to let go of the human tendency to judge in favor of just accepting what is. Are you saying you have this skill just through luck? Their is nothing weird about judging and placing value on things. It is the most natural of all human tendencies

[–]reeearnakedchokereeeee2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

*You* have attached value. Is there an inherent value one way or the other?

[–]ObeyTheCowGod-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's a silly question. Can I be sure the universe will continue to exist if I don't exist or that the universe exists in any fashion apart from my interpretation of it? I exist. I get to treat the universe anyway I like. I am part of the universe. I am the part of the universe that attributes value to the universe.

[–]reeearnakedchokereeeee2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a silly question.

This, but to the OP.

[–]ObeyTheCowGod-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

OK. Sounds like you have attached a value to the op's question.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.44 points45 points  (47 children) | Copy Link

No, it just means you don’t care. I don’t care about my husbands n count. Not everyone values the same things as you.

You know, how lots of men here say for example they don’t care at all about a woman’s job or education. Clearly those metrics can give information about a person yet men here say they don’t care. It’s not the same question.

[–]loke2dabrainonthexans ☠25 points26 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I think a good comparison to female promiscuity would be male bisexuality. Ime bisexual men have no problem getting a gf but I have heard a few women say theyd never date a bi man. Some refuse to out of insecurity and some out of disgust.

It's almost identical to how men see sluts. Some men don't mind dating a slut, some have a problem with it out of insecurity and some are just flat out disgusted by them.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Makes sense

[–]loke2dabrainonthexans ☠1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The catch is that bisexual women might also fall into the same undatable category, since many people might see them messing around with other women as a tell tale sign that they are sluts.

[–]PrideInIndividualityLiberal Red Piller0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure you understand, /u/sublimemongrel was being sarcastic.

[–]double_redA Proud CUMmunist0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

The same applies for other kind of men, like those who've dated old women. Most women would never date such men.

[–]StarlingClarice 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

Can you elaborate? Do you mean like an elderly woman?

[–]double_redA Proud CUMmunist1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah.

[–]StarlingClarice 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Hmm.. interesting to think about. Do you think it would bother men if a woman’s last boyfriend was 80 years old?

[–]double_redA Proud CUMmunist4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It would scare them for sure. In the beginning, they would think that she is a gold digger, which is scary by itself. If she wasn't with him for his money though, that would be much scarier.

[–]UrMomma4Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow, great comparison!!

[–]PrideInIndividualityLiberal Red Piller0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol

[–]OatsGYOWMGTOW[🍰] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Do you think these people that "don't care" will also be indifferent to hearing the details of these prior sexual escapades?

Perhaps for a woman, but most men are going to feel a horrible lurching feeling at the thought of his wife lapping up another dude's dick. It isn't that these men don't care about it, it is that they are willfully delusional.

[–]StarlingClarice 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

If you think a woman wouldn’t feel horrible about the thought of their husband “lapping up” another vagina... you’d be mistaken. But oddly enough even though I know how many women came before me, I only focus on him lapping mine up, lol.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Eh that’s pushing it lol. I don’t really want to hear details about my husbands past sexual experiences as a woman either. But I don’t care about his n count.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol so many people here probably do care but say they don't just to spite opposing groups

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 1 point2 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

People care about things which are meaningful or important to them.

Therefore not caring about n-count implicitly says that n-count is meaningless.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.12 points13 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

It doesn’t imply that it “means nothing about a person” more than it implies whatever it could mean to someone doesn’t really matter to them.

I mean again - would you say to men who say they don’t care about a woman’s job or education that they are saying it means nothing about a particular woman whatsoever? Or would you just say hey that metric doesn’t really matter to that particular man?

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] -1 points0 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Let's not derail this to men and womens' education.

How can n-count say nothing about a person so as to make it completely OK to ignore it?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.11 points12 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

It’s an analogy to point out people have different preferences based upon their values. It doesn’t say “nothing” but it doesn’t say enough for every single person to give a fuck when it comes to who they date. People may also differ on what it “means.” That’s how it’s similar to education, job, etc, I mean you could go on to analogize that to many things.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 1 point2 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

OK so it DOES say something about them, just nothing positive or negative? Kinda like ice cream flavor preference?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

That depends on who you ask. But yes it’s again tied to the judger’s personal preferences, beliefs and values.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] -1 points0 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

So there's not a hair of objective fact in this? Nothing that numbers can't show?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

There are probably some trends in what people think, sure. I don’t know where you’d find numbers on what people think about others’ or potential dating partners’ n counts though if that’s what you’re asking.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

Not what people THINK. That's not fact, that's opinion.

Hard numbers that say something positive or negative about n-count. Are you saying this doesn't exist?

[–]frogsgoribbit7370 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your point is that it means something about how they choose who to sleep with. But it doesn't.

A number doesn't tell you if they wait to have sex, have casual sex, or only sleep with serious relationships. Mine is 4 including my husband, but one of those was casual sex and for some dudes here even 4 is too high!

It's meaningless to me because it says nothing. But also because it matters more to me what your sexual actions are RECENTLY. Maybe you slept around 10 years ago, but now you don't do casual sex. You could have a high n count which has no reflection on you as a person now.

[–]poppy_bluBeware the freight train6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Then care about the things that are meaningful to you and stop telling everyone else to care about things that are not meaningful to them.

This is the issue. Stop trying the convince the rest of the planet to adopt your worldview.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Funny that you're telling me what to do in the meanwhile LOL. If you don't like it don't listen.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account[M] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a CMV thread (and would have to be, because you made an affirmative claim in your title).

It's not for you to give your view and expect others to agree with you. To convince others of your view. If thats what you're doing I'm going to have to remove this thread.

You have to engage with a willingness to have your mind changed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_post_flair

CMV Posts

“Challenge My View” posts are moderated more heavily in order to ensure quality content. They are an exception to the neutral title rule, in that they must make an assertion. Below are the guidelines required for a successful CMV post:

1) You must personally hold the belief.

2) You must be open to having your view challenged. This means that you must act in a way that demonstrates that you are willing to have your view challenged. Moderators do not have access to your internal mental state, but we can infer your intent from your posts and comments.

An unwillingness to have your view challenged may be inferred from one or several of the following:

  • Asking few or no genuine questions;
  • Seeming more interested in arguing or convincing others than understanding opposing views;
  • Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
  • Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
  • Explicit statements of an intent to change the other posters’ minds; or
  • Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So, yeah, they can be personally meaningless.

[–]RaspberryInk1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

People care about things which are meaningful or important to them.

Therefore not caring about n-count implicitly says that n-count is meaningless [to them].

This would make these two statements comparable, which I think makes it more accurate.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew27 points28 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

does anyone actually say its"meaningless" or do they dispute the meaning?

i would never say that the fact that I'm high N is "meaningless", it absolutely speaks to my attitudes towards casual sex when single and high sociosexuality and all kinds of things. i dispute it means what some people CLAIM it "means" and that the interpretations of studies regarding it are the correct interpretations

[–]WaterOnMyHood 1 points [recovered]  (17 children) | Copy Link

Yeah what a surprise that high N women think that high N indicates positive things about them

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Where did I say that

[–]WaterOnMyHood 1 points [recovered]  (9 children) | Copy Link

Why would I care about what you say, your attitude reads clear like a book

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

whats my attitude?

[–]WaterOnMyHood 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

In this case you identify as a high N woman and since you are you nothing you can do is indicative of anything you don't like.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

well, obviously its NOT indicative of anything I dont like, i only like high N high sociosexuality men as well, what exactly is your point? how is that me saying that being high N is some generic "positive" thing about me? its absolutely NOT positive to men who care, so what?

[–]WaterOnMyHood 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

I cannot even begin to fathom how someone could read the OP and not think that it reads "tell me about all the bad traits high N women have".

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

it says "how can it be MEANINGLESS"

[–]WaterOnMyHood 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah and in Matthew 28:20 Jesus said that he will be with me to the end of time, even if I'm dead as fuck by then.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Atlas, I think when you write stuff it's like a different language to people so they see things that don't exist.

That and PPD posters refuse to buy you a drink before putting weird things, like words, in your mouth...

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol

[–]WaterOnMyHood 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't have internet idols like you, sorry

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't have internet idols like you, sorry

You were the one who claimed she said stuff she didn't.

An ad hominem attack is not going to cover up for that. Either learn to read properly and do more than write sarcastic comments on a debate forum or don't bother because your argument cannot be taken seriously.

[–]JulieCroneWhat's with all the labels?3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because the number in itself doesn’t tell the story. A man could be a virgin because he’s deeply religious, not terribly sexual, was just really busy and didn’t have the time or energy for dating or lots of other reasons. A man could have a really high number because he thought that was very important at one point but now has different priorities. Without knowing the story and more about the person, the number is pretty meaningless.

[–]yaseedog will hunt20 points21 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

I don't think anyone really claims that it means "nothing". if your n is high I will generally assume that you are a social person with liberal sexual values. it's just less important/telling than other factors I would assess in a potential partner

[–]andrew_rdt 1 points [recovered]  (10 children) | Copy Link

it's just less important/telling than other factors I would assess in a potential partner

It's generally up there high on the "am I compatible with this person", that is after you pass the test of getting to a point to discuss that question in the first place. It is a quick way to skip finding other traits about the person that it may take months to do. Yes in a way its like stereotyping but you can't spend months dating and getting to know every person you meet and need some high level filters. It's like the job market for hiring people, yes you "might" skip over a certain person that would otherwise be good but who cares because there are 10 more that pass the initial filter that are probably just as good.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

you can't spend months dating and getting to know every person you meet and need some high level filters.

This information is very hard to get accurately without someone feeling comfortable with you to share it, which can often take months

[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

It's generally up there high on the "am I compatible with this person"

not for me

what specific traits do you think it tells you about?

[–]andrew_rdt 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

Well lets put it this way, its not the only filter, it goes with other things too. I would say a large N-count mismatch in either direction is a red flag, if its the only red flag then you can let it slide, but its 1 of many that go to a tipping point of "yeah... this isn't going to work". I guess, its equal for most other reasons you may not date someone long term.

[–]yaseedog will hunt4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

hmm well I think all the things I might assume about someone from their n-count can be assessed much more directly by just talking to them and spending time with them

[–]i_have_a_semicolonPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep, this is how my fiance (n count of 2) thinks. I have an N count of ~15.

[–]andrew_rdt 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

You are correct, but if you have a lot of options you need to make some quick decisions based on some "superficial" qualities then N count is just as good as any. If you have time to spend with them go for it.

[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

ok but when would you ever be in a situation where you have not spent a significant amount of time with someone, but you somehow accurately know their n count

that's not really a first date question

[–]andrew_rdt 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well then however long it takes, its a potential red flag and if you are unsure about the whole thing it could easily be the thing that changes your mind about the relationship, in either direction. In that case its not meaningless, it means something, up to the person to decide how much.

[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

up to the person to decide how much

yes

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What a reasonable and well balanced view. How did you end up here?!

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

This "high n count social person" cliche needs to die.

Some of the biggest whores I know are moderately social at best. They are closet whores who like drugs and alcohol and have working class education and jobs most of the time (this includes art school or something similar).

Liberal is correct, though.

[–]yaseedog will hunt7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't mean a social butterfly necessarily, but I'd assume they probably aren't inept and enjoy socializing. I'm pretty sure extroversion and openness correlate with sexual behaviour

[–]rus9384Misanthrope2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They are the ones who like sex and variety.

[–]Barneysparky1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

How can you say you know whores that are publicly prudish? I'm 52 years old dude and I've never been able to accurately portray my best friends sex life never mind random people. My parents even, no idea!

[–]i_have_a_semicolonPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I will generally assume that you are a social person with liberal sexual values.

Head, meet nail.

[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

?

edit: nvm, friday brain lol

[–]WaterOnMyHood 1 points [recovered]  (31 children) | Copy Link

Intelligent women have less casual sex for sure

[–]rus9384Misanthrope5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

How does it C OP's V?

Also, there are many smart women with high N counts.

[–]WaterOnMyHood 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

Didn't notice it was a CMV. Of course, what do you mean with that?

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Someone threw a study here saying N counts are correlated with colledge education. Which is logical, tbh.

[–]WaterOnMyHood 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

No, a 10 word vocabulary test was correlated with promiscuity

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

And you threw no link.

While it's logical because there is substantial amount of hooking up happening in colleges. Also, colleges teach women freedom, and liberalism is correlated with N counts.

[–]rightmeow6 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

that's not true. i just pulled up a report that says women with higher IQs are more promiscuous than their less intelligent counterparts. this makes sense; high IQ people are more likely to suffer from addiction, depression, and other destructive behaviors.

Both men and women in the top percentile of promiscuity report higher intelligence scores than do their less well-traveled peers. This also holds true for women but not men in the top 5% of promiscuity. Top-five percentile men have IQs only slightly higher than their less sexually adventurous peers.

source.

[–]qwertyuiop111222Purple Pill Masticator0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I read through the entire report - I think this is the contentious paragraph:

Two related factors—education and intelligence—are highly predictive of having a large number of sex partners. Some of us have a mental portrait of Promiscuous America that looks like the Jerry Springer Show, but this doesn’t seem to comport with reality. People with post-graduate degrees are much more likely than their less-educated peers to be promiscuous, and this is especially true of women. Over 2% of women with advanced degrees fall into the top percentile of promiscuity; in other words, over 35 sex partners. Almost 1.5% of men report top-percentile promiscuity of 150 or more partners. Both these numbers are far higher than they are for people with less formal education.

In my opinion, the bold sentences say one thing, and the italicized sentence says something slightly different. The bold sentences are looking at only the margins of society - the top 1% of promiscuity. However, the italicized sentence is drawing an inference about the entire 100% by looking at only that 1%. But from studying the top 1%, you cannot generalize about the entire population.

Also, consider this example, on which we can agree:

  • All sharks are sea animals.
  • However, very few sea animals are sharks.

Similarly,

  • All very promiscuous people are highly educated.
  • However, very few highly educated people are very promiscuous.

Let me know if y'all agree or disagree. From common sense and past experience, it was the jocks and the cheerleaders who were getting laid, not the nerds and the bookworms.

Finally, also from the same link:

But averages don’t reveal human behavior at the margins, and a narrow sliver of intelligent and highly-educated Americans are departing from sexual norms.

That narrow sliver that the author is studying is the top 1% alone.

[–]rightmeow6 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

the study shows that intelligence and promiscuity are positively correlated. that's all. it's not saying all smart people are promiscuous, obviously, nor is it saying all promiscuous people are smart or highly educated. it also viewed the top 1 and 5% promiscuity wise, not only the top 1%.

That narrow sliver that the author is studying is the top 1% alone.

ok...and? those people exist...and the topic was "intelligent women".

regardless, my whole point was questioning OP's premise that "intelligent" women are less likely to be promiscuous. it's been proven that high IQ people, women in particular, are more likely to use drugs than their less intelligent counterparts. this is most likely because high IQ people are more open to new experiences, among other things. i really don't think it's that hard to make the conclusion that the same might apply to high IQ people and sexual partners.

that said, these are just TRENDS.

[–]qwertyuiop111222Purple Pill Masticator0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Cool bro.

[–]WaterOnMyHood 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

They did a 10 word vocabulary test, doesn't reflect IQ well at all.

[–]rightmeow6 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

The General Social Survey contains a 10-word vocabulary test that has been shown to have a high correlation (r = .71) with sophisticated IQ test results.

it's an approximation. now do you have a source for your original claim or are you just going to strawman all day?

[–]WaterOnMyHood 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you believe that the 10 word vocabulary test (WORDSUM) measures IQ well you accept that white americans are more intelligent than african americans (6.23 vs 4.78 average correct answers).

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

Probably true. If college education is at least somewhat related to intelligence then that is shown in sex partner data. College educated = less partners.

[–]findingfemininitysend birb memes9 points10 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

College educated = less partners.

I need a source for that because I'm pretty sure college is the most promiscuous time for both men and women.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I need a source for that because I'm pretty sure college is the most promiscuous time for both men and women.

That may be true, but in my experience most people find their life partners before they leave college. Uneducated folks just keep fucking around at a slow but steady pace.

[–]findingfemininitysend birb memes1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I work in a high education white collar job and that isn't my experience at all. It's 50/50 between people I know who met their life partners in college and people who met them after.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

By after do you mean while working their first "real" job? Cause I would almost throw that into the college group as well since grad largely follows the same pattern.

[–]findingfemininitysend birb memes1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. I'd say most people I know met their spouses in their 20s (and more specifically by their mid-20s) but not necessarily in undergrad.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

well the average age for first marriage is like 27 right? so obviously about half the married population had to have met their partner in their early to mid 20s

but i personally don't know many married couples who met in college. almost all of my married friends met after they finished school.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingfemininitysend birb memes1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd say the lower lifetime partner has more to do with the fact that educated people are less likely to get divorced. I don't think it has to do with promiscuity like these comments are implying

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's an interesting point, but the data is for 30 year olds at the median. I don't think divorcees are moving the needles here.

[–]InterestingPoint14 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably depends on the degree as well. I study a liberal arts subject and most of the girls on my programme are very much the party type

[–]PrehistoricPrincessNothing is sexier than mutual empathy and respect4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Statistically, not true.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/promiscuous-america-smart-secular-and-somewhat-less-happy

"Two related factors—education and intelligence—are highly predictive of having a large number of sex partners."

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This says that women with the highest education are more likely to be in the highest promiscuity group. (Note: the highest promiscuity group still has less super educated women than other women - this is mathematically un-falsifiable).

We don't know the rest of the stats for the highest educated group, but the group's median partner count could be lower than no college. Just that it's filled with a group of super sluts.

Cool link, thanks for it.

Overall promiscuity is not measured like that though.

The actual median for those groups is not the same. No college is more partners than college. See this:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf

Page 29

[–]okuli1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But how do they go through first year of college and don't become sluts?

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The same way water stays wet. College isn't some magical slut maker, contrary to incel and RP beliefs (quite the opposite actually for many).

[–]immaculacy2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think they know it does mean something but they don't care what it means. It's "meaningless" to them because they don't care about the meaning of their n count and they're ok with marrying that.

However, when those few people who "don't care" so they don't care, they're usually coping. They do care. But they just try to ignore it. Like if they saw a video of their partner's past sex it would horrify them. They just like to pretend it doesn't exist.

(I say "those few people who "don't care" so they don't care" because most people do care so I felt like it was wrong to just say people. Sorry if it was wordy.)

It's insane when people say n count says nothing about a person. Like seriously, your actions and choices mean nothing? Yeah ok...

[–]throwawayemotions344 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I literally dont care about N count because I dont think the amount of sex someone has while they are single tells me anything I need to know about them. If they have cheated on a spouse is something I'd question, but I really dont give a fuck.

Why should I or anyone ?

There is much more to the person than judging them on how many people the decided to lay with. You can meet a low N woman from a crazy fucked up abusive background but you dont find out until later. You can meet a high N who is normal and healthy and views sex as casual when she has it with casual partners but meaningful when she has it with her partner, coming from a healthy stable home.

Now you're stuck dealing with a low N womans abusive tenancies and emotions because you accepted the amount of people she slept with while vetting her. And you missed out on the high N woman who you could of had a good relationship with bc you nexted her based on one attribute.

Ya'll have deep seeded issues with sex.

[–]FatmanSlim931 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

You act like people can’t find normal low n-count people. Why not just date people who have similar n-counts and everyone will be happier?

[–]throwawayemotions346 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

No, I'm not acting like that. I used that specific example because I'm showing how basing an entire relationship off of something so stupid can have its downfalls. All because your lady met your perfect sex standard, nothing else matters until it's time to matter and deal with shit.

High n people can be normal, low n people can be normal. High n people can be fucked, low n people can be fucked. At the end of the day, the person and if they are gonna be fucked up or fuck you over, it has nothing to do with their behaviour they do while they are single and living their life.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not always a binary opposition.

[–]throwawayemotions340 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Meaning ?

[–]FatmanSlim930 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I mean ok that’s fair but why as a low n count person would i want someone who has a high n-count? It tells me how they view sex and we are not compatible. It’s not a moral choice but a compatibility one and I’m not gonna gain anything from choosing the high n-count woman over the low n-count woman. That being said the n-count equals morality is silly and I agree with you on that. If i cake off rude that wasn’t my intention.

[–]i_have_a_semicolonPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If my fiance held this stance we wouldn't be going to start our lives together. We are very compatible.

[–]FatmanSlim931 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And I’m happy that you two are happy together and can build a life together. That being said I don’t think I’d be a good match for someone with my insecurities and being grossed out by high n count.

[–]i_have_a_semicolonPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well then my thoughts are honestly that it's more you than them (in terms of incompatibility). Like my fiance has no such insecurities or view of high N count, doesn't find it gross. I think that sexually we are compatible , though he's a bit more low libido and I'm a bit higher, but he is happy to try to meet my expectation and I am ok with taking care of myself at times. What I found is a desire for variety and casual flings isn't even important to me. I was just young when I got an N count and very open and had the belief of just giving freely. I didn't go prowl for Chad's. Most of my N count were low value men. So I think my current fiance benefits from that free giving mindset especially when I'm not in the mood to give a BJ but he wants one so I'll give him a good one anyway LOL

[–]throwawayemotions341 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why are you basing your compatibility with something so intangible? For me, that says alot more about you as a person. You seem closed off, insecure and not open minded and that will transpire throughout other parts of your personality and relationship as well.

What does it show about your views of sex? Curious.

[–]FatmanSlim931 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean had sex for the first time like a week ago so I’m kinda new to all this. I’m pretty open to to a lot of stuff if I was I a relationship. And to be fair yeah I am insecure, I’m not great at all this and all the women with high n-counts in my life turned out to be shitty people. I get that’s not true about a lot of them, some of my friends are high n as well. To me it seems like they can divorce sex and intimacy but I can’t, and I tried.

[–]Barneysparky4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

If your bar for having a relationship with someone is based on how many people they have slept with you are not thinking about what's important. When you are thinking about spending your life with someone you shouldn't just be thinking about sex.

What's their parent's marriage like? Are they prone to anger or anxiety? Do they share the same religious, political and moral values with you? Mental and physical health. Do you enjoy their company outside of the bedroom? How are their relationships with previous partners? Do they share the same goals as you? Are their things about them that you admire? I know RP says men don't need to admire what you have sex with, but if you don't respect and admire each other when adulthood rears its head you will break up anywhere women have the freedom to do so. Putting on a pedestal is the opposite of respect. The list is endless regarding things to consider.

I've had sex with a couple of hundred people, but since I've made my own choices I have only had sex with people I really like and respect. My numbered 'N' count has never mattered to anyone I want to get to know better.

I read these questions on purple pill sometimes imagining that every new thing to consider is like a new button on a joystick for some of the boys here. It seems really confusing to them. I have a daughter with Asperger's and the black and white putting thoughts into other people's heads (you say you didn't think that but you did) is as equally infuriating as being around someone with BDP mirroring symptoms and how others view you.

My aspie daughter dropped out of University and got a job the same hours as her classes a five-minute walk from her classes She got away with it for 5 months, then when confronted (after I'd paid for the second half of the year) she screamed bloody murder at me saying I was going to kick her out if she wasn't in school. We had never had a conversation about that, closest was take whatever you want unless it's in the arts ( which I regret). Anyways I ended up apologizing for her hurt feelings over something I had never thought never mind spoken.

OP. Your question sounds just like my daughter. Spot on your head is imagining that the world is one big orgy except for you, and your making people around you pay for your imagined slight.

Tinder really isn't that big in real life for women. I've signed up for Tinder with a random fake picture when I found out what it did because I was living in a small surf town and we thought it would be interesting to spend a few weeks sitting at the oceanside bar seeing what kids were Tinder type kids. Not as many as is in your head, at all. More Nicaraguans (prostitutes and con men often) then gringos by a mile were on Tinder in a town that used to triple in size in season. It's in your head.

But I can't tell you that because you know what know one else knows or lies to you about.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Strange question, why the caveat in the arts?

[–]Barneysparky1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I didn't want to pay for a degree that didn't lead to a job. I was wrong.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Understandable.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait, what did you mean you were wrong?

[–]Barneysparky0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She could have used some more socialization instead of accounting.

[–]onii-chan_so_roughDrugs are bad, kids; don't take pills.1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

How can you possibly think that n-count says nothing positive or negative about someone? Choosing when and who you have sex with is a more important decision than say... choosing where to eat lunch.

Obviously those that don't care don't feel that way and don't put sex on a mighty social pedestal eh?

So to those who do not care about it, how do you come to the conclusion that it says NOTHING about a person, positive or negative?

How can it be mean nothing at all?

Everything means something just like how many lunches something has eaten means something but it's just so neglibly small what it means that I don't care because I don't put sex on a pedestal.

[–]celrian1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I simply acknowledge that everyone I date has a past which only will get longer and more involved as we age. I'd rather not hear about my partners exes as I'm sure they would not want to hear about mine. We're human and some level of jealousy or feelings of possessiveness may crop up. But what he did and who he dated before me had nothing to do with me. We focus on the present and our future together. I would rather date someone with experience in bed then little experience as that may have given him over time better skills and understanding in the bedroom though of course not always the case.

[–]Tyler_GatsbyNo mas Sancho1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck it, here we go again. Not a real way to argue or answer this without not so humble grag comments.

I don't give a shit to even ask her, unless she asked me first, then I'd just do it b/c she did. She wouldn't be on trial, or interrogation, just tit for tat on asking uncomfortable questions.

I've seen all the stat links you guys have, and like others said, only one that concerns me is the STD thing. Catching something is all I'm worried about. I've made it this far with only a couple scares, I don't want to pick up something now that I'm trying to be good.

[–]brodudedoggman1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean choosing lunch is kind of important, too. Sex is at least an aerobic activity whereas eating McDonald’s every day is going to make you a fatass.

[–]TealllaneNo Pill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not caring about n-count means that it says NOTHING about the person - positive or negative

Yes.

How can you possibly think that n-count says nothing positive or negative about someone?

Because unless someone is exclusively raping people. The number of people you sleep with is not an indicator to how kind you are to others. You can be a virgin and a total piece of shit, or sleep with 100 people and be as nice as Mr. Rogers.

So to those who do not care about it, how do you come to the conclusion that it says NOTHING about a person, positive or negative?

Because I'm going to judge you on how nice you are primarily. Then me personally I'll judge you for your sense of humor.

How can it be mean nothing at all?

Because nothing matters, and life is meaningless.

[–]kandyapplezincel larping as a thot5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

says a lot about their lifestyle and sexual behavior which isn't like a linear positive to negative scale. a lot of things i see said here about high n count women definitely don't apply to me. if you just don't want to date a woman who has boned a lot of ppl then okay but idg whats me having sex is supposed to reflect either positively or negatively lol

[–]gattaca_3 points4 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

A high number of sexual partners indicates

  • they enjoy sex
  • they have the ability to have a larger number of partners

Everything else is just assumptions.

[–]MyDogLovesCorn5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

they have the ability to have a larger number of partners

Eh, not really. It is also indicative of their inability to have a lower number of partners. Insecure and overweight women equally want LTRs but they are far more likely to throw that pussy early because they want to lock you down. Obviously, they're not as effective as their fairer counterparts so they have to repeat this process far more times to successfully secure an LTR.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

It is also indicative of their inability to have a lower number of partners

So true

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

It is also indicative of their inability to have a lower number of partners

So true

Only in the very literal sense that a person with high n count can't all of a sudden subtract from it. But not wanting (or more often the case, not caring) is not the same as not being able to. I probably could eat an extra slice of pizza, but I don't want to. I probably could keep a low n-count, but I don't want to.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

No one thinks a high n count is a positive, though. Only neutral at best.

Low n count is almost never viewed negatively, but often neutral or often positive.

Hence, someone unable to keep a low n count sounds like they might be deficient in some way, including being a careless (carefree to the max) person which is not a good trait to most people, especially family oriented types.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

No one thinks a high n count is a positive, though. Only neutral at best.

Maybe not, but there's a lot of secondary benefits that come with high n count - fun going out lifestyle, opportunities with attractive men, positive body image ect, that would offset the negative or neutral feelings about n-count.

Hence, someone unable to keep a low n count sounds like they might be deficient in some way, including being a careless (carefree to the max) person which is not a good trait to most people, especially family oriented types.

Sure, but a better and more accurate way of measuring how carefree/careless someone is would be to say, watch them dive a car. Plenty of virgins are also careless drivers.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Maybe not, but there's a lot of secondary benefits that come with high n count - fun going out lifestyle, opportunities with attractive men, positive body image ect, that would offset the negative or neutral feelings about n-count.

LOL @ that. You can do all of that and have a low n count.

Sure, but a better and more accurate way of measuring how carefree/careless someone is would be to say, watch them dive a car. Plenty of virgins are also careless drivers.

It's part of the things that makes that up.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Maybe not, but there's a lot of secondary benefits that come with high n count - fun going out lifestyle, opportunities with attractive men, positive body image ect, that would offset the negative or neutral feelings about n-count.

LOL @ that. You can do all of that and have a low n count.

... In theory sure. In practice... If you go out enough with a positive attitude because your love your body, you'll eventually meet a guy you want to have sex with. And then another and another...

It's part of the things that makes that up.

Sure, I won't deny that. But you'll never be able to confirm her n-count, so how good is it at actually predicting these things? Aren't you better off using other, more observable measures?

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

... In theory sure. In practice... If you go out enough with a positive attitude because your love your body, you'll eventually meet a guy you want to have sex with. And then another and another...

This is some funny fresh feel good BS. Thanks for this.

Sure, I won't deny that. But you'll never be able to confirm her n-count, so how good is it at actually predicting these things? Aren't you better off using other, more observable measures?

You just need to be close enough. Slut or not? >10 or < 5. SOmething like that.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

This is some funny fresh feel good BS. Thanks for this.

What makes you think that?

You just need to be close enough. Slut or not? >10 or < 5. SOmething like that.

Right, but looking at 5 women in a line up, how do you know even close enough?

[–]ObeyTheCowGod2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It indicates one more thing.

That they used that ability for some reason.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

they enjoy sex

Not really. This is # times sex, not n count.

they have the ability to have a larger number of partners

But someone with low n count could have CHOSEN not to have MORE partners.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Not really. This is # times sex, not n count.

It might be, it might not be. Someone who doesn't care so much about sex would only do it with their partner for their partners benefit. Even if they rack up a high # of times it doesn't mean they enjoyed. Alternatively, a person who is will to take the risk of sex with a man they don't know very well probably finds the act pleasurable in and of itself.

But someone with low n count could have CHOSEN not to have MORE partners.

But why? To what end? Where is the benefit to women to do this?

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

But why? To what end? Where is the benefit to women to do this?

Better perceived reputation obviously. I told you this before. High n count is almost never viewed favorably. It's highly stigmatized.

Low n count is highly preferred by most people. This isn't even a personal opinion.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Better perceived reputation obviously. I told you this before. High n count is almost never viewed favorably. It's highly stigmatized.

Continued in the other thread.

Low n count is highly preferred by most people. This isn't even a personal opinion.

Not by the men that women want to be with. A man who cares a rats ass about n-count (or virginity especially) is wildly off-putting to women unless they are religious or something.

[–]Aaren_AugustineWants a Cookie2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not by the men that women want to be with. A man who cares a rats ass about n-count (or virginity especially) is wildly off-putting to women unless they are religious or something.

AhhhhHAAA! Absolutely! Those types of men want to be upset more then they want to get laid or be fun or have a good time. They just want to blame something no one has any control over and can't do anything about.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not by the men that women want to be with. A man who cares a rats ass about n-count (or virginity especially) is wildly off-putting to women unless they are religious or something.

There is absolutely nothing that backs up this statement. It's just words. Unlike n count data and its negative associations. persona example: I know no religious men and no one wants to LTRs a slut or high n girl.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There is absolutely nothing that backs up this statement. It's just words. Unlike n count data and its negative associations. persona example: I know no religious men and no one wants to LTRs a slut or high n girl.

Just listen to the way women talk about those kinds of men. You will quickly see that even modest women are grossed out by men who value their hymen over all else. You know what other word has a negative connotation? Fetishist.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

LMAO no one is talking about hymens.

Men don't want to LTR promiscuous women and prefer low n count ones. This stuff is rarely told to women FYI because it would offend the sluts. Not virgins. Just not sluts.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

LMAO no one is talking about hymens.

I was being hyperbolic to demonstrate my point, but the sentiment still stands. Or do you think women call those men insecure inc*ls be they are attracted to and respect those men?

Men don't want to LTR promiscuous women and prefer low n count ones. This stuff is rarely told to women FYI because it would offend the sluts. Not virgins. Just not sluts.

Debunked.

[–]DasHylen0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

and other things like they are more depressed and amongst others

[–]axolotlass3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it does say a lot about a person. I would never want a man who had lots of casual sex, because it means that sex have wildly different meanings to us.

Also , every women can have high N-count if they wanted to, easily so. So a women being virgin or low N-count says a lot about her too. Being a virgin is showing loyalty to your future partner. Its a choice and a very hard one especially considering many of us will marry after the age of 25-28 because of education etc. Its not like its in the old times where people were getting married at 16. So being a virgin now means a lot more, and not something to be ashamed of at all. It doesnt mean we’re too ugly to fuck or anything (no women is unless severly deformed.)

What we need to do is understanding people have different values and principles in life, and we shouldnt shame anyone, low or high N-count. Instead we should seek people with same values as us to marry/date. Shaming casual sex needs to stop, but also “sex doesnt mean anything its just a biological need like food and water heheh” type of approach needs to stop too.

[–]pnadlerlaw4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I think a lot of people have problems bifurcating. The brain is an association machine. But just because we use induction to reason doesn’t mean that our conclusions are deductively true, or that our assumed (cause) —> (effect) relationship is true.

  • A 32 year old virgin gives a guy a blowjob. She now has herpes.
  • A 28 year old virgin has sex with her husband on her wedding night. She didn’t really feel like it, but she’s married now, and those are her marital duties. Plus, it’s sort of what people do on their wedding night.
  • A 30 year old has only had sex with one guy in her life. It was in high school. She thought if she had sex with him, that he would like her. He ended up losing interest in her, and she was heartbroken. After that, she never trusted men again and had strong personal issues with sex.

All these women are extremely low n-count. What positive personality characteristics, traits or qualities do you want to project from your own mind onto the idea or fantasy of who these women actually are as people ... based on their n-count?

  • A 19 year old has slept with over 100 men, ranging from ages 15 to 48.

Take a moment and let your brain work. Let those wheels spin. What’s the thought process? How does your brain make sense of that information?

Female ... high n-count ... young age ... therefore???

What does the n-count alone, in and of itself tell you about who this woman is as a person?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Back to the 19 year old. Her mother left her abusive husband. As a single mom working three jobs, they had to go on welfare just to survive. Her mother would sometimes buy things from the dollar menu at McDonald’s and just watch her daughter eat and be happy. She would get clothes from the Salvation Army. Growing up in Los Angeles, as a girl, the other kids would make fun of her simply for being poor, as she watched her domestic violence survivor mother struggle every day to keep them safe and alive.

So, she was approached by an high school senior who offered her money in exchange for sex. She accepted, and realized, nobody was getting pregnant. Nobody was getting hurt. There were STD risks, but this was mostly rich high school kids. In exchange, she would get money, clothes, alcohol, food, and give her mom a break financially.

Go ahead and attribute negative personality traits to someone broken by poverty and life circumstances.

  • A 20 year old model. She has admittedly slept with over 40 men. She only sleeps with men simply because she finds them hot. If you look at pictures of these men, it’s one Adonis after another, to the point where you can’t tell them apart. She’s been pressured to have sex with photographers or modeling agency directors, but has refused. She just can’t get herself to have sex with an ugly guy or someone she’s not insanely attracted to. She tried giving an average guy a chance once, but as soon as he took his clothes off, she felt so disgusted with herself for even thinking about having sex with him.

  • A 25 year old triple major in English, History and Political Science. She has only slept with men she was in a relationship with, and that has only been (3) guys. One in high school, one in college, and one who recently broke her heart. She enjoys being close and feeling attractive and wanted, but sex has never really been a strong motivator for her. Sex is mostly something men want. But, she knows that sex is important to men, so, it’s a part of a relationship, at least until kids hopefully come into the picture.

  • A 20 year old starving artist with borderline personality disorder. She doesn’t recall specifically how many men she has had sex with, but she estimates it’s around 20-50 (really hoping you lowball it to 20). She claims she was raped and abused by her ex boyfriends, yet, she wants men to dominate her, choke her, and use her sexually. She fantasizes about gang bangs. She is very sexually aggressive. For her, sex holds multiple meanings. She derives great physical pleasure from sex. She derives great emotional pleasure from feeling “serviced” by her male partner, and from feeling “desired and wanted by” her male partner. Yet, she’s also a self-proclaimed radical feminist, and male sexual pleasure and satisfaction has no place in her bedroom. She enjoys being a tease and watching men be frustrated, knowing that she is responsible. As a result of her self-destructive relationships and insatiable appetite for physical and emotional pleasure from sex, her relationships do not tend to last long, and she is often using sex go bounce from one relationship to the next ... never wanting to be single or alone.

In all these different cases, n-count, in and of itself, means nothing. You can’t draw any logical conclusion from a high or low n-count in and of itself (without you making assumptions). Nor is n-count that relevant when taken with other information. It’s just there in the background, like a bank account balance. Neither an indicator of hard work, high intelligence, or morality.

It’s a sophomoric bro-science approach to psychodynamic psychoanalysis based on nothing more than a man projecting his own ideals about women and beliefs about how people and the world works onto a number ... literally a fucking number (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) ... and then making some kind of conclusion about a person based on a “tub” or “historical accumulation” number (rather than an “aptitude or qualitative score”).

In financial terms, that’s like looking at a company’s “balance sheet” and “cash balance,” and saying, “Oh, that’s slutty stock, I’m going to call up my broker and tell them to sell/dump it. Don’t need to see the income statement. Don’t need to consider that it’s an R&D biotech company or what their key pipeline product is.”

To say that a woman who is sexually honest, only has sex with super hot men, genuinely enjoys sex ... is somehow worse than ... a woman who is saving herself for marriage “supposedly” for religious reasons, but simply because sex isn’t all that important to her, and she consciously employs a calculated “hold out” strategy to trap some poor beta’s ass into a long-term provider/sponsor role for her dreams of being married and a mother ... is asinine.

(John Oliver): “And now, this,”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=22QYriWAF-U

[–]vladvash0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Good post, except the girl with a hundred plus. Easy indicator of an issue.

[–]pnadlerlaw1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, that issue is poverty.

[–]vladvash0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

That is how you interpret it, sure.

[–]pnadlerlaw0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you think she would have behaved the same way “but for” her circumstances of poverty?

[–]vladvash0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I can't predict how she would or would not act. I can however analyze what she did or did not do. Her actions and situation can both be taken into account. I think you are pushing back too hard against the over virtuous types by going to the opposite extreme.

[–]pnadlerlaw0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So, that’s a, “No, I can’t say she would have behaved the same way but for poverty.”

[–]MyDogLovesCorn2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Intelligent women with at least average EQ are significantly less likely to have a high N-count. It is entirely possible that most of the Rhodes scholars from my school graduated virgins or with very low N-counts (3 or less).

A high or low N-count is indicative of how seriously one views relationships, sex, etc.

[–]The_Sad_Penguin1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I am truly loar in this thread. Could you please explain to mw qhat ia N-count ?

[–]Criticalthinking3461 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because people grow, and should not be constantly held accountable for past mistakes or experiences.

In reality people are like sponges. Every experiences does changed us in small ways (not our vulva though that’s not how that works).. If you like who the person is you need to accept that their n-count is a part of what made them that way.

So to me it’s positive no matter the number especially since I love who my partner is. He wouldn’t be the man I love if his count wasn’t so high because he would not have had the experiences that helped shape him. He knows this to be true for me as well.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased Against Humans[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Luke-the-camera-guy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

to those who do not care about it, how do you come to the conclusion that it says NOTHING about a person, positive or negative?

When I found out someone I'm acquainted with has a high n-count, at most I, in jest, say shit like "you dirty slut". Whenever I get together romantically forever how long that lasts or sexually all I would care about is if they were clean when with me but that would apply to a person who had a low n-count or someone who's n-count I wasn't aware of aswell. SO yeah it's kind of a meh information I'm given and at best my reaction would depend on how well I know them i.e how they would want me to react to that info.

[–]GracefulStoatPurple Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are good reasons and bad reasons to have a high or a low number, so neither a high number nor a low number is "better" outside of the context of how it came about. I care about a partner's number in the generic sense that I care about all kinds of information about their life, but I don't care about it by itself outside of the context of their lived experience.

[–]RaspberryInk0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not that it says nothing about the person, but that it more often than not doesn't say what the red/black pill ideology claims it does. There are a wide variety of reasons for sexual activity and naively simplifying it into nat geo animal behavioral dynamics ignores most real world scenarios. Human psychology and culture is a lot more varied and complex than that.

Additionally, those reasons, whatever they, are only relevant when you're in a relationship with somebody, and even then, only limited to the things that apply directly to you. There's a tendency of the red pill to project judgement onto people you're not in a relationship with, which A) you most likely don't know their background, and B) their sexuality is none of your business.

To be fair to your point OP, if you are in a current relationship, there are *some* things that are relevant, e.g. does my partner have an STD? Do they have kids? Do they have poor coping skills or mental health issues where they're coping through shallow, short-lived relationships? To assume any one of these are a given without understanding both the person and the dynamics in their life is likely to lead to wrong impressions, though.

So, to your point, those of us who look past it realize it's a complex dynamic. We measure the person more holistically and on what they bring to a relationship instead of on a narrow, often inaccurate dynamic.

[–]jonascf0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It says something about the person if it's far below or above what's average, otherwise it's just a rather meaningless number.

I don't even know the N-count of my girlfriends. Beacuse I haven't bothered to ask. And I haven't bothered to ask because they haven't given any indications that their sexual past is anything other than mundane.

[–]zayelionMale, Only Attracts Lesbians0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Male non-toxic perspective; the number doesnt matter her view of sex is what matters. Four views here, overly chase, controlling, positive, and slutty.

Overly chase is the virgin, or marriage only types. These are personally a red flag for me. Controlling is a deep monogamy only, or sex negative; red flag. The others are fine, but slutty is an orange flag for me.

[–]SunflowerBurst1 in 12 Americans is unaware that the bird is the word0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nobody says it’s meaningless but they say you don’t have to call it “good or bad” and it can be only one. If you aren’t religious, then it’s only good or bad in terms of how compatible the person is with your values and what you can tolerate. Even if you are religious there are many factors that would make it good or bad for you personally.

[–]Manck00 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It just doesn't. Choose to care what the rest of a person's behavior is like.

It's just... ffs...sex is nothing. Choose to make it your reason for existence at your peril.

[–]chukb20120 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not "nothing". I just can't judge a person on who they've slept with. I've definitely had some I regret. I also have been fairly low on n count until my second wife cheated on me. So did the first. I came to the realization, and I know this isn't comprehensive, but women are just like men. They will cheat for sex, and not just a replacement like so many will try to tell you. So fuck them, and I did. A lot of them. 100+ a year for 2 years, and after all that. Who the fuck am I to judge. Who, or why a woman sleeps with men. I'd rather have a woman whos had enough to know a good thing when she has it rather than a virgin that's going to run out "and I know this sounds specific, cause it is." When she realizes she hasn't had a taste of what's out there. Good luck.

[–]screenmagnet30F non-trad, HL, alt-feminist, PPW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because a person’s n-count depends on so many different factors. The number itself is much less important than the context, the consequences (STIs), and the reasons for it.

Honestly, if we had a vaccine or a cure for herpes, I legit would not care about anyone’s n-count (mine or others). Fear of herpes is the only reason that I have actively kept my own n-count low and the only reason that I am hesitant about having sex with men who have high n-counts.

[–]freejosephk0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because what does it say about me who generally has a higher n count than most women I date?

But also I don't like or dislike someone based on n count. That's similar to saying "I don't like conservatives/liberals, or I don't like gun owners." You can make those kinds of statements but they're myopic and premature if you don't know the person in question well.

[–]PadThai420 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Have you had sex with 20 people over a 30 years of your life or have you had sex with 20 people in one summer? Just like anything else, it says something about a persons priorities I personally feel.

[–]The_Sad_Penguin0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What's n count ?

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Number of sexual partners a person has had. I'm not sure why the mods haven't put it in the subreddit jargon part of the sidebar. It's used here all the time.

[–]fevertree0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s not meaningless.

[–]flyinghorse10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think some people get intimidated by their partners high numbers and feel they wont live up to their partners previous people they have slept with. When we see people worry about high n counts we can see they are scared.

[–]brock_coley0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't it kind of a rude question to ask your partner? I've never been asked this, and I've never asked anyone their count either.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19930 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

no it doesnt say anything. it says only what you project on the person. simple.

[–]jessicaannpin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

High n counts mean someone is not as emotional about sex. It means sex doesn’t mean as much to them necessarily. This has no relevance to relationship compatibility as far as I’m concerned. However, it does mean they are more likely to have HPV or other STDs.

Low n count means someone is more emotional about sex. This might mean it’s harder for me to be open about my sexual history and fantasies. They are less likely to have HPV or other STDs. Men with low n counts are easier to control bc once they have sex with you, you kind of own them. But they get freaked out by stuff I share on social media, want me to censor myself, etc.

N count doesn’t factor into decisions on who to date long term but it can factor into casual sex decisions, where I optimize for low risk.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think anyone is saying it’s meaningless. The criticism I see is aimed towards the dudes who obsess over it, which is a bit different from just having a preference or opinion. Everyone is allowed to have dealbreakers. I once drastically changed my opinion about a potential partner when I realized they didn’t like The (earlier and actually good episodes of the) Simpsons.

[–]AnotherWitch0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The raw number, out of context, is meaningless. The context provides the meaning. The fact that “studies show” some thing or another correlated with some thing or another tells me exactly nothing about any given individual. It’s the context you want. To give two extreme examples: Did s/he sleep with that many people out of insecurity and an inability to express or accept love in any other way? If so, have they healed from that, or do they want to? Or did they sleep with that many people because they blog about their sex exploits, they were raised in a healthy sex positive home, and they do a careful job with every partner of establishing boundaries? N could be identical, but what it “means” and what it potentially predicts are wildly different; the raw number out of context conveyed no meaning in either case.

[–]catbrainlandcucklord0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

choosing where to eat lunch.

I'd say at N>20 or so, it's only about as important.

[–]ScootsScoots 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Because it's never a womans fault bro. Nothing is.

Women aren't sluts, they're "empowered."

You cis bigot

[–]BotThatSaysBro0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

bro 😎💪

[–]smallSackBigShaft0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

a chick def wrote fhis shit

[–]Bruchibre0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know. I agree with you. This "the past is the past" thing is insecurity to me. I don't believe in "I'm not like that anymore" it's too easy. If you were a person who slept with 10 people in one year, you are still and will always be a person who slept with 10 people in one year. Cannot be undone.

[–]Cannabanoid4200 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

To be honest I'd rather someone with a higher n-count, for a few reasons:

  • they are honest about their past
  • they know what they do and don't like when it comes to sexuality
  • they will be more secure in a romantic relationship because they aren't "curious about what they missed out on" and it will be based on something more than just sexual fidelity.

And last and most importantly, they like to fuck because guess what? so do I.

You guys have some real hang ups about people's sexual past, maybe if you cared less you would enjoy your sexual freedom too.

[–]immaculacy-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Actually they've done research on this, and non-virgins are a lot more curious about what they missed out on. They're the ones thinking about other people, thinking I should do this and that. People with one partner are much more focused on the one person.

Now that I think of it I don't understand your other reasons. Why aren't non-high n count people honest you think? And a lot of the time when someone doesn't like something, it's because of the bad experience with it. So they will probably like more things if they do it all with the right person first time around.

[–]Cannabanoid4200 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

To be honest I find anonymous surveys are not 100% reliable, so I'm going to agree to disagree. If someone's identity is based of the fact that they have had only one partner they are going to be less likely to admit the truth whether they are unhappy or have actually stepped out on their fidelity to the one person or were even a virgin to begin with. There is no sure way to tell if someone is or isn't.

The stat that women and men alike downplay (Even in anonymous surveys) how many partners they have will skew results, and shows that these kind of surveys are very unreliable

People lie, it's what we do to make ourselves seem better than we actually are.

The reason why I would trust someone more if they have a high n-count over a low one, there is less social stigma to lie on the higher count than the lower because historical "guys want low n-count partners" for some reason.

And in terms of liking things vs not, now I'm going to take this to the extreme to make a point. Someone who is into scat play isn't into because of the right person, it's because they are into it themselves.

But in the end this is all anecdotal and no one has the right answer.

[–]immaculacy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Makes sense, thanks for the answer

About the scat play and weird fetishes like that, I think that usually comes from porn or a past experience they had.

[–]strangelovesglassesstay still, eyes closed0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

it doesn’t say anything negative about a person but it suggests something about them. if you’ve had sex with 50 different people in the past year, that says something, but what it says is up for debate.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It only indicates things in the extremes. But when it’s middling it kinda means nothing at all.

Example:

Take a woman that’s 25 years old, with an n-count of 5-10 guys. What does that say about her? Ehhh not much at all without knowing anything else

Take the same woman, make her n-count 300. Holy shit that’s abnormal! Why so high!? Likely an indicator

Again, 25 years old. N-count of 0-1. This means something. So it’s an indicator

Thing is, most women are not in those extremes, not even close. So most situations it’s not going to matter at fucking all.

Is your V, C’d?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

It means something but it's not one size fits all. Someone can have a high N count because they genuinely enjoy sex and have rather lax views on sexuality/relationships. Someone can have a high N cause they're using sex to self harm or get drugs or they need validation. Someone can have a low N because they're neurotic about sex or have trauma. Someone can have a low N cause they're religious or they just couldn't fit a dick appointment into their schedule. The number in of itself doesn't tell you much.

[–]immaculacy0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree that low n count doesn't quite tell you enough because you don't know if they're doing it because of morals, or if they just don't feel like it, they're hurt, anti-social, religious, etc. But high n count automatically means they don't value monogamy. Maybe they're high n count because they have a sexual disorder, had a bad family life, maybe they're peer pressured, maybe they want different people and think they should go have sex with them, but regardless of why they're high n count, you already know about them that they don't want one person. So it definitely tells you a lot.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Someone having multiple sexual partners when single doesn't mean they don't want a relationship. Their method of attaining a partner via throwing sex at the wall and seeing which one sticks might not make sense to you but there are people that do that. How someone acts when single isn't necessarily how much they value a relationship/monogamy.

[–]immaculacy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said anything about relationships. I said they don't want to be with one person, which says a lot about them.

Edit: However I just thought about it and maybe they did want it but they messed it up. But it still says they didn't do it right and take it seriously enough.

[–]PostModernCommieAnarcha-Femimnist (They, Them)-5 points-4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Only red pill incels care about n-counts.

Not caring just means you’re a normal, well-adjusted human

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

LOL.

Most people care about it. A quick Google search tells you this via this huge survey and it's probably full of sexually adventurous liberal people (condom company made it). Even they care. Welcome to reality.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/97433-more-women-than-men-care-about-a-new-partners-sexual-history-says-new-study-and-over

Not only do 36 percent of women want to know the intimate details of their partner’s sexual past, but women are also more likely to talk about their past partners. Of those surveyed, 44 percent of women were more than happy to volunteer information about their exes, compared to 39 percent of men who did the same, and 76 percent of women talk about lovers from their past with their current partners. Men, at only 66 percent, are still in the majority, but definitely less chatty.

[–]Cannabanoid4201 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So both men and women drop their numbers.... so whats the issue? Would you rather a liar or someone who is honest about their past.

If we are both dropping number, it seems like it's more like a social stigma than any one gender having an issue with higher numbers.

[–]Comeandseemeforonce 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

Not true, you are hard coping.

[–]PostModernCommie 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

Found an incel

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Be civil.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No "cope".

[–]immaculacy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's the exact opposite. I'm not even going to get into how when you love someone you don't want the having done with others what they do with you. I'll only speak objectively. Women care about it because they don't want to share their man's resources with other women and/or other womens children. Men care about it because men who don't care about it die off. You literally having losing genes if you naturally don't care about n count. (By natrually I mean as opposed to it's possible for modern society to brainwash you into not caring.)

[–]maljo24-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s not an honest number. It’s like quicksand. Some exaggerate up and some down.

[–]gimmealldapillz[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What makes you think MOST people have reasons to fudge their number?

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter