# A woman's partner count and her ability to bond?



## oldshirt

One of the sounding points making it's way through the Manosphere and Red Pill community currently is an assertion that a woman's ability to bond with one partner is damaged if she sleeps with too many people previously or has a partner count that is too high. 

The associated point with this assertion is that no such problem occurs with men and that men can get with many women and that their ability to bond with one will not be negatively impacted by their previous count. 

Now I get that if someone has hooked with hundreds of people, then long term monogamy is probably not on their to-do list and monogamy is probably not their thang. 

But what is being presented as fact here, is that women who sleep with too many men actually damage and lose their ABILITY to bond and that after a certain number of prior lovers, she won't be capable of bonding with one partner. 

And what is important to note here is that what is being presented as a cut off point is around 4 or 5 or so previous partners. 
Even here on TAM, people have cited studies showing female partner counts and their likelihood of divorce. And again, these numbers are showing a danger zone in handful of prior partner counts. 

So what say you?? Is a woman that has been with 4 a shakey bet while someone that has been with 5 a lost cause??
Does that 5th dude have that much power to destroy a woman's ability to bond? 

Ok I'll stop being snarky (something that very hard for me to do) but you get my point. 

This is being presented by the Red Pill gurus like Richard Cooper and Rollo Tomassi et al as FACT. But is it??

Is there correlation vs causation at play here? 

Is this just a 2021 spin on the old double standard and just today's incarnation of $lut Shaming? 

Is a woman's actual ability, not just desire, but actual ABILITY to bond damaged or destroyed once she gets with that 5th dude? 

Conversely is a man's ability to bond effected by his prior count or is it as the gurus say and is uneffected by his prior partners? 

Are these not simply women of questionable repute but actually damaged and incapable of strong, stable, faithful, monogamous relationships???


----------



## Livvie

Why the f would it affect women's future ability to bond in a relationship and not men's?

That's silly, and ********.


----------



## Hiner112

The study I saw indicated that both genders were less satisfied with their marriage if they had more partners. For women the satisfaction percentage went from 85-ish% down to 50/50 going from 0 previous partners to 10+. Men went from 95% down to 2/3 for the same partner counts.

I'm 100% sure there was no causal relationship established. 

Was it because those in satisfying relationships at the start don't change?

Is it the fact that people that are hard to please switch partners more often?

By having a history of many partners, are you able to find things your current partner can't do for you that previous partners could?

The causal relationship doesn't really matter that much. For both men and women as the count goes up, you should know it's less likely they'll stay satisfied with you and the relationship. I wouldn't rule someone out because of their count but I would be more aware of how replaceable I probably was for them for a particularly high count. 

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


----------



## Red Sonja

I say the Manosphere, Red Pill'ers, et al. _assert_ a plethora of nonsense about men _and_ women, none of which is worth discussing.


----------



## Married but Happy

I don't think there is any connection in general, as I know women (and men) with partner counts over 100 who are now in stable, happy, committed relationships. And I know some who've only had a couple of partners who readily cheated. Some from both ends of the count spectrum may be damaged, of course.


----------



## CharlieParker

My wife had a rather large number of partners (disclosed before marriage). Does 30 years together count as bonding or long term monogamy? YMMV.


----------



## oldshirt

Red Sonja said:


> I say the Manosphere, Red Pill'ers, et al. _assert_ a plethora of nonsense about men _and_ women, none of which is worth discussing.


I disagree that it is not worth discussing.

If it is nonsense, then it needs to be identified as such a cleared up. 

If there are facts within the rhetoric, then the facts should be distilled out and the rest discarded as nonfact. 

In this particular instance, it is being touted as abjective, statistical fact that women who have been with more than a few partners are damaged and have lost their ability to bond with one person. 

If it’s BS, it needs to be exposed as BS. If it is factual, then people need to be aware of it.

If it is like much on the internet which is an amalgamation of some facts being mixed in with a lot of BS, then it kind of needs to be deciphered to separate the shyte from the shinola.


----------



## RebuildingMe

I am a believer in the high notch count being a precursor for trouble in a future LTR. However, in NO way do I feel single digits as being a “high” notch count. Not even close. For me, the worry would be anything around 20 and being in your 20’s or 30’s. That indicates _to me_, an unwillingness to be able to commit.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Ah...the manosphere. Things written by losers to benefit losers.

As far as partner count goes, I think it's possible that one with a high partner count may not see sex itself as a bonding experience, but that doesn't mean they can't bond. It means sex isn't necessarily what bonds them.

It's a different view that not everyone shares. Red pill losers who write stuff like that are afraid they won't measure up so they don't want competition...they do however want to be able to bang as many women as will have them.

This does not apply to men who have a low partner count and want a woman with a low count because that's part of their value system. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## lifeistooshort

RebuildingMe said:


> I am a believer in the high notch count being a precursor for trouble in a future LTR. However, in NO way do I feel single digits as being a “high” notch count. Not even close. For me, the worry would be anything around 20 and being in your 20’s or 30’s. That indicates _to me_, an unwillingness to be able to commit.


Imagine that....we do share some world views 😀

I would also add that it speaks to a value system where sex is not particularly special and exists to get rocks off. IMO such a value system does not in general make for good partner material. I apply this to men and women.

But I suppose people can change as they mature.


----------



## Mr.Married

I stopped reading when manospere and fact were used together. Like any book you read there are points you can gleam from it that are useful. On the other hand these guys that are 100% buy in on this stuff are a bit confusing. I envision them never getting laid and wearing a button on their shirt that says “I’m Alpha”


----------



## Luckylucky

Hmm, where my parents are from, women marry young and are usually virgins. Then they go looking after a few years of marriage because they missed out 😁😉

I had a good education, a career and had more than 5 partners and don’t think about straying ever. Monogamy is for me, I don’t have any desire to sleep with anyone other than my husband.

The women I know who had less partners always wondered what else was out there and often acted on it, the men ended up heartbroken.

I hope I don’t offend, but I would argue that the opposite is true.


----------



## oldshirt

RebuildingMe said:


> I am a believer in the high notch count being a precursor for trouble in a future LTR. However, in NO way do I feel single digits as being a “high” notch count. Not even close. For me, the worry would be anything around 20 and being in your 20’s or 30’s. That indicates _to me_, an unwillingness to be able to commit.


OK but what is being presented here is that a notch count is actually DAMAGING and negating a woman's ABILITY to bond. 
They are essentially saying that even if a woman wants to commit and wants to have a long term, committed relationship and chooses to be in a LTR - that her actual ability to do so has been damaged and that she is no rendered incapable of such a commitment. 

Do you believe that to be true?


----------



## oldshirt

edited due to misquote


----------



## oldshirt

lifeistooshort said:


> I would also add that it speaks to a value system where sex is not particularly special and exists to get rocks off. IMO such a value system does not in general make for good partner material. I apply this to men and women.


I will pose the same question to you that I did to RebuildingMe, do you believe that a certain notch count damages an a woman's actual ABILITY to bond?

Do you think that once she has reached a certain notch count, that she is now incapable of forming a healthy, faithful and committed bond?


----------



## RebuildingMe

oldshirt said:


> OK but what is being presented here is that a notch count is actually DAMAGING and negating a woman's ABILITY to bond.
> They are essentially saying that even if a woman wants to commit and wants to have a long term, committed relationship and chooses to be in a LTR - that her actual ability to do so has been damaged and that she is no rendered incapable of such a commitment.
> 
> Do you believe that to be true?


No, not based upon 5 previous sexual encounters. I am a RP guy, but I don’t believe everything they dish out.

I am in a LTR, I guess? She never disclosed her count, but she was married for 18 years and met her ex at 24. I was primarily concerned with the 3 years she was divorced before I met her. I calculated she was a safe bet. I think everyone needs to evaluate potential prospects for themselves. The hard numbers given by the RP community don’t work for me. They have to pass my own sniff tests. That being said, I have a lot of respect for Cooper and Rollo.


----------



## Diana7

Maybe it's not the difference between 4 and 5, but 4 and 50? 
I believe that every time we have sex with a person we have an emotional connection created, like an emotional tie. It's as if a little of us gets left with them and a little bit of them gets left with us. 
The more this happens the more it will affect us emotionally, I can't see how it can't. 
It's known that marriage are more successful the less partners there have been. There may be all sorts of reasons for that but it's true.


----------



## oldshirt

Hiner112 said:


> For both men and women as the count goes up, you should know it's less likely they'll stay satisfied with you and the relationship. I wouldn't rule someone out because of their count but I would be more aware of how replaceable I probably was for them for a particularly high count.


But do you believe that notch count damages a woman's ability and leaves her incapable of forming a strong and healthy bond? 

That is what is being presented here. 

Now what you say above, does kind of touch on some of my personal beliefs. 

I think someone with some real world experience and knows their personal worth is going to be less likely to be used and manipulated and will be less likely to settle for being mistreated/abused/cheated on/neglected etc etc. 

I think if someone has intentions of manipulating and mistreating and neglecting someone's needs - they will be better served by finding someone as naive and inexperienced in life as possible.


----------



## lifeistooshort

oldshirt said:


> I will pose the same question to you that I did to RebuildingMe, do you believe that a certain notch count damages an a woman's actual ABILITY to bond?
> 
> Do you think that once she has reached a certain notch count, that she is now incapable of forming a healthy, faithful and committed bond?


No, absolutely not. There are many factors that go into one's ability to bond. There are many correlations here....in my industry we refer to this as univariate vs multivariate models.  Univariate models aren't generally predictive because they don't factor in correlations.

Why does one have a high partner count? If it's because they are damaged in a way that interferes with bonding they may be unable to bond but it likely had little to do with the notch count. 

If one has so many partners that nobody is special they may be unable to bond.

If one was just wild and enjoyed a lot of sex its entirely possible for them to mature and become a faithful partner.

I personally am not interested in men with a high notch count because sex is bonding for me and I'd feel like one in a line.

But people with many partners can and do become wonderful and faithful spouses.


----------



## Diana7

Luckylucky said:


> Hmm, where my parents are from, women marry young and are usually virgins. Then they go looking after a few years of marriage because they missed out 😁😉
> 
> I had a good education, a career and had more than 5 partners and don’t think about straying ever. Monogamy is for me, I don’t have any desire to sleep with anyone other than my husband.
> 
> The women I know who had less partners always wondered what else was out there and often acted on it, the men ended up heartbroken.
> 
> I hope I don’t offend, but I would argue that the opposite is true.


I have quite a few friends with very long marriages where they are each others one and only. Mostly people now married for 40 or more years. Not one strayed and they are very strong happy marriages. 
I am sure there are some who seem to think they missed out, but many don't think that way.


----------



## oldshirt

Diana7 said:


> I believe that every time we have sex with a person we have an emotional connection created, like an emotional tie. It's as if a little of us gets left with them and a little bit of them gets left with us.


That's called herpes LOL

(sorry I couldn't resist ;-) )


----------



## oldshirt

Diana7 said:


> Maybe it's not the difference between 4 and 5, but 4 and 50?
> I believe that every time we have sex with a person we have an emotional connection created, like an emotional tie. It's as if a little of us gets left with them and a little bit of them gets left with us.
> The more this happens the more it will affect us emotionally, I can't see how it can't.
> It's known that marriage are more successful the less partners there have been. There may be all sorts of reasons for that but it's true.


Now that I have the herpes out of the way, I'll address your post legitimately. 

I'll pose the question to you that I have some of the other posters... Does this mean that you do believe there is actual damage inflicted with each subsequent partner and that at a certain point a woman's actual ability to bond and form a stable, healthy relationship is impacted?


----------



## DudeInProgress

RebuildingMe said:


> I am a believer in the high notch count being a precursor for trouble in a future LTR. However, in NO way do I feel single digits as being a “high” notch count. Not even close. For me, the worry would be anything around 20 and being in your 20’s or 30’s. That indicates _to me_, an unwillingness to be able to commit.


Absolutely agree. And most men I know would be very hesitant or unwilling to commit to a woman with high notch count. Sorry, most men just get this innately. I also agree that 4 isn’t a high number. 

Not sure if high notch counts tend to lead to incompatibility with LTR, or if damaged women who are already incompatible with LTR also tend to have high notch counts.

Either way, anecdotally from the folks I know, I have seen a strong correlation between high notch count in women and incompatibility with genuine bonding and LTR.


----------



## oldshirt

[QUOTE="Diana7, post: 20330667, member: 244457"

It's known that marriage are more successful the less partners there have been. There may be all sorts of reasons for that but it's true.
[/QUOTE]

Are you meaning to state this as objective fact?


----------



## Numb26

I don't believe a high partner count (man or woman) has any baring on the ability to bond but I do agree with @RebuildingMe, it could be a warning sign for future problems


----------



## oldshirt

DudeInProgress said:


> Absolutely agree. And most men I know would be very hesitant or unwilling to commit to a woman with high notch count. Sorry, most men just get this innately. I also agree that 4 isn’t a high number.
> 
> Not sure if high notch counts tend to lead to incompatibility with LTR, or if damaged women who are already incompatible with LTR also tend to have high notch counts.
> 
> Either way, anecdotally from the folks I know, I have seen a strong correlation between high notch count in women and incompatibility with genuine bonding and LTR.


This brings up an interesting point. If men are banging women but unwilling to commit to them, aren't they thusly reducing their own marriage pool?? 

Let me flip this around and use myself as an example even though I am a guy. For the sake of argument let's say 5 is the magic number. Out of the first 5 women that I slept with, 3 dumped me. I wanted to be with those three and would have been in LTR/marriage with them, but they were the ones that didn't want to be with me after a certain period of time. 

If being with 5 people makes me ineligible as marriage material, should I really be held accountable for the fact that I have been with 5 people when I would have been with either of 3 of those if they hadn't dumped me? 

Did they damage me and leave me unsuitable?? 

Again, not an entirely fair example since I am a guy but you get my point. 

If a woman has been with 5 guys, but 3 of them basically pumped and dumped her, is it really her fault??

And are men shooting themselves in the foot on the marriage market if they are banging lots of chicks but don't consider chicks that have been with a certain number of guys marriage material??


----------



## minimalME

…


----------



## RebuildingMe

oldshirt said:


> This brings up an interesting point. If men are banging women but unwilling to commit to them, aren't they thusly reducing their own marriage pool??
> 
> Let me flip this around and use myself as an example even though I am a guy. For the sake of argument let's say 5 is the magic number. Out of the first 5 women that I slept with, 3 dumped me. I wanted to be with those three and would have been in LTR/marriage with them, but they were the ones that didn't want to be with me after a certain period of time.
> 
> If being with 5 people makes me ineligible as marriage material, should I really be held accountable for the fact that I have been with 5 people when I would have been with either of 3 of those if they hadn't dumped me?
> 
> Did they damage me and leave me unsuitable??
> 
> Again, not an entirely fair example since I am a guy but you get my point.
> 
> If a woman has been with 5 guys, but 3 of them basically pumped and dumped her, is it really her fault??
> 
> And are men shooting themselves in the foot on the marriage market if they are banging lots of chicks but don't consider chicks that have been with a certain number of guys marriage material??


Be careful about using 5 as a statistically significant number. You usually run into problems there.


----------



## Diana7

oldshirt said:


> That's called herpes LOL
> 
> (sorry I couldn't resist ;-) )


Well maybe that as well!


----------



## DudeInProgress

oldshirt said:


> This brings up an interesting point. If men are banging women but unwilling to commit to them, aren't they thusly reducing their own marriage pool??
> 
> Let me flip this around and use myself as an example even though I am a guy. For the sake of argument let's say 5 is the magic number. Out of the first 5 women that I slept with, 3 dumped me. I wanted to be with those three and would have been in LTR/marriage with them, but they were the ones that didn't want to be with me after a certain period of time.
> 
> If being with 5 people makes me ineligible as marriage material, should I really be held accountable for the fact that I have been with 5 people when I would have been with either of 3 of those if they hadn't dumped me?
> 
> Did they damage me and leave me unsuitable??
> 
> Again, not an entirely fair example since I am a guy but you get my point.
> 
> If a woman has been with 5 guys, but 3 of them basically pumped and dumped her, is it really her fault??
> 
> And are men shooting themselves in the foot on the marriage market if they are banging lots of chicks but don't consider chicks that have been with a certain number of guys marriage material??


Again, I don’t know anyone that would get hung up on 4 or 5. I don’t know where the line is exactly (as it will vary from person to person), but directionally, it matters to most men. 
The point is there’s a huge difference between 4 or 5 or 10… and 50 or 100.


----------



## oldshirt

DudeInProgress said:


> Again, I don’t know anyone that would get hung up on 4 or 5. I don’t know where the line is exactly (as it will vary from person to person), but directionally, it matters to most men.
> The point is there’s a huge difference between 4 or 5 or 10… and 50 or 100.


I agree with those shouting out numbers in the 50-100 range. That is a lifestyle choice and I think everyone gets that. 

But what I think is at issue here is numbers like 4 and 5 ARE being touted as tipping points, not only in red pill content but here on TAM as well when people start referencing divorce statistics and marital satisfaction statistics with notch counts down as low as 4 or 5. 

And since there is statistical reference material being cited, it is being touted as hard fact.


----------



## oldshirt

RebuildingMe said:


> Be careful about using 5 as a statistically significant number. You usually run into problems there.


I can't recall the specific video, but Richard Cooper had a youtube video within the last couple days that anything over 2-3 was damaging to a woman's ability to connect and bond and that her ability to bond and form a stable a stable, faithful relationship would be compromised and that if a guy was smart, he would avoid entering into a relationship with women that had counts higher than that.


----------



## RebuildingMe

oldshirt said:


> I can't recall the specific video, but Richard Cooper had a youtube video within the last couple days that anything over 2-3 was damaging to a woman's ability to connect and bond and that her ability to bond and form a stable a stable, faithful relationship would be compromised and that if a guy was smart, he would avoid entering into a relationship with women that had counts higher than that.


Even though Cooper is almost 50, he speaks to young males. That maybe sound advice to a 22 year old male, but doesn’t work for a 40-50 year old male. I just turned 50. If I was dating and automatically excluding women with a count of 5 or more, I’d be in for a lot of lonely nights.


----------



## sokillme

oldshirt said:


> One of the sounding points making it's way through the Manosphere and Red Pill community currently is an assertion that a woman's ability to bond with one partner is damaged if she sleeps with too many people previously or has a partner count that is too high.
> 
> The associated point with this assertion is that no such problem occurs with men and that men can get with many women and that their ability to bond with one will not be negatively impacted by their previous count.
> 
> Now I get that if someone has hooked with hundreds of people, then long term monogamy is probably not on their to-do list and monogamy is probably not their thang.
> 
> But what is being presented as fact here, is that women who sleep with too many men actually damage and lose their ABILITY to bond and that after a certain number of prior lovers, she won't be capable of bonding with one partner.
> 
> And what is important to note here is that what is being presented as a cut off point is around 4 or 5 or so previous partners.
> Even here on TAM, people have cited studies showing female partner counts and their likelihood of divorce. And again, these numbers are showing a danger zone in handful of prior partner counts.
> 
> So what say you?? Is a woman that has been with 4 a shakey bet while someone that has been with 5 a lost cause??
> Does that 5th dude have that much power to destroy a woman's ability to bond?
> 
> Ok I'll stop being snarky (something that very hard for me to do) but you get my point.
> 
> This is being presented by the Red Pill gurus like Richard Cooper and Rollo Tomassi et al as FACT. But is it??
> 
> Is there correlation vs causation at play here?
> 
> Is this just a 2021 spin on the old double standard and just today's incarnation of $lut Shaming?
> 
> Is a woman's actual ability, not just desire, but actual ABILITY to bond damaged or destroyed once she gets with that 5th dude?
> 
> Conversely is a man's ability to bond effected by his prior count or is it as the gurus say and is uneffected by his prior partners?
> 
> Are these not simply women of questionable repute but actually damaged and incapable of strong, stable, faithful, monogamous relationships???


Here is what I believe, a large partners count for both men and women is very often about using sex for validation or currency. As a way to evaluate one's worth, or as a way to purchase a desired outcome. To me that is a red flag and I would be weary. That kind of thinking doesn't end with marriage, even if there is an attempt to be monogamous, and leads to a ton of problems.


----------



## oldshirt

RebuildingMe said:


> Even though Cooper is almost 50, he speaks to young males. That maybe sound advice to a 22 year old male, but doesn’t work for a 40-50 year old male. I just turned 50. If I was dating and automatically excluding women with a count of 5 or more, I’d be in for a lot of lonely nights.


I've been listening to a lot of Cooper the last couple months with some Tomassi as well, and I have not heard them make that kind of distinction. 

In fact most of his advice to young men is to not consider any kind of marriage/ committed LTR/cohabitation etc at all in their 20s (which I tend to agree with in principle)


----------



## Laurentium

oldshirt said:


> I can't recall the specific video, but Richard Cooper had a youtube video within the last couple days that anything over 2-3 was damaging to a woman's ability to connect and bond and that her ability to bond and form a stable a stable, faithful relationship would be compromised


Does he have any _evidence_? I don't know Cooper. Tomassi, when I read him, simply seems to make unsupported assertions. You can see who his target customers are.


----------



## Luckylucky

Could it be that men are naturally one-uppers and dominant and competitive, and they can’t get over their wife having had more partners, or any partners? I’m asking a very uncomfortable question of the men. 

I’m really curious here as to whether it’s the men with the issue and that’s why the marriages end, not because of the women.

we’ve had two women here post that they were promiscuous yet when they married they didn’t think about exes, didn’t want to sleep with other men, and bonded just fine.

It was the previous partners I couldn’t bond with, thus why I knew that when I married I wouldn’t be out looking.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Sounds to me like they're very social and have a higher ability to bond than most. Sounds like they need a man with equal confidence and social ability to want to stay with them because they're sure not going to want to stay with someone who's controlling or boring or looks down upon them and has a double standard. I think that's mostly where that narrative comes from.


----------



## oldshirt

Laurentium said:


> Does he have any _evidence_? I don't know Cooper. Tomassi, when I read him, simply seems to make unsupported assertions. You can see who his target customers are.


He has no more or any less evidence than what we do whenever we make claims or give thoughts and opinions here. Like much youtube or the podcast world, it is just some guy jabbering his jaw. 

But a 20 second google search will take you to varies claims that women who has had "X" number of previous partners will have a "Y" greater percent chance of cheating or divorcing etc etc. 

People cite those studies and statistics here on TAM all the time as well. 

I don't have any answers or solutions at all, otherwise I would write my own book and take in the proceeds. I am just curious and want to hear other people's thoughts and opinions on the assertions being made because prior notch count is always a hot topic. 

If some bald guy with a bushy beard and fancy sports cars wants to go on youtube and tell guys they shouldn't marry chicks that sleep around a lot, that's fine. 

The part that I question is the claim that it is not only a red flag or cause for concern, but rather the claim that it is fact that sleeping with more than a few dudes "damages" a woman's ability to connect and bond and maintain a healthy relationship.


----------



## oldshirt

DownByTheRiver said:


> Sounds to me like they're very social and have a higher ability to bond than most. Sounds like they need a man with equal confidence and social ability to want to stay with them because they're sure not going to want to stay with someone who's controlling or boring or looks down upon them and has a double standard. I think that's mostly where that narrative comes from.


I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that women with lots of prior lovers bond more and simply need a stronger and more sociable man in order to remain with him? 

Does that mean you disagree with the claim that greater notch counts damage a woman's ability to bond and is in fact the opposite? 

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or anything. Just looking for some clarification.


----------



## Laurentium

oldshirt said:


> The part that I question is the claim that it is not only a red flag or cause for concern, but rather the claim that it is fact that sleeping with more than a few dudes "damages" a woman's ability to connect and bond and maintain a healthy relationship.


I agree. Correlation is not causation.


----------



## OnTheFly

In my biased, non-expertise opinion based on nothing except how I interpret societal cues, I tend to agree that an excess of previous sexual encounters hinders a persons ability to pair bond, women more so than men.

All outliers excepted, of course.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

oldshirt said:


> I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that women with lots of prior lovers bond more and simply need a stronger and more sociable man in order to remain with him?
> 
> Does that mean you disagree with the claim that greater notch counts damage a woman's ability to bond and is in fact the opposite?
> 
> I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or anything. Just looking for some clarification.


Yeah. I'm thinking that's just a very social woman who will probably get along with a lot of different people. It's called popular.


----------



## oldshirt

DownByTheRiver said:


> Yeah. I'm thinking that's just a very social woman who will probably get along with a lot of different people. It's called popular.


OK so that begs the question, will a "popular" woman be able to form a healthy and stable bond with one man if she wants, or in your opinion has her ability to bond with one person been damaged and thus leaving her incapable of forming such a bond?


----------



## DudeInProgress

DownByTheRiver said:


> Yeah. I'm thinking that's just a very social woman who will probably get along with a lot of different people. It's called popular.


Um, no. There’s a big difference between women who are social and like to interact with a lot of people, and women who are promiscuous, and like to share their sexual intimacy to a lot of people. Popular has nothing to do with it


----------



## NTA

I would have thought that marrying as virgin, male or female, one would have less desire to stay bonded because they will become curious as to what they are missing. I think it's best to sow your wild oats in your 20's before marriage.

Mr. in Between Marriage didn't impress me with his low numbers especially when I noticed that he contradicted himself a lot. Ie. one conversation "I haven't had sex in 2.5 years." He was late 40s at that time.

Later conversation "if you get an HIV test, I will go down on you (even though I had faithfully done for it for him since we've been dating). I regularly get an HIV test every 6 months."

He may have been predisposed to doing no sex at all since I think he was closeted when we met. Imagine if I had been one of those women who thinks, "Wow, he really respects me. He's not trying for sex at all."


----------



## oldshirt

DudeInProgress said:


> Um, no. There’s a big difference between women who are social and like to interact with a lot of people, and women who are promiscuous, and like to share their sexual intimacy to a lot of people. Popular has nothing to do with it


One can even argue that on the marriage market, the majority of men will find "popular" women, most unpopular.


----------



## oldshirt

NTA said:


> I think it's best to sow your wild oats in your 20's before marriage.


It's really this above that these Rep Pill gurus really seem to have a hard on against and I'm not exactly sure why. 

I don't know if it is an insecurity thing or fear-mongering for the betas or what, but these guys have a palpable disdain of any kind of female oat-sowing. 

I think a part of it is much female oat-sowing only benefits a very small percentage of the males out there. These betas and In Cels and MGTOWs are being left out of the oat-sowing game and then they get resentful when the girls have sown their oats with the jocks and the Chads and then turn their attention to the "Nice Guys" when they want someone to commit to them and provide for them and feed and help care for their children. 

For whatever reason, this is a real burr under their saddles and something that they spend quite a bit of air time and energy warning guys about.


----------



## oldshirt

NTA said:


> Mr. in Between Marriage didn't impress me with his low numbers especially when I noticed that he contradicted himself a lot. Ie. one conversation "I haven't had sex in 2.5 years." He was late 40s at that time.
> 
> Later conversation "if you get an HIV test, I will go down on you (even though I had faithfully done for it for him since we've been dating). I regularly get an HIV test every 6 months."


I don't think that had anything to do with being low-count. That's just being a dud in bed.


----------



## oldshirt

NTA said:


> He may have been predisposed to doing no sex at all since I think he was closeted when we met. Imagine if I had been one of those women who thinks, "Wow, he really respects me. He's not trying for sex at all."


At the risk of threadjacking my own thread, is any woman actually impressed by a guy not trying to get into her knickers??

Either she digs the dude in which case it's an annoyance and a hinderance to their chemistry.

Or she doesn't dig him in the first place and doesn't want him trying to get in her unddies anyway. 

Either way, it's not really impressing anyone regardless.


----------



## NTA

oldshirt said:


> I don't think that had anything to do with being low-count. That's just being a dud in bed.


There's a correlation there. If he is slow to getting to sex many woman won't even try to work with it. I finally left due to his dishonesty about sex.


----------



## Livvie

Can someone explain to me the sexist slant to this? Why would a high partner count affect a woman's ability to "bond" but not a man's?

Anyone?


----------



## Numb26

oldshirt said:


> It's really this above that these Rep Pill gurus really seem to have a hard on against and I'm not exactly sure why.
> 
> I don't know if it is an insecurity thing or fear-mongering for the betas or what, but these guys have a palpable disdain of any kind of female oat-sowing.
> 
> I think a part of it is much female oat-sowing only benefits a very small percentage of the males out there. These betas and In Cels and MGTOWs are being left out of the oat-sowing game and then they get resentful when the girls have sown their oats with the jocks and the Chads and then turn their attention to the "Nice Guys" when they want someone to commit to them and provide for them and feed and help care for their children.
> 
> For whatever reason, this is a real burr under their saddles and something that they spend quite a bit of air time and energy warning guys about.


I have known quite a few women like that, including family members. They lived the party lifestyle, dated a lot, had a few kids, then try to settle down with the guys they never bothered to look at or pay attention to before. I can understand the questioning of their motives.
It raises another question, are they bonding out of love and affection or out of financial need and stability?
I am looking at this from the outside of course but I could see where this type of thinking would hurt the chances of anyone making a bond. 
And men who have a high count aren't much better and have their own set of issues.


----------



## oldshirt

Livvie said:


> Can someone explain to me the sexist slant to this? Why would a high partner count affect a woman's ability to "bond" but not a man's?
> 
> Anyone?


I am interested in that discussion as well. 

According to the sources I have mentioned, there is no such ramifications of male notch count. According to current Red Pill rhetoric, there is no impact of a man's ability to bond with a woman due to his prior notch count. 

Discuss.


----------



## oldshirt

Numb26 said:


> I have known quite a few women like that, including family members. They lived the party lifestyle, dated a lot, had a few kids, then try to settle down with the guys they never bothered to look at or pay attention to before. I can understand the questioning of their motives.
> It raises another question, are they bonding out of love and affection or out of financial need and stability?
> I am looking at this from the outside of course but I could see where this type of thinking would hurt the chances of anyone making a bond.


I'm going to give a little leeway to Cooper/Tomassi et al here. On this they do have a point as you have noted above. 

These chicks essentially through caution to the wind, partied it up, banged a bunch of jocks and playa's and had a bunch of wild monkey sex,, often while virtually ignoring the so called "Nice Guys" and the nerds and the Melvins and the bookworms etc. 

Then once they had been pumped and dumped and even having kids in tow, now when they want someone to help raise their kids and have a home partnership, now they turn to those very same Nice Guys and nerds etc. 

Now if they somehow transformed and now had a true burning desire for those nerds and were swinging from the chandeliers with Melvin, I can understand and would be ok with it. 

.......But we all know from lurking here that that isn't really the case now is it. 

So as you stated above, are they now getting with the betas out of love and affection and desire for Melvin?? 

Or does Melvin now have a steady job and agrees to take in any chick that will have him where as Chad and the jocks are busy banging all the other chicks and don't want to mess with them and their brood? 

Which in turn brings me back to the original question which is - has their ability to bond and have a healthy, faithful relationship actually been damaged and their ability to bond really been lessened?? Or are they simply stuck with men that they don't really have any sincere, burning desire for in the first place?


----------



## Pip’sJourney

I have a few questions

1. Does sexual partner only count as PIV? or just making out?

2. Why does this all have to mainly deal with a woman’s count? I feel this relates back to promiscuous woman-**** promiscuous man-player.

3. Is a male virgin at 30 seen as a negative thing? female virgin at 30… 40? are they capable of bonding at all if they never have even had any relationships?


----------



## Livvie

oldshirt said:


> I am interested in that discussion as well.
> 
> According to the sources I have mentioned, there is no such ramifications of male notch count. According to current Red Pill rhetoric, there is no impact of a man's ability to bond with a woman due to his prior notch count.
> 
> Discuss.


I think it's sexist ********. If a high count somehow "damages" a woman's ability to bond, it also "damages" a man's ability to bond.

I also think it's ******** in that what's the difference between having sex with a few people x amount of times (who you ultimately don't end up with) and more than a few people for the same x amount of times. You could have sex a thousand times with a man you don't want to marry versus sex a thousand times with 10 men you don't want to marry. You're still having sex x number of times with someone you don't want to marry, what's the difference??

Also you can argue the other way. Men tend to sexually objectify women more than women sexually objectify men, so it follows that a man with a really high partner count has gotten into the habit of objectifying women and because of that he'll have difficulty ever truly "bonding" with one woman.


----------



## Married but Happy

My notch count:


https://i.pinimg.com/564x/07/b2/52/07b252580f1ac4a55d61f4328f68dc0b.jpg


----------



## oldshirt

Pip’sJourney said:


> I have a few questions
> 
> 1. Does sexual partner only count as PIV? or just making out?
> 
> 2. Why does this all have to mainly deal with a woman’s count? I feel this relates back to promiscuous woman-**** promiscuous man-player.
> 
> 3. Is a male virgin at 30 seen as a negative thing? female virgin at 30… 40? are they capable of bonding at all if they never have even had any relationships?


#1. Men and women count differently. Women only count PIV with men where there are witnesses that can testify publically that sex occurred. 

Men will count the chick that accidentally brushed up against his junk fully dressed on the subway LOL 

This is why we have the Rule of 3s where you multiply a woman’s stated number by 3, and you divide a man’s stated number by 3.

#2. This is part of my discussion point for this thread. Do men’s count impact his ability to bond with a woman? According to current red pill narrative, it does not. 

#3. Unless a guy is clearly following his own personal values or religious doctrine, an adult male virgin will be judged more harshly and more suspicion than a female virgin. 

But what really matters is not the man’s actual virginity, but that he could have sex if he so chose. In other words a man that could hook up with chicks easily but chooses to abstain due to values, will be admired by some. 

But a virgin male that couldn’t get sex in a brothel with cash in his pocket, his personal values are meaningless. 

Female virgins get more leeway up to a point. But after a certain age, the suspicions will start rolling in as to why.


----------



## Pip’sJourney

@oldshirt I still can only hear Bill Clinton... I did not have sex with that woman... um sure..LOL

Per my own experience, I have had many relationships over the course of my life. Starting at the age of 17, I have been discovering my own sexuality. Now if you look at the women in my family, they have all been virgins. Being a non virgin was not done by 'good girls.' Apparently only "good girls' can bond? In no way has my exploration diminished my ability to bond. By the time I was 27, I have had more than 20 sexual partners.. since my husband..It has only been him. I have never wanted to cheat. We have had our issues, but I have integrity and each of those partners before were one at a time. He on the other hand was a virgin.

This is where society has changed. My h and I were just discussing this yesterday as I noted that since the introduction of the pill women have had the right to discover the power of their sexuality without the consequences of that meeting. In days of old, a woman would become pregnant if she was promiscuous. She alone bore the burden of the child and the labels that went with that. Before DNA testing, a man could deny the meeting and there was little she could do. This whole topic reeks of that old male opinion.. if a woman sleeps around she is 'bad' who is she sleeping with??


----------



## oldshirt

Livvie said:


> I think it's sexist ******. If a high count somehow "damages" a woman's ability to bond, it also "damages" a man's ability to bond.
> 
> I also think it's ****** in that what's the difference between having sex with a few people x amount of times (who you ultimately don't end up with) and more than a few people for the same x amount of times. You could have sex a thousand times with a man you don't want to marry versus sex a thousand times with 10 men you don't want to marry. You're still having sex x number of times with someone you don't want to marry, what's the difference??
> 
> Also you can argue the other way. Men tend to sexually objectify women more than women sexually objectify men, so it follows that a man with a really high partner count has gotten into the habit of objectifying women and because of that he'll have difficulty ever truly "bonding" with one woman.


I think this may come down to whether you believe there are fundamental differences between men and women or not. 

If there are fundamental differences between the girls and the boys, then we don’t get to pick and choose those differences. They are what they are.


----------



## Enigma32

It's been years since I read the particular science and I don't feel like Googling it but if anyone is interested, have at it. Evidently, a study was done on the effects of multiple partners and the bonding that takes place during sex/orgasms. When you have sex with someone, there is an emotional bond formed as a result. The study found that after each new partner, the strength of the bond formed during sex was lessened. The way it was described was similar to a piece of tape. If you get a piece of tape from a new roll and stick it to something, it's really sticky. If you pull the tape off and stick it to something else, it isn't quite as sticky anymore. Each time you do this, the tape's ability to stick gets weaker and weaker. That is how the bond formed during sex works. So, it isn't exactly unwise if someone in the know decides they don't want to marry a girl who isn't really going to form much of a bond with him. Especially when you consider the even more damning divorce statistics for people with multiple partners.


----------



## CharlieParker

NSFW


----------



## oldshirt

edited for misquote


----------



## Pip’sJourney

I do believe that some do still believe this.. and yes I realize that it is just that. We are all individuals..and what one person is capable of another may not be. I have known both sides to the equation..virgins who wished they had done more and experienced people who had long term committed relationships. So I have no answer LOL


----------



## DudeInProgress

Livvie said:


> Can someone explain to me the sexist slant to this? Why would a high partner count affect a woman's ability to "bond" but not a man's?
> 
> Anyone?


Because men and women are different.


----------



## Hiner112

oldshirt said:


> But do you believe that notch count damages a woman's ability and leaves her incapable of forming a strong and healthy bond?
> 
> That is what is being presented here.
> 
> Now what you say above, does kind of touch on some of my personal beliefs.
> 
> I think someone with some real world experience and knows their personal worth is going to be less likely to be used and manipulated and will be less likely to settle for being mistreated/abused/cheated on/neglected etc etc.
> 
> I think if someone has intentions of manipulating and mistreating and neglecting someone's needs - they will be better served by finding someone as naive and inexperienced in life as possible.


With higher counts the likelihood that they're not generating oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine like they should is higher. Whether it is the previous relationships that caused it or the lack of neurotransmitters that prevented the previous relationships from becoming more permanent is irrelevant to me if I'm deciding to get into a relationship with them now.

If you were looking for someone that would put effort into a relationship and someone that would have stable feelings for their partner, you'd probably also look for someone that had been in long relationships. An effect of long relationships would be a low "number".


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

DudeInProgress said:


> Not sure if high notch counts tend to lead to incompatibility with LTR, or if damaged women who are already incompatible with LTR also tend to have high notch counts.


This is where my thinking went as well, that they have the causation backwards. I think that lesser ability to bond through sex is what gives people high counts, women included. For some, sex is very bonding, and for others, merely a pleasant recreational activity.



oldshirt said:


> I'm going to give a little leeway to Cooper/Tomassi et al here. On this they do have a point as you have noted above.
> 
> These chicks essentially through caution to the wind, partied it up, banged a bunch of jocks and playa's and had a bunch of wild monkey sex,, often while virtually ignoring the so called "Nice Guys" and the nerds and the Melvins and the bookworms etc.
> 
> Then once they had been pumped and dumped and even having kids in tow, now when they want someone to help raise their kids and have a home partnership, now they turn to those very same Nice Guys and nerds etc.
> 
> Now if they somehow transformed and now had a true burning desire for those nerds and were swinging from the chandeliers with Melvin, I can understand and would be ok with it.
> 
> .......But we all know from lurking here that that isn't really the case now is it.
> 
> So as you stated above, are they now getting with the betas out of love and affection and desire for Melvin??
> 
> Or does Melvin now have a steady job and agrees to take in any chick that will have him where as Chad and the jocks are busy banging all the other chicks and don't want to mess with them and their brood?
> 
> Which in turn brings me back to the original question which is - has their ability to bond and have a healthy, faithful relationship actually been damaged and their ability to bond really been lessened?? Or are they simply stuck with men that they don't really have any sincere, burning desire for in the first place?


Again, if they view sex recreationally instead of for bonding, then these women would follow the pattern you describe, going for men who think the same in their wild youth, then wanting to settle down with a man who is more stable. However, they then find that not as sexually fun, so they become dissatisfied with the relationship and appear less bonded.


----------



## Married but Happy

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Again, if they view sex recreationally instead of for bonding, then these women would follow the pattern you describe, going for men who think the same in their wild youth, then wanting to settle down with a man who is more stable. However, they then find that not as sexually fun, so they become dissatisfied with the relationship and appear less bonded.


I think both are possible. One can have lots of recreational sex until ready to settle, but then bond well AND still have great sex with a carefully chosen man. (And variations on that, which apply to both me and my wife.)


----------



## Livvie

No one has explained why this only pertains to women and not men, only that "there are differences". Was this studied or is it just someone's majorly sexist theory?


----------



## Enigma32

Livvie said:


> No one has explained why this only pertains to women and not men, only that "there are differences". Was this studied or is it just someone's majorly sexist theory?


I don't know if this does pertain to women only or not but an explanation was given to you, and that is men and women are not the same. There are fundamental differences between the sexes that COULD account for this difference in sexual bonding. I've never personally looked into this sort of thing since I don't date men so they aren't my problem to deal with.


----------



## Hiner112

Livvie said:


> No one has explained why this only pertains to women and not men, only that "there are differences". Was this studied or is it just someone's majorly sexist theory?


It has been studied.

Women in general are a lot less satisfied with relationships. Their satisfaction goes down with number of partners. Being satisfied with the relationship drops to coinflip territory at 6-10 partners. For guys it never drops below about 60%.


----------



## Married but Happy

Livvie said:


> No one has explained why this only pertains to women and not men, only that "there are differences". Was this studied or is it just someone's majorly sexist theory?


If anything, IMO men bond primarily through sex and women bond more through emotional closeness, but of course sex can include emotional closeness. So, it would seem that men would be _more_ likely to be damaged in their bonding ability by having many partners - if not for their reportedly greater ability to _compartmentalize_ sex and emotional connection. IF women can't compartmentalize sex from bonding, then _perhaps_ this impacts their future bonding ability.

Now consider that until 60 years ago, women would often get pregnant if they had a lot of partners (and let's exclude the extremes such as sex workers from this discussion), and would be stigmatized and ostracized by "polite" society. As such, their ability to bond may have been negatively impacted by society more so than by their own inclination to commit to a partner. Since we have circumvented evolutionary biology and greatly changed social conventions with effective birth control, I'm not sure anyone can really answer this question without extensive research, and it could take a long time to analyze this properly.


----------



## jjj858

I’ve read this before and I think it’s total bs that has no basis in reality.


----------



## Married but Happy

Hiner112 said:


> It has been studied.
> 
> Women in general are a lot less satisfied with relationships. Their satisfaction goes down with number of partners. Being satisfied with the relationship drops to coinflip territory at 6-10 partners. For guys it never drops below about 60%.


I see from the tables that men's satisfaction drops by a greater percentage the more partners they've had (compared to the stats for women), so it seems that men's ability to bond (or be happy, if that's a suitable surrogate measure for bonding) is MORE affected by number of partners. And we see that women's happiness statistically INCREASES _quite significantly_ if they have over 11 partners. This all contradicts the OP's premise very clearly.


----------



## jjj858

oldshirt said:


> This brings up an interesting point. If men are banging women but unwilling to commit to them, aren't they thusly reducing their own marriage pool??
> 
> Let me flip this around and use myself as an example even though I am a guy. For the sake of argument let's say 5 is the magic number. Out of the first 5 women that I slept with, 3 dumped me. I wanted to be with those three and would have been in LTR/marriage with them, but they were the ones that didn't want to be with me after a certain period of time.
> 
> If being with 5 people makes me ineligible as marriage material, should I really be held accountable for the fact that I have been with 5 people when I would have been with either of 3 of those if they hadn't dumped me?
> 
> Did they damage me and leave me unsuitable??
> 
> Again, not an entirely fair example since I am a guy but you get my point.
> 
> If a woman has been with 5 guys, but 3 of them basically pumped and dumped her, is it really her fault??
> 
> And are men shooting themselves in the foot on the marriage market if they are banging lots of chicks but don't consider chicks that have been with a certain number of guys marriage material??


I agree with this. My wife got divorced and dated for a year before we met. She ended up sleeping with four guys in that time frame. The first was a relationship of about four months. The guy pulled the carpet out from under one day and said “sorry but you’re way more gung-ho about being in a relationship than me” and broke up with her. Then she dated another guy who asked her out at a friends engagement party. Two months later he did the same exact thing and basically ghosted her. Told her he didn’t want a relationship and that he didn’t miss her when they were apart. Then she dated a third guy and three weeks later he did the same thing. Fourth guy is not even worth mentioning as she blacked out and was raped by him.

She told me that she honestly was not looking just to have sex with people. She said she wanted an actual relationship. She told me she was looking for love and kept failing to find it over and over and that these guys kept doing the same thing to her. She said the guys always pushed for sex early on and she said she gave in because she thought that’s what she had to do to get them to like her.

I fully admit that hearing about these guys gave me retroactive jealously pretty bad. But I have no reason to not believe her.

And you’re right, these guys were just screwing themselves in the end. She is gorgeous (10/10 when I met her), classy, educated and intelligent. Not to mention kind, devoted, faithful, and very loving. They damaged their own marriage pool by not recognizing the gem they had. None of them have found anyone close to her since. 

We’ve been together ten years and she has been nothing less than a totally devoted and faithful partner to me. We’ve had a few ups and downs in the past year, mainly due to post partum and the death of a close sibling, but the love is still there. Her experiences before certainly have had no bearing on her ability to bond. If anything she bonded to me even stronger because from the start she recognized that I was a worthy partner. I recognized her value from the start and didn’t hold my feelings back or play games with her. She said I made her realize how wrong anyone else had been for her.


----------



## BioFury

Livvie said:


> Why the f would it affect women's future ability to bond in a relationship and not men's?
> 
> That's silly, and ******.


Because... men and women are the same? 🤨


----------



## CharlieParker

Married but Happy said:


> I think both are possible. One can have lots of recreational sex until ready to settle, but then bond well AND still have great sex with a carefully chosen man. (And variations on that, which apply to both me and my wife.)


I've always looked at my wife's previous promiscuity as a positive, she likes sex (and is good at it) and it's not like it would stop after the ring went on. And I'd never heard of a sexless marriage (or initiating) before TAM.


----------



## frusdil

I'll ask my SIL and get back to you. 😂


----------



## GusPolinski

Makes sense to me. I don’t believe this to be a something that’s exclusive to women, though.

And if there’s a hard number, I’m sure it varies from person to person.


----------



## farsidejunky

DudeInProgress said:


> Because men and women are different.


Just because this is true doesn't automatically invalidate her question. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana7

oldshirt said:


> At the risk of threadjacking my own thread, is any woman actually impressed by a guy not trying to get into her knickers??
> 
> Either she digs the dude in which case it's an annoyance and a hinderance to their chemistry.
> 
> Or she doesn't dig him in the first place and doesn't want him trying to get in her unddies anyway.
> 
> Either way, it's not really impressing anyone regardless.


Yes I would be impressed, and I know many others as well who would be totally put off by a man pressuring for sex.
A man who is respectful and prepared to wait for sex is very attractive to me and others.
To us it shows self control and strength of character. It shows that he respects women.
I know women who ended relationships due to the man pressuring them, they ended up with really nice guys who respected them.


----------



## Rus47

When I was young (long ago and far away), a girl who had a lot of partners was talked about among the boys as being "easy", and attracted attention from ALL of the males. The boys bragged (and lied a lot) about their exploits. I doubt (but don't really know) if the girls were talking amongst themselves about guys who were "easy", cuz ALL of the guys were "easy", all a girl had to do was show up. Think the only thing prevented any male from having a high body count is lack of opportunity. Most of us aspired to as high a body count as possible. I would imagine that lot of the "easy" girls ended up happily married with children, having moved away from their past. 

I do wonder if having a lot of partners lays down expectations. If either gender has say 10 examples, most likely they will recall the best, the worst, and the mediocre. So, if they eventually marry and their spouse turns into anything other than "the best", at any time during the marriage. recalling how good the best was isn't going to help the marriage. So that would be a risk for either gender marrying a person with high body count. I have no idea what constitutes "high". And, recognize that having few partners might cause a spouse to wonder what they missed, especially if they listen to more experienced friends, or watch a lot of the entertainment industry's offerings. The low count person also may not have gained the expertise through OJT to adequately satisfy their spouse.


----------



## Blondilocks

It seems some think women do not compartmentalize like men. Women are perfectly capable of compartmentalizing their lives. We do it all of the time. 

As the Byrds sang, to everything there is a season.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> Yes I would be impressed, and I know many others as well who would be totally put off by a man pressuring for sex.
> A man who is respectful and prepared to wait for sex is very attractive to me and others.
> To us it shows self control and strength of character. It shows that he respects women.
> I know women who ended relationships due to the man pressuring them, they ended up with really nice guys who respected them.


I find following the "3 date" rule is a good way to weed out those who are timewasters


----------



## Numb26

Blondilocks said:


> It seems some think women do not compartmentalize like men. Women are perfectly capable of compartmentalizing their lives. We do it all of the time.
> 
> As the Byrds sang, to everything there is a season.


I know from personal experience that woman compartmentalize Hahaha


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> I find following the "3 date" rule is a good way to weed out those who are timewasters


If a guy can't wait more that three dates he isn't worth bothering with.


----------



## Torninhalf

I think it is a


Numb26 said:


> I find following the "3 date" rule is a good way to weed out those who are timewasters


3 dates then sex?


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> If a guy can't wait more that three dates he isn't worth bothering with.


If a woman hasn't shown any interest after three dates she isn't worth wasting more time on


----------



## Numb26

Torninhalf said:


> I think it is a
> 
> 3 dates then sex?


Not necessarily sex but at least some forward movement towards sex


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> If a woman hasn't shown any interest after three dates she isn't worth wasting more time on


😲
Well at least it would make it very clear to me that the guy and myself were not in any way compatible.


----------



## ccpowerslave

Numb26 said:


> If a woman hasn't shown any interest after three dates she isn't worth wasting more time on


Could be an indicator of a dud?


----------



## Numb26

ccpowerslave said:


> Could be an indicator of a dud?


Maybe. But it also depends on what each person is looking for. I am not looking for a serious relationship so someone I can casually date, go to dinner with and spend "time" together is what I want. I can usually tell after 3 dates if the person is on the same page as me or is looking for something more.


----------



## Diana7

ccpowerslave said:


> Could be an indicator of a dud?


In what way?


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> 😲
> Well at least it would make it very clear to me that the guy and myself were not in any way compatible.


Exactly, and that's a good thing to know early on in dating so neither person has any misunderstandings


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> Maybe. But it also depends on what each person is looking for. I am not looking for a serious relationship so someone I can casually date, go to dinner with and spend "time" together is what I want. I can usually tell after 3 dates if the person is on the same page as me or is looking for something more.


To me dating was always to meet a guy to marry. Casual dating has always seemed pointless to me.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> To me dating was always to meet a guy to marry. Casual dating has always seemed pointless to me.


That is exactly why that rule is in place. I would never want to make someone think I was leading them on. Which is why I am always upfront about what I am looking for. No hurt feelings.


----------



## ccpowerslave

Diana7 said:


> In what way?


If the lady isn’t progressing towards something physical after a few dinner dates I would take it as either:

1. Let’s be friends, where you pay for everything and we hang out. In other words she doesn’t want me sexually but does want my wallet.

2. Dud. If she’s not going to 1st base by now but somehow she is physically attracted then perhaps she’s a dud.


----------



## Personal

Torninhalf said:


> 3 dates then sex?


Most of the women I have had sex with initiated/asked for sex during the night we met. Like my ex-wife and I, when we had sex together within 2 hours of meeting at a party. Then for most of the rest, it was a first date experience.

While a lesser number of them initiated/asked for sex on our second date. Although I would also initiate on meeting or on the 1st or 2nd date on some occasions as well, like with my third longest lasting sexual relationship at the end of our second date.

With my wife being an extremely rare exception, with sex being on our third date at her initiation. Oh and if I told my wife "we should wait", she would have let me go and not dated me again.

That said at least in my experience, it was women who were wanting sex very quickly and with rare exception they weren't shy about it either.


----------



## dadstartingover

I can only report my own anecdotal experience (been coaching/counseling men for several years now):

When it comes to men who are self-professed former "man whores", they have a hard time putting that genie back in the bottle. When they get married and have kids, the sex inevitably dwindles, and they're left saying, "Uhhh...this ain't happening. Nope." They try to fix things with the wife (very little effort), lose interest, and start cheating. The high of getting sex with lots of easy women is too much. As Chris Rock said, "Women can't go backward financially, and men can't go backward sexually."

On the other side of the coin, when I talk to the "nice guy" types who find out that their wife is screwing around on them, 99.9% of the time I hear, "My wife has A LOT more experience than me when it comes to sex. A LOT." 

Not a scientific study by any stretch,...


----------



## hinterdir

oldshirt said:


> One of the sounding points making it's way through the Manosphere and Red Pill community currently is an assertion that a woman's ability to bond with one partner is damaged if she sleeps with too many people previously or has a partner count that is too high.
> 
> The associated point with this assertion is that no such problem occurs with men and that men can get with many women and that their ability to bond with one will not be negatively impacted by their previous count.
> 
> Now I get that if someone has hooked with hundreds of people, then long term monogamy is probably not on their to-do list and monogamy is probably not their thang.
> 
> But what is being presented as fact here, is that women who sleep with too many men actually damage and lose their ABILITY to bond and that after a certain number of prior lovers, she won't be capable of bonding with one partner.
> 
> And what is important to note here is that what is being presented as a cut off point is around 4 or 5 or so previous partners.
> Even here on TAM, people have cited studies showing female partner counts and their likelihood of divorce. And again, these numbers are showing a danger zone in handful of prior partner counts.
> 
> So what say you?? Is a woman that has been with 4 a shakey bet while someone that has been with 5 a lost cause??
> Does that 5th dude have that much power to destroy a woman's ability to bond?
> 
> Ok I'll stop being snarky (something that very hard for me to do) but you get my point.
> 
> This is being presented by the Red Pill gurus like Richard Cooper and Rollo Tomassi et al as FACT. But is it??
> 
> Is there correlation vs causation at play here?
> 
> Is this just a 2021 spin on the old double standard and just today's incarnation of $lut Shaming?
> 
> Is a woman's actual ability, not just desire, but actual ABILITY to bond damaged or destroyed once she gets with that 5th dude?
> 
> Conversely is a man's ability to bond effected by his prior count or is it as the gurus say and is uneffected by his prior partners?
> 
> Are these not simply women of questionable repute but actually damaged and incapable of strong, stable, faithful, monogamous relationships???


The bottom line both men and women are each free to have standards they want in a long term mate.
Either is free to pass on anyone whose past bothers them.
I would have never married a woman who had 15 sex partners, one night stands, past threesomes.
I would have run.
Women are 100% free to have standards about men.


----------



## hinterdir

Married but Happy said:


> I don't think there is any connection in general, as I know women (and men) with partner counts over 100 who are now in stable, happy, committed relationships. And I know some who've only had a couple of partners who readily cheated. Some from both ends of the count spectrum may be damaged, of course.


Theae types of replies can and should be ignored because no one really knows what is really going on in someone else's private relationship. GOOD OR BAD no one else can really use someone else's relationship as "evidence"
No one really knows.


----------



## Diana7

ccpowerslave said:


> If the lady isn’t progressing towards something physical after a few dinner dates I would take it as either:
> 
> 1. Let’s be friends, where you pay for everything and we hang out. In other words she doesn’t want me sexually but does want my wallet.
> 
> 2. Dud. If she’s not going to 1st base by now but somehow she is physically attracted then perhaps she’s a dud.


Maybe she thinks sex is more that just for casual dates?


----------



## oldshirt

Diana7 said:


> Yes I would be impressed, and I know many others as well who would be totally put off by a man pressuring for sex.
> A man who is respectful and prepared to wait for sex is very attractive to me and others.
> To us it shows self control and strength of character. It shows that he respects women.
> I know women who ended relationships due to the man pressuring them, they ended up with really nice guys who respected them.


If a guy is pressuring someone for sex, that means she does not want to have sex with him in the first place,,,,, otherwise they would be having sex and no pressure would be needed.


----------



## oldshirt

Diana7 said:


> If a guy can't wait more that three dates he isn't worth bothering with.


If a woman is showing no interest in three dates, she isn't worth bothering with.


----------



## oldshirt

Diana7 said:


> To me dating was always to meet a guy to marry. Casual dating has always seemed pointless to me.


Another term for dating is interview and tryout process. 

It's basically filling a job opening and dating is method used to interview and have a probationary period for the applicants. 

However each person has their own job opening that they are wanting to fill and each has their own job description. 

For you that position may be for a spouse and coparent domestic partner. For others it may be a fun night on the town or NSA sex or FWB or for married people looking on the side, even a discrete AP. 

But whatever the job description or purpose, dating is the interview and selection process that is used to fill the role that people are looking to fill.


----------



## oldshirt

oldshirt said:


> If a woman is showing no interest in three dates, she isn't worth bothering with.


I need to qualify this a little. 

I'm not saying that if a couple isn't swinging from the chandeliers by the 3rd date that it's a lost cause. 

I'm saying if someone is not showing any signs of interest and no chemistry and no inkling of desire and attraction,, it probably ain't happening and probably best to move on and keep looking. 

everyone is going to have their own personal values and moral compass in terms of actual PIV sex. But there is an entire galaxy of romantic/sexual energy and chemistry between the first "hello" and actual PIV. 

There's been times I have dated people for months before we had actual PIV. But by the end of the first date there was palpable chemistry and desire and in the time leading up to PIV there was pretty much everything but. 

Even in the swinger community there are people that only have PIV with their own partner, but enjoy a wide range of other activities with others and still enjoy the extra chemistry and desire that comes with it. 

If a couple is showing sincere chemistry and desire,, whether they have PIV on the 3rd, 4th, 27th or 423rd date or even after marriage is up to their personal values and mores and religious beliefs etc. 

But if there is no attraction, chemistry or desire after a few dates, it's probably not going to miraculously come after the 4th, 5th or 6th date either.


----------



## Diana7

oldshirt said:


> If a guy is pressuring someone for sex, that means she does not want to have sex with him in the first place,,,,, otherwise they would be having sex and no pressure would be needed.


It may mean that she isn't prepared to have sex so soon!


----------



## Diana7

oldshirt said:


> I need to qualify this a little.
> 
> I'm not saying that if a couple isn't swinging from the chandeliers by the 3rd date that it's a lost cause.
> 
> I'm saying if someone is not showing any signs of interest and no chemistry and no inkling of desire and attraction,, it probably ain't happening and probably best to move on and keep looking.
> 
> everyone is going to have their own personal values and moral compass in terms of actual PIV sex. But there is an entire galaxy of romantic/sexual energy and chemistry between the first "hello" and actual PIV.
> 
> There's been times I have dated people for months before we had actual PIV. But by the end of the first date there was palpable chemistry and desire and in the time leading up to PIV there was pretty much everything but.
> 
> Even in the swinger community there are people that only have PIV with their own partner, but enjoy a wide range of other activities with others and still enjoy the extra chemistry and desire that comes with it.
> 
> If a couple is showing sincere chemistry and desire,, whether they have PIV on the 3rd, 4th, 27th or 423rd date or even after marriage is up to their personal values and mores and religious beliefs etc.
> 
> But if there is no attraction, chemistry or desire after a few dates, it's probably not going to miraculously come after the 4th, 5th or 6th date either.


Of course. For me there was chemistry immediately with my husband, but there wasn't going to be sex at that point. You can want sex but want to wait as well. When I say sex I also include things like oral.


----------



## oldshirt

Diana7 said:


> Of course. For me there was chemistry immediately with my husband, but there wasn't going to be sex at that point. You can want sex but want to wait as well. When I say sex I also include things like oral.


And that is kind of what I am talking about. The chemistry can be there but people can still follow their own values and mores. 

Your experience is not unusual. I believe that in most couples, the attraction and chemistry was there in the early stages of dating. In cases where people meet through common interests or through friends or even work etc, the attraction and chemistry is often there even before the first date. 

IMHO if someone is still talking about the weather and trying to think up what to say or do next after a few dates, it's probably time to move along.


----------



## ccpowerslave

Diana7 said:


> Maybe she thinks sex is more that just for casual dates?


I’m maybe like you in that I didn’t date casually past the first “getting to know you” initial ones. Was only looking for LTR partners. Formal dinner dates I would consider as past the initial casual coffee or cocktail meetings.


----------



## Married but Happy

hinterdir said:


> Theae types of replies can and should be ignored because no one really knows what is really going on in someone else's private relationship. GOOD OR BAD no one else can really use someone else's relationship as "evidence"
> No one really knows.


Fine, I'm ignoring you. Almost every post in this entire site is based on anecdotal evidence and opinion, so let's just shut it down!


----------



## OddOne

I'm inclined to believe this is probably a case of looking for a simple and convenient explanation behind a complex thing. A man may ask, "why did she fall out of love with me and move on to him?" The answers are probably several and multifaceted, but it's just easier to assume something like her having a lot of partners in college means her mental health, the circumstances of her home life, including influences outside her immediate family, and his own behavior, etc., can all be ignored. It's as if she both can't help herself and is beyond help if she's slept with "too many" guys. But then, if she's had few, if any, partners and has a great upbringing with non-toxic friends, etc., but still opts to either have an affair(s) or leave for someone else, what becomes the answer for her choices and behaviors? I don't really know, and maybe it can't be found. Which I accept.


----------



## DudeInProgress

OddOne said:


> I'm inclined to believe this is probably a case of looking for a simple and convenient explanation behind a complex thing. A man may ask, "why did she fall out of love with me and move on to him?" The answers are probably several and multifaceted, but it's just easier to assume something like her having a lot of partners in college means her mental health, the circumstances of her home life, including influences outside her immediate family, and his own behavior, etc., can all be ignored. It's as if she both can't help herself and is beyond help if she's slept with "too many" guys. But then, if she's had few, if any, partners and has a great upbringing with non-toxic friends, etc., but still opts to either have an affair(s) or leave for someone else, what becomes the answer for her choices and behaviors? I don't really know, and maybe it can't be found. Which I accept.


Of course there are a lot of unknown variables in life, and we will never have all the answers. And it’s wise to accept that.

That said, there are patterns and correlations that effective people observe and heed. And many of these correlative patterns (while rarely if ever 100%) are directionally correct and consistent. 
Some people like to ignore this and argue the exception and dismiss things they don’t like on the grounds that they can’t be perfectly quantified with 100% accuracy.

Effective people recognize and heed patterns and correlations as a functional matter to operate effectively in the real world to achieve the best outcomes possible.


----------



## Married but Happy

DudeInProgress said:


> Effective people recognize and heed patterns and correlations as a functional matter to operate effectively in the real world to achieve the best outcomes possible.


I do exactly this, AND I can usually recognize when an exception should be made. People are individuals, and as such may defy statistical categorization.


----------



## Enigma32

dadstartingover said:


> When it comes to men who are self-professed former "man whores", they have a hard time putting that genie back in the bottle. When they get married and have kids, the sex inevitably dwindles, and they're left saying, "Uhhh...this ain't happening. Nope." They try to fix things with the wife (very little effort), lose interest, and start cheating. The high of getting sex with lots of easy women is too much. As Chris Rock said, "Women can't go backward financially, and men can't go backward sexually."


That's not what Chris Rock meant by that statement. He meant that men can't go from being in a relationship with a woman to then being platonic. That is going backward sexually.


----------



## Enigma32

Diana7 said:


> If a guy can't wait more that three dates he isn't worth bothering with.





Numb26 said:


> I find following the "3 date" rule is a good way to weed out those who are timewasters


I think both of you are correct. I think Numb is used to dealing with crappy women (as am I). Those crappy women might stick around and waste your time even if they don't like you. Ego boosts and free dinners are what they are looking for, not commitment. Usually, a good way to weed those ladies out is to see if they will hook up within 3 dates, because if she will, she is actually interested.

I think Diana is right because if you are actually a decent woman with some morals that you stick to and you're actually looking for a LTR, then a respectful guy should be able to wait until you are ready to get physical. The problem is most ladies don't think like Diana.


----------



## dadstartingover

Enigma32 said:


> That's not what Chris Rock meant by that statement. He meant that men can't go from being in a relationship with a woman to then being platonic. That is going backward sexually.


I've actually quoted Chris Rock's bit multiple times... it's most certainly what he meant. Here, you can see it on Youtube.


----------



## Enigma32

dadstartingover said:


> I've actually quoted Chris Rock's bit multiple times... it's most certainly what he meant. Here, you can see it on Youtube.


I stand corrected. I used to listen to him all the time and I could have sworn I saw a bit where he talked about women expecting men to be friends after a breakup and I thought that was what you were referencing.


----------



## manowar

oldshirt said:


> when the girls have sown their oats with the jocks and the Chads and then *turn their attention to the "Nice Guys*"


this is the pivot point when the girl seeks a provider. The nice guy is generally inexperienced who believes in the myth. The conditioning. These guys for the most part think that they have won by being selected. They fail to question "Why". They just don't know. A big part of it is that they are naive. Many (not all) of these women are poor wife candidates. The nice guy hasn't a clue on how to qualify a wife or gf. We see that here all the time. I suspect a lot of these guys now in their 30s have never dumped a woman. They are programmed to marry. And marry fast! The conditioning runs deep because society needs these guys to marry them up. But men are finally starting to catch on. Marriage statistics are the lowest in one hundred years. They may be naive but they are waking up to the draconian penalties of the Marriage-Divorce Complex. Marriage in 2021 is not the same as marriage in 1950. It is a relic of another time.


----------



## Luckylucky

ccpowerslave said:


> If the lady isn’t progressing towards something physical after a few dinner dates I would take it as either:
> 
> 1. Let’s be friends, where you pay for everything and we hang out. In other words she doesn’t want me sexually but does want my wallet.
> 
> 2. Dud. If she’s not going to 1st base by now but somehow she is physically attracted then perhaps she’s a dud.


Sigh. We can’t win sometimes. Try and hold out, you’re a dud. Sleep with a man before 3 dates, you end up with a high count because they won’t marry you because you’re easy 🤷🏻‍♀️


----------



## AGoodFlogging

I wonder how many of these studies stand up to a proper statistical analysis. Many surveys on human sexuality and relationships tend to be media fodder and aren't that well designed. One study I have seen (called the National Survey on Family Growth or similar) didn't necessarily show statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of number of partners and likelihood of divorce and didn't collect enough contextual data to make a multivariate analysis possible (so that you can really interrogate whether differences observed are due to a particular factor or combination of factors). Therefore most interpretations I have seen have been essentially guesswork informed by the interpreter's prior experience (or prejudice). One clear confounding factor is religion, where it is far more likely that women with lower partner counts are going to be more religious and less likely to divorce due to that factor.

I'd also be interested in a study on men and what the results showed. I'd be very surprised if there were significant differences. The manosphere bloggers don't like to talk about men and how they behave in these situations as it will most likely undermine their arguments that women are "wired" differently to men.


----------



## frenchpaddy

THE 3 DATES RULE IS CRAP ,it might as well be the first date because if a guy knows he is up against the 3 dates rule on the third date he has his best shorts on and expecting the poor girl to give it up , they say a woman makes up her mind in the first seconds of meeting a men if he is sleeping with materiel and just goes by the 3 dates rule not to be seen as easy , 

so the 3 dates is fixing a get in or out best before date like it was a pot of jam your sealing for 

As I have told before I was a virgin when I got married , and dated 4 years , IT was part of my strict up bringing , My wife was not a virgin , and judging by the numbers some here are talking was high notch but it was not my doing that I was a virgin the day getting married but my wifes 
when we talked about sex and having kids she told me there had been a few guys and I know some and some I know their names , she did not hide that part of her past just did like one of the posters applied the + or - rule the reason she did not have sex with me was she saw something different in me and wanted a real relationship and not a fun and exploring relationship , some of the guys she was with were one night stands , 

so yes there is the 3 dates rule about or was but the danger is men are very strange and more immature to girls of the same age , a 20 year old guy is still a boy a 20 year old woman is way ahead in maturate , 
the guy expects the girl to give in to his advances but when she does the same guy is thinking oh so every other guy that brought her on 3 dates got the same payback like it is a way of repaying the guy for the cost of the 3 dinners she had eating then he thinks so all I HAVE TO DO IS BUY 3 DINNERS AND A WOMAN IS MINE 
does breakfast dinner and supper count , 

SO NO THERE SHOULD BE NO rule not 3 not 23 dates and the amount of paperers a person had comes down to many things you take a person that has sex with others almost like it was a hand shake , but buy the age of 27 some of you used this age as an example by 27 has only been with 7 others in a sexual way is only about 1 every 2 years , 
but you have another that has had 3 long term relationships by 27 has had sex 100s of times is by some of your rules a good fellow or good girl but the other guy or girl are **** shamed i think the person that had the 7 partners is ready to settle down and the person that had 3 relationships might be or they might not be good at keeping relationships over a long time , 

then we come to the people that can divide intercourse into two groups having sex and love-making 

so I think looking into the type relationship someone had before you is silly and has little to do with the type relationship that person can have with you as we all bring different things to the relationship 

some people that never had a relationship are looked on be the goggle screech as the most likely to have a good relationship when is case I think people that had been in relationships before short or long have a super experience to build on and know the pitfalls if they want to use that experience to make this one the best 

so every thing comes down to the 2 people in it what they want from each- other , and culture and up bringing has a lot to play in it


----------



## Enigma32

frenchpaddy said:


> THE 3 DATES RULE IS CRAP ,it might as well be the first date because if a guy knows he is up against the 3 dates rule on the third date he has his best shorts on and expecting the poor girl to give it up , they say a woman makes up her mind in the first seconds of meeting a men if he is sleeping with materiel and just goes by the 3 dates rule not to be seen as easy ,
> 
> so the 3 dates is fixing a get in or out best before date like it was a pot of jam your sealing for
> 
> so every thing comes down to the 2 people in it what they want from each- other , and culture and up bringing has a lot to play in it


The 3 date rule isn't just something men have placed on women. From my perspective, it is as much an observation as it is a rule. I'm not a pushy guy at all. In my own experiences, I have observed that the women are just as ready to jump into bed by date 3 as any man is. It just seems to happen naturally as the relationship progresses. I think it is something men should keep in mind while dating, because the relationship normally does progress by this time, and if it does not, then he should probably ask himself why. Also, a lot of ladies will even complain or jump into the sack with someone else if a guy doesn't pursue her quickly enough. 

I agree with you when it comes to culture. The 3rd date stuff mostly has to do with Western culture so if someone is from a more conservative culture, obviously that should be taken into consideration.


----------



## frenchpaddy

Enigma32 said:


> The 3 date rule isn't just something men have placed on women. From my perspective, it is as much an observation as it is a rule. I'm not a pushy guy at all. In my own experiences, I have observed that the women are just as ready to jump into bed by date 3 as any man is. It just seems to happen naturally as the relationship progresses. I think it is something men should keep in mind while dating, because the relationship normally does progress by this time, and if it does not, then he should probably ask himself why. Also, a lot of ladies will even complain or jump into the sack with someone else if a guy doesn't pursue her quickly enough.
> 
> I agree with you when it comes to culture. The 3rd date stuff mostly has to do with Western culture so if someone is from a more conservative culture, obviously that should be taken into consideration.


 agree with all just think it is women that push the 3 date rule , I think they might as well go all the way the first night as the third if they are waiting just for 3 dates to feel pure , I think the rule be more like as you seem to also of the same mind set , when you feel ready to take that step , yes Western culture that has moved around thanks to Hollywood , 
if a guy is expecting sex as payment he is making a prostitute out of the woman , if a woman demands 3 dinners first she is doing the same of herself


----------



## Diana7

Enigma32 said:


> I think both of you are correct. I think Numb is used to dealing with crappy women (as am I). Those crappy women might stick around and waste your time even if they don't like you. Ego boosts and free dinners are what they are looking for, not commitment. Usually, a good way to weed those ladies out is to see if they will hook up within 3 dates, because if she will, she is actually interested.
> 
> I think Diana is right because if you are actually a decent woman with some morals that you stick to and you're actually looking for a LTR, then a respectful guy should be able to wait until you are ready to get physical. The problem is most ladies don't think like Diana.


Thankfully I know a lot of women who do think like me, younger ones as well.


----------



## frenchpaddy

i think men and women are not different if they respect the other person and don't set rules to who pays and how many dates before they should be ready for something that is more are less incitement between two people , THIS IDEA THAT WOMEN SHOULD SAY NO EVEN IF THEY MEAN YES IS OUTDATED AND DANGERS in today's world , I would say a guy that thinks he can buy diner 3 times for a woman and then she has to be ready well she is better off not seeing him again and keep her knickers on , 

i think women are no different to men it is just we get put in boxes where women are to act as if they don't want almost Deny themselves and their orgies while men are thought to push and except them as good and healthy 


Diana7 said:


> Thankfully I know a lot of women who do think like me, younger ones as well.


----------



## frenchpaddy

my idea of inviting a woman to dinner is to share i nice time with that person and not have unwritten rules as to formed of payment and reward 
i also like the idea of two people able to move on to a sexual side of their relationship without and rules but because both wish to do so
thank god in France you can invite someone to dinner with out they thinking you are expecting sex , 
we in France have a different mind set around eating out with others 
it is a big part of french life


----------



## Diana7

frenchpaddy said:


> my idea of inviting a woman to dinner is to share i nice time with that person and not have unwritten rules as to formed of payment and reward
> i also like the idea of two people able to move on to a sexual side of their relationship without and rules but because both wish to do so
> thank god in France you can invite someone to dinner with out they thinking you are expecting sex ,
> we in France have a different mind set around eating out with others
> it is a big part of french life


Besides that most couples these days tend to share the costs of a meal out.


----------



## frenchpaddy

Diana7 said:


> Besides that most couples these days tend to share the costs of a meal out.


 I live by the one if I invite I pay ,and THINK if you have not strings attached each can enjoy without feeling under and oblation in the same way I can invite a man or men to a dinner god I hope any men I have invited to dinner have not disjointed they did not get a bit of hanky - panky after lol


----------



## CountryMike

Diana7 said:


> Besides that most couples these days tend to share the costs of a meal out.


Not really.


----------



## Divinely Favored

Livvie said:


> Can someone explain to me the sexist slant to this? Why would a high partner count affect a woman's ability to "bond" but not a man's?
> 
> Anyone?


Maybe it is mens ability to compartmentalize. I only have the box open for the one im with.


----------



## Lila

oldshirt said:


> This is being presented by the Red Pill gurus like Richard Cooper and Rollo Tomassi et al as FACT. But is it??
> 
> Is there correlation vs causation at play here?
> 
> Is this just a 2021 spin on the old double standard and just today's incarnation of $lut Shaming?
> 
> Is a woman's actual ability, not just desire, but actual ABILITY to bond damaged or destroyed once she gets with that 5th dude?
> 
> Conversely is a man's ability to bond effected by his prior count or is it as the gurus say and is uneffected by his prior partners?
> 
> Are these not simply women of questionable repute but actually damaged and incapable of strong, stable, faithful, monogamous relationships???


I'll throw my anecdotal evidence into the ring along with everyone else. I'm speaking based on my observations and experience in my youth (i don't think any of this matters beyond your 20s). My observation pool is comprised of college friends with who went on to have very successful careers. All but one
were married by the time they reached 30. Most are still married. 

There is no correlation with a woman's ability to bond and the number of sexual partners. As others have said, sometimes relationships we think are going to go the long haul, fizzle and die. There is no shame in that. There is however a correlation when sex is used as a coping mechanism for mental illness or trauma, or there is drug/alcohol addiction involved. 

There's a stronger correlation with non bonding and serial monogamists (they date one person for a year or two, them dump them to date another for a year or two, etc.) than with sexual partners and bonding. These women are chasing the high of "being in love". It's that emotional high they seek. 

As @Married but Happy said in one of his posts, i agree that multiple partners probably has a bigger effect on men than women, and it's due to the differences in how we bond.


----------



## Torninhalf

This thread is interesting. As another poster stated women can’t win in this scenario. Men expect sex from women quickly or they are “duds” and women who have to many sexual partners aren’t marriage material. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I do remember my mother saying that men don’t marry the naughty girls, they marry the ones they can bring home to their mothers. This is simply the same old men sow their wild oats and women should not kinda thing…

I will say in my case I have had only one sexual partner as I met my STBXH in high school and I will never bond with another man again. Kinda blows that out of the water. 😂


----------



## CountryMike

Torninhalf said:


> This thread is interesting. As another poster stated women can’t win in this scenario. Men expect sex from women quickly or they are “duds” and women who have to many sexual partners aren’t marriage material. 🤷🏼‍♀️
> 
> I do remember my mother saying that men don’t marry the naughty girls, they marry the ones they can bring home to their mothers. This is simply the same old men sow their wild oats and women should not kinda thing…
> 
> I will say in my case I have had only one sexual partner as I met my STBXH in high school and I will never bond with another man again. Kinda blows that out of the water. 😂


This is the age old quandary.


----------



## ccpowerslave

Luckylucky said:


> Sigh. We can’t win sometimes. Try and hold out, you’re a dud. Sleep with a man before 3 dates, you end up with a high count because they won’t marry you because you’re easy 🤷🏻‍♀️


I am not hung up on how many partners someone has had. I’m sure there is some limit though like hundreds where it would make me think we’re not compatible. The other thread with 4-5 that seems still pretty low to me and wouldn’t be an issue at all.


----------



## CountryMike

Luckylucky said:


> Sigh. We can’t win sometimes. Try and hold out, you’re a dud. Sleep with a man before 3 dates, you end up with a high count because they won’t marry you because you’re easy 🤷🏻‍♀️


That is the most common, agreed.

I lucked out. I slept with W first time I met her, and married her. Over 30 yrs now.

I was dating several at once, then after meeting the W tapered to just her. But I fought it at first. Yet not quite 6 mos later we married.

Great decision.


----------



## SpinyNorman

Torninhalf said:


> This thread is interesting. As another poster stated *women can’t win in this scenario.* Men expect sex from women quickly or they are “duds” and women who have to many sexual partners aren’t marriage material. 🤷🏼‍♀️


The bad news is, there is no formula for women that works w/ all men. The good news is you don't need to, even a very "busy" woman can only get around to a small percentage of them.


----------



## NTA

I think the guy should ramp up the affection on a date. If she refuses to hold her date's hands and accept an open mouth kiss by the second date, you're wasting your time. 

For myself, if I can't engage in that behavior with a guy, I'm still looking. You will at least avoid a few duds with that rule.


----------



## TAMAT

Assuming the conjecture is reasonably correct, another factor could be that when women have high numbers and they minimize, omit or lie their relationship start with in dishonest. One lie leads to another.


----------



## Lila

NTA said:


> I think the guy should ramp up the affection on a date. If she refuses to hold her date's hands and accept an open mouth kiss by the second date, you're wasting your time.
> 
> For myself, if I can't engage in that behavior with a guy, I'm still looking. You will at least avoid a few duds with that rule.


This falls under the umbrella of sexual attraction/chemistry. 

I started a thread asking how long we should give a potential date for chemistry to reveal itself. Answers ranged but there was a definite lean towards giving it "a while". 

IMO wanting to make out with someone on the second date usually means the relationship is based on lust. Nothing wrong with that if people are aware of what they are signing themselves up for....and it goes for both men and women.


----------



## CharlieParker

We wound up in the sack before deciding to go on an actual date. That along with her high number dooms us to failure by TAM logic.


----------



## NTA

TAMAT said:


> Assuming the conjecture is reasonably correct, another factor could be that when women have high numbers and they minimize, omit or lie their relationship start with in dishonest. One lie leads to another.


A guy who hounds me for "my numbers" is immediately off my list. He will always be hinting around about how much of a **** I am.


----------



## CountryMike

CharlieParker said:


> We wound up in the sack before deciding to go on an actual date. That along with her high number dooms us to failure by TAM logic.


Nah.

Buck the trend. If you're good now, no worries. 
Pay no attention to the nay sayers. Be informed, aware, and be happy.


----------



## CountryMike

Lila said:


> This falls under the umbrella of sexual attraction/chemistry.
> 
> I started a thread asking how long we should give a potential date for chemistry to reveal itself. Answers ranged but there was a definite lean towards giving it "a while".
> 
> IMO wanting to make out with someone on the second date usually means the relationship is based on lust. Nothing wrong with that if people are aware of what they are signing themselves up for....and it goes for both men and women.


Most assuredly we started out on a pure lust level.
And it just got better. No worries.


----------



## SpinyNorman

CharlieParker said:


> We wound up in the sack before deciding to go on an actual date. That along with her high number dooms us to failure by TAM logic.


So now you have a decision to make, do you want to sacrifice a potentially rewarding relationship, or be out of step w/ TAM?


----------



## Divinely Favored

Diana7 said:


> 😲
> Well at least it would make it very clear to me that the guy and myself were not in any way compatible.


It threw my wife off as on our 1st date i did not even try to kiss her. She told her best friend about it and thought i did not like her. I was talking to her last night about our 1st date. How i was like a teenage boy and telling my friend how fine she was, he whole heartedly agreed. I did not try to push it as i wanted forever and not just tonight. If i tried and she did submit i would have thought less of her and she would not have been a keeper. 

I had one girl i really liked and after a while she was talking about a Fxxkbuddy(FWB) back home. She just thought most people did. To be soo shallow to be able to do that.. It damaged how i thought of her and could not recover. But i am a guy who physical intimacy carries heavy emotion with it. Why i was one of those guys who gets hurt by the women just wanting sex and not relationship. Thank God my wife is same way i am.


----------



## Divinely Favored

frenchpaddy said:


> THE 3 DATES RULE IS CRAP ,it might as well be the first date because if a guy knows he is up against the 3 dates rule on the third date he has his best shorts on and expecting the poor girl to give it up , they say a woman makes up her mind in the first seconds of meeting a men if he is sleeping with materiel and just goes by the 3 dates rule not to be seen as easy ,
> 
> so the 3 dates is fixing a get in or out best before date like it was a pot of jam your sealing for
> 
> As I have told before I was a virgin when I got married , and dated 4 years , IT was part of my strict up bringing , My wife was not a virgin , and judging by the numbers some here are talking was high notch but it was not my doing that I was a virgin the day getting married but my wifes
> when we talked about sex and having kids she told me there had been a few guys and I know some and some I know their names , she did not hide that part of her past just did like one of the posters applied the + or - rule the reason she did not have sex with me was she saw something different in me and wanted a real relationship and not a fun and exploring relationship , some of the guys she was with were one night stands ,
> 
> so yes there is the 3 dates rule about or was but the danger is men are very strange and more immature to girls of the same age , a 20 year old guy is still a boy a 20 year old woman is way ahead in maturate ,
> the guy expects the girl to give in to his advances but when she does the same guy is thinking oh so every other guy that brought her on 3 dates got the same payback like it is a way of repaying the guy for the cost of the 3 dinners she had eating then he thinks so all I HAVE TO DO IS BUY 3 DINNERS AND A WOMAN IS MINE
> does breakfast dinner and supper count ,
> 
> SO NO THERE SHOULD BE NO rule not 3 not 23 dates and the amount of paperers a person had comes down to many things you take a person that has sex with others almost like it was a hand shake , but buy the age of 27 some of you used this age as an example by 27 has only been with 7 others in a sexual way is only about 1 every 2 years ,
> but you have another that has had 3 long term relationships by 27 has had sex 100s of times is by some of your rules a good fellow or good girl but the other guy or girl are **** shamed i think the person that had the 7 partners is ready to settle down and the person that had 3 relationships might be or they might not be good at keeping relationships over a long time ,
> 
> then we come to the people that can divide intercourse into two groups having sex and love-making
> 
> so I think looking into the type relationship someone had before you is silly and has little to do with the type relationship that person can have with you as we all bring different things to the relationship
> 
> some people that never had a relationship are looked on be the goggle screech as the most likely to have a good relationship when is case I think people that had been in relationships before short or long have a super experience to build on and know the pitfalls if they want to use that experience to make this one the best
> 
> so every thing comes down to the 2 people in it what they want from each- other , and culture and up bringing has a lot to play in it


Age does not necessarily apply. I was 23 and practically living with a 34yr old. I always said i was born in the wrong decade. Women always thought i was older. I acted older and listened to music 15-20 yrs older than my peers. My peers were into Motley Crue and Poison, but i was listening to Steve Miller and Eagles. Had one that was 2x my age try to get with me, while i was still a virgin in HS. My wife is almost 4 yrs older and calls me Daddy.


----------



## frenchpaddy

Divinely Favored said:


> Age does not necessarily apply. I was 23 and practically living with a 34yr old. I always said i was born in the wrong decade. Women always thought i was older. I acted older and listened to music 15-20 yrs older than my peers. My peers were into Motley Crue and Poison, but i was listening to Steve Miller and Eagles. Had one that was 2x my age try to get with me, while i was still a virgin in HS. My wife is almost 4 yrs older and calls me Daddy.


yes but more the exception that the norm


----------



## Rus47

In my day, a man was expected to push as far as the girl would allow. If he didn't, she would think he wasn't attracted to her. At the same time, she would set the boundaries. The girls called the shots about where the fences were, mainly because they were often risking pregnancy. If the girl's fences weren't very high, she would of course end up with a lot of partners.


----------



## CountryMike

Rus47 said:


> In my day, a man was expected to push as far as the girl would allow. If he didn't, she would think he wasn't attracted to her. At the same time, she would set the boundaries. The girls called the shots about where the fences were, mainly because they were often risking pregnancy. If the girl's fences weren't very high, she would of course end up with a lot of partners.


We come from the same neck of the woods then.

I get you. And if a guy didn't test the fences she would wonder about him.


----------



## Rus47

CountryMike said:


> We come from the same neck of the woods then.
> 
> I get you. And if a guy didn't test the fences she would wonder about him.


Further that. My wife who met in HS still responds to my interest. If I didnt pursue, she would think wasnt attracted to her. She expects me to push.


----------



## manowar

CharlieParker said:


> We wound up in the sack before deciding to go on an actual date. That along with her high number dooms us to failure by TAM logic.



You are the exception. Im happy things worked out for you because we know what's on the other side.

Some guys prefer a high number. they like it.


----------



## CountryMike

manowar said:


> You are the exception. Im happy things worked out for you because we know what's on the other side.
> 
> Some guys prefer a high number. they like it.


Now we're back to; what's a higher number for a woman. Which is inherently unfair.


----------



## Numb26

CountryMike said:


> Now we're back to; what's a higher number for a woman. Which is inherently unfair.


Seems to me that it is not the number that is important, it's the circumstances


----------



## manowar

Divinely Favored said:


> she was talking about a Fxxkbuddy(FWB) back home. She just thought most people did. To be soo shallow to be able to do that.. It damaged how i thought of her and could not recover.



this is what I mean by qualifying a gf or wife. It's not an interview process or countless tests. It's about Listening. The Lost Art. Believe me on this. She will say things over time. She will say all sorts of things. She'll tell you just about everything you need to know. But it takes time. This is why you must recognize the power of your commitment. Men hold that power. It tends to even things up. Nature has a funny way of doing that. Of course, nice guys have no concept. they throw away their commitment on the first sign of interest. Don't ignore it. Don't say it doesn't matter because she's different now. Or she's a unicorn. Just Listen. Let time pass. More will come out. 

I know what you mean.. Ive heard things like this, beyond this, just boggles the mind. It's like they have to talk. they cant help it. The thing is it doesn't bother me. It helps me size her up. I accept her for who she is. That doesn't mean im crazy enough to marry her though. I'll date anyone if im into her, I just won't marry anyone because I'm into her. BTW -- I volunteer very little about my past. . I never talk about it. 

Rule of thumb: Date Long. Marry Slow. Divorce Fast. The nice guy does just the opposite.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

My gut tells me that partner count isn't the cause of not being able to bond. It may just take some woman more partners to figure out what they want. If anything, partner count could be an indicator of a woman's desire to bond, but not really an indicator of ability to bond. My wife's count was low, 3, but I have no idea how that affected her ability to bond.


----------



## Rus47

manowar said:


> this is what I mean by qualifying a gf or wife. It's not an interview process or countless tests. It's about Listening. The Lost Art. Believe me on this. She will say things over time. She will say all sorts of things. She'll tell you just about everything you need to know. But it takes time. This is why you must recognize the power of your commitment. Men hold that power. It tends to even things up. Nature has a funny way of doing that. Of course, nice guys have no concept. they throw away their commitment on the first sign of interest. Don't ignore it. Don't say it doesn't matter because she's different now. Or she's a unicorn. *Just Listen. Let time pass. More will come out*.
> 
> I know what you mean.. Ive heard things like this, beyond this, just boggles the mind. It's like they have to talk. they cant help it. The thing is it doesn't bother me. It helps me size her up. I accept her for who she is. That doesn't mean im crazy enough to marry her though. I'll date anyone if im into her, I just won't marry anyone because I'm into her. BTW -- *I volunteer very little about my past. . I never talk about it*.
> 
> Rule of thumb: Date Long. Marry Slow. Divorce Fast. The nice guy does just the opposite.


Best policy regardless of gender or the circumstances is to talk less, listen more. I never learned anything while running my mouth.


----------



## TAMAT

NTA said:


> A guy who hounds me for "my numbers" is immediately off my list. He will always be hinting around about how much of a **** I am.


NTA,

So if the relationship is great and longterm or a marriage you would still withhold that information?

For what it's worth I never hounded girls for that information, I vetted them before asking them out even when I was 14, and listened to them afterwards.


----------



## NTA

TAMAT said:


> NTA,
> 
> So if the relationship is great and longterm or a marriage you would still withhold that information?
> 
> For what it's worth I never hounded girls for that information, I vetted them before asking them out even when I was 14, and listened to them afterwards.


Why does he need to know? I have no children who have a mystery father. Not carrying around an STD that can kill me or anyone else. And I am not apprised that any friends, family of my partner has some good gossip about me. I have never presented myself as a virgin when I was not. What do you need a number for? Both of my husbands have never asked.


----------



## Elizabeth001

NTA said:


> Why does he need to know? I have no children who have a mystery father. Not carrying around an STD that can kill me or anyone else. And I am not apprised that any friends, family of my partner has some good gossip about me. I have never presented myself as a virgin when I was not. What do you need a number for? Both of my husbands have never asked.


Love it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Divinely Favored

NTA said:


> Why does he need to know? I have no children who have a mystery father. Not carrying around an STD that can kill me or anyone else. And I am not apprised that any friends, family of my partner has some good gossip about me. I have never presented myself as a virgin when I was not. What do you need a number for? Both of my husbands have never asked.


It woyld be about establishing if you think the one you are dating has the same values as self. I had opportunity but i was a romantic that wanted to meet the one...be each others firsts and only. I remained chaste until 23 by my own choice. I was looking for that one who had same belief.

There was a girl in apt across the breezeway that turned 21 and was adamant she was going to sleep with her 21st guy. She was cute....but no way in hell would i have touched her. That is why it is important to understand an SOs #. 

I also understand difference between relationship # and ONS #. I myself was looking for a relationship in several women, but they just wanted the next good time. So a # can be inflated a little trying to do the right thing as opposed to high #s of just sowing yer oats.


----------



## Rus47

NTA said:


> *Why does he need to know?* I have no children who have a mystery father. Not carrying around an STD that can kill me or anyone else. And I am not apprised that any friends, family of my partner has some good gossip about me. I have never presented myself as a virgin when I was not. *What do you need a number for?* *Both of my husbands have never asked.*


Wise men.


----------



## Rus47

Divinely Favored said:


> It woyld be about establishing if you think the one you are dating has the same values as self. I had opportunity but i was a romantic that wanted to meet the one...be each others firsts and only. I remained chaste until 23 by my own choice. I was looking for that one who had same belief.
> 
> *There was a girl in apt across the breezeway that turned 21 and was adamant she was going to sleep with her 21st guy. She was cute....but no way in hell would i have touched her. That is why it is important to understand an SOs #. *
> 
> I also understand difference between relationship # and ONS #. I myself was looking for a relationship in several women, but they just wanted the next good time. So a # can be inflated a little trying to do the right thing as opposed to high #s of just sowing yer oats.


But, in these days of the "hookup" culture, and cheap effective bc females are as able to "sow their oats" as much as males. Maybe imagining things, but would think anyone of either gender under 40 today has a "high" body count (not even sure what that would be) or for some reason isn't that attractive to the opposite sex (probably more important to know about that). If it were a male turning 21 who planned doing their 21st woman, his buddies would just be envious that he was so attractive to females. Doubt any woman would ever ask him how many were ahead of her. Who knows, maybe the girl across the breezeway would have found #22 to be the best ever, who she wanted to spend the rest of her days with. And the only reason you even knew her goal was because she "bragged" about it.

The answer to the original question, about "ability to bond" will become apparent when the connection with prospective mate doesn't "click", and the reason doesn't matter. No reason to even ask ( or tell ) about previous partners ever. Just invites further questions about "am I your best?".


----------



## Divinely Favored

Not all males are out to sow their oats. I was not. I had a buddy that did, even warned the girls at times...they did not listen. Then came whining to me after....see ya! No we are not going out sometime...you made your choice. I would not even date a girl that i knew had slept with him as he was a man wh0re. Basically a free prostitute in my book.

It is important to have an idea of count to judge if each others values are in the same ball park. I can not imagine having a mate who had been with "half the guys in town" male or female. Would have to move to another state.


----------



## lifeistooshort

NTA said:


> Why does he need to know? I have no children who have a mystery father. Not carrying around an STD that can kill me or anyone else. And I am not apprised that any friends, family of my partner has some good gossip about me. I have never presented myself as a virgin when I was not. What do you need a number for? Both of my husbands have never asked.


I've never had a guy ask about my "number" either. My current bf knows I was married twice and he is my only partner since my divorce but why would he care what I did in my early 20’s before I was married? I'm in my late 40’s now.

That was so long ago that I have to think about it but it was probably less than 10.

He knows I have 2 kids with my 1st hb and has met him because even though my kids are grown he obviously as my kids father is around for events.

I don't know his history and it's never occurred to me to ask. I know he's never been married, has no kids, and no STD's (me either) so what else do I need to know? I suspect his history isn't that extensive based on things I've observed but either way I don't worry about it.

He hasn't asked for any further details from me. Right now he is my world and the only man that matters.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Divinely Favored said:


> Not all males are out to sow their oats. I was not. I had a buddy that did, even warned the girls at times...they did not listen. Then came whining to me after....see ya! No we are not going out sometime...you made your choice. I would not even date a girl that i knew had slept with him as he was a man wh0re. Basically a free prostitute in my book.
> 
> It is important to have an idea of count to judge if each others values are in the same ball park. I can not imagine having a mate who had been with "half the guys in town" male or female. Would have to move to another state.


I understand this and agree that knowing whether your values are compatible is important.

I personally have no interest in a man ***** or a guy that's been with anyone I know. Too many fish in the sea to bother with that.

It's usually not hard to tell what you're dealing with without getting into numbers.


----------



## Rus47

lifeistooshort said:


> I've never had a guy ask about my "number" either. My current bf knows I was married twice and he is my only partner since my divorce but why would he care what I did in my early 20’s before I was married? I'm in my late 40’s now.
> 
> That was so long ago that I have to think about it but it was probably less than 10.
> 
> He knows I have 2 kids with my 1st hb and has met him because even though my kids are grown he obviously as my kids father is around for events.
> 
> I don't know his history and it's never occurred to me to ask. I know he's never been married, has no kids, and *no STD's (me either)* so what else do I need to know? I suspect his history isn't that extensive based on things I've observed but either way I don't worry about it.
> 
> He hasn't asked for any further details from me. Right now he is my world and the only man that matters.


I would think in this day and time the most important determination would be "are we going to be exclusive and are we std free "


----------



## Lila

lifeistooshort said:


> It's usually not hard to tell what you're dealing with without getting into numbers.



^^This.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Rus47 said:


> I would think in this day and time the most important determination would be "are we going to be exclusive and are we std free "


Absolutely. I'd also like to know if you have kids, if you've been married 8 times, and whether you still have contact with exes.

Basic stuff that might affect me.


----------



## CharlieParker

Divinely Favored said:


> I can not imagine having a mate who had been with "half the guys in town" male or female. Would have to move to another state.


Ha, we ran in to more of her exes in the neighborhood than many people would consider an acceptable total number. We were living in Manhattan at the time. It never bothered me. Only time it bothered me was when we bumped in to an ex exiting a plane, and it only bothered me because he was coming down the stairs from first class and we were only in business. (My wife noticed my being bothered and whispered that he had a tiny ****.)


----------



## DownByTheRiver

CharlieParker said:


> Ha, we ran in to more of her exes in the neighborhood than many people would consider an acceptable total number. We were living in Manhattan at the time. It never bothered me. Only time it bothered me was when we bumped in to an ex exiting a plane, and it only bothered me because he was coming down the stairs from first class and we were only in business. (My wife noticed my being bothered and whispered that he had a tiny ****.)


My crowd was a tangled vine that everyone was tripping over each other as well. It was nice. No one was judgy about it. It was just a bunch of people who got along and socialized, basically.


----------



## samyeagar

I think this is far too complex of an issue to boil down to a simple cause and effect statement.

As many of the long timers here are aware, my wife has a high partner count by most standards. Much of that was from her teenage and early twenties. While it has not caused her any issues with her ability to pair bond, I do think it affected her ability to bond through sex.

Early on, she had the common mindset of that if a guy would have sex with her, that meant they wanted her, they wanted to be with her, they would love her, they found her attractive. Finding a partner to love her was very important to her mainly as an escape from a family where she felt unloved. Finding a bond was her main drive for having sex.

Over time, her mindset shifted as she realized that sex did not lead to love, or a desire to partner with her. Rather than going off sex, she shifted into a mindset that sex didn't really mean anything beyond a short term bit of validation.

She did end up bonding with and marrying a very abusive man who was the first one who would have her long term. She stayed married and faithful for 15 years. When he finally left her and they divorced, she became more conscious of her total partner count and made the decision not to run it up any further, and she did this by seeking out previous partners, including her ex husband.

Her sexual past is very complicated, but it did strongly indicate a few things. First, and perhaps most important was that her willingness to have sex with someone was not tied to the state of a relationship, or how she was treated by a partner. It also indicated that her willingness to have sex is not a point of validation for her partner. That all leads to a high likeliness that a long term relationship with her will not become sexless of her accord.


----------



## Laurentium

Divinely Favored said:


> I would not even date a girl that i knew had slept with him


I had a male friend like that. In the end, I had to accept that finding a girl in our social circle who hadn't slept with him would be impossible. They all described him as "lovely" - he provided a service and didn't mislead anyone.


----------



## DudeInProgress

lifeistooshort said:


> I've never had a guy ask about my "number" either. My current bf knows I was married twice and he is my only partner since my divorce but why would he care what I did in my early 20’s before I was married? I'm in my late 40’s now.
> 
> That was so long ago that I have to think about it but it was probably less than 10.
> 
> He knows I have 2 kids with my 1st hb and has met him because even though my kids are grown he obviously as my kids father is around for events.
> 
> I don't know his history and it's never occurred to me to ask. I know he's never been married, has no kids, and no STD's (me either) so what else do I need to know? I suspect his history isn't that extensive based on things I've observed but either way I don't worry about it.
> 
> He hasn't asked for any further details from me. Right now he is my world and the only man that matters.


I agree that it’s generally best not to ask at all.

The exact number doesn’t really matter.
The point is that for most men, they probably don’t care if it was 3 or 8 or 10 - they want to make sure it wasn’t 100. 
And I think you can usually figure out when dating someone, if they are likely closer to single digits or closer to triple digits without asking for an exact number.


----------



## Divinely Favored

lifeistooshort said:


> I understand this and agree that knowing whether your values are compatible is important.
> 
> I personally have no interest in a man *** or a guy that's been with anyone I know. Too many fish in the sea to bother with that.
> 
> It's usually not hard to tell what you're dealing with without getting into numbers.


Exactly. I am greatful i do not know anyone of my wifes exes. But then again i grabbed her from across the state line...got me a Texas filly a rustled her into Indian Terrirory. 
I would not let her unknowingly affiliate with my past and told her she better not allow me to associate with her past.


----------



## WandaJ

This could be compared to that Freud's "penis envy" that all women were supposed to feel. Another non-sense made by men about women to support their own egos.


----------



## oldshirt

lifeistooshort said:


> It's usually not hard to tell what you're dealing with without getting into numbers.


I think this is true for women vetting men, but not always for men vetting women.

Unless a guy is an actual sociopath or psychopath, most guys are pretty much what you see is what you get. 

If a guy is a playa’, you’re going to be able to tell he’s a playa’ in a pretty short amount of time. 

If he’s a nerd, you’re going to know he’s a nerd 🤓 

If he’s very conservative and traditional or very religious or uptight etc you’re going to see that and conversely if he is very liberal and free 
spirited and sex positive, you’re going to see that.

At the risk of sounding sexist, I will also say that in general women are often better at picking up on subtle little cues and better at reading people.

So for women, yes most are going to know if a guy is a player or a F-boy or Nice Guy or nerd or whatever. 

For men it’s not as apparent. Women are much more likely to conceal their sexual pasts (I can’t say that I blame them) and much more likely to present a public facade, and men as a whole are a whole lot less perceptive in picking up social cues and subtle signs and behaviors. 

Many a woman will cloak her unvirtuous past to get a virtuous guy. More so than the other way around. 

A scoundrel may try to ultimately get a virtuous woman, but he will rarely go to great lengths to hide that he is a scoundrel. .......... and even if he did, most women can spot a scoundrel a mile away.


----------



## WandaJ

RebuildingMe said:


> I am a believer in the high notch count being a precursor for trouble in a future LTR. However, in NO way do I feel single digits as being a “high” notch count. Not even close. For me, the worry would be anything around 20 and being in your 20’s or 30’s. That indicates _to me_, an unwillingness to be able to commit.


but that would apply to both men, and women, I would think.


----------



## oldshirt

DudeInProgress said:


> I agree that it’s generally best not to ask at all.
> 
> The exact number doesn’t really matter.
> The point is that for most men, they probably don’t care if it was 3 or 8 or 10 - they want to make sure it wasn’t 100.
> And I think you can usually figure out when dating someone, if they are likely closer to single digits or closer to triple digits without asking for an exact number.


I am a big believer in keeping one’s private matters private and that everyone has the right to their privacy. 

I agree that for the most part someone with a notch count in the 100s is likely not going to matched up with someone who’s very conservative and uptight about such matters anyway. ———— But it does go on in the world. 

There are a lot of players that will only consider marrying/LTR a woman of very low count (heck, much of the red pill gurus today are outright telling guys to bang lots of chicks, but only marry low-count women) 

And it’s common for the party girls to start getting close to 30 and now look to the stable ‘Nice Guy’ to provide the stable home and family after screwing half the town. 

But as I stated above, it’s not quite apples to apples. 

The player rarely hides the fact he is/was a player. And even if he did, all but the most naive women will see through it.

However the party girl often does try to dress herself up in church clothes and outright lies and deceives about her past. 

And the shy, stable, ‘Nice Guy’ is just so glad the pretty girl is giving him the time of day finally, that he doesn’t notice or just ignores any red flags.


----------



## WandaJ

oldshirt said:


> But do you believe that notch count damages a woman's ability and leaves her incapable of forming a strong and healthy bond?


No. and while we at it, no, we do not have penis envy either


----------



## oldshirt

WandaJ said:


> No. and while we at it, no, we do not have penis envy either


I’m not sure where penis envy is coming into the discussion,,,, but ok, good to know LOL.


----------



## Married but Happy

Having values is often just a nice way of saying you have prejudices.


----------



## WandaJ

DudeInProgress said:


> Because men and women are different.


but we all are still humans. Some men tend to see the fact that men and women have SOME differences as an excuse to undermine women needs. 

Even here in this thread, it's guys mostly talking among themselves, discussing women emotional life and needs, trying to prove their point, while completely dismissing what most women on this thread are telling them : this is ********. 

That's how most of human history went: men discussing, dismissing, undermining women, not listening what women are telling them about themselves. In the last few years this has become idiotic.

you want to learn something about women? listen to women not to incel gurus.


----------



## WandaJ

oldshirt said:


> I’m not sure where penis envy is coming into the discussion,,,, but ok, good to know LOL.


It was another idea created by man, and accepted as truth, about women, without nobody asking women about it. 

Can you really see how idiotic it is? and women here tell you this is idiotic, but you keep pushing because you want to hear what you want to hear. and you hear it, from other men......


----------



## DudeInProgress

Married but Happy said:


> Having values is often just a nice way of saying you have prejudices.


I’ve heard the same nonsense said about having standards. And it’s usually not true about that either.

and everyone has prejudices of some sort, including you.


----------



## oldshirt

WandaJ said:


> It was another idea created by man, and accepted as truth, about women, without nobody asking women about it.
> 
> Can you really see how idiotic it is? and women here tell you this is idiotic, but you keep pushing because you want to hear what you want to hear. and you hear it, from other men......


My question is whether people here think that a woman’s ability to bond with one person and have a stable, healthy, long term relationship is damaged. 

That was my question.

A lot of people haven’t really addressed the actual question and have gone on to talk about other things. 

But some have said yes and some have said no. 

Each person’s opinion is there own. I’m not here to argue either point. I just wanted to hear other people’s input on the matter.


----------



## Married but Happy

DudeInProgress said:


> I’ve heard the same nonsense said about having standards. And it’s usually not true about that either.
> 
> and everyone has prejudices of some sort, including you.


Yes, standards _are _often biases. How often these supposed values are a facade is hard to say, IMO. Agreed, we all have prejudices; but when it comes to prejudices, some are much more harmful than others. I try to be aware of mine, and work on changing those that cause harm to others. It seems some people embrace prejudice, which truly saddens me.


----------



## lifeistooshort

oldshirt said:


> I am a big believer in keeping one’s private matters private and that everyone has the right to their privacy.
> 
> I agree that for the most part someone with a notch count in the 100s is likely not going to matched up with someone who’s very conservative and uptight about such matters anyway. ———— But it does go on in the world.
> 
> There are a lot of players that will only consider marrying/LTR a woman of very low count (heck, much of the red pill gurus today are outright telling guys to bang lots of chicks, but only marry low-count women)
> 
> And it’s common for the party girls to start getting close to 30 and now look to the stable ‘Nice Guy’ to provide the stable home and family after screwing half the town.
> 
> But as I stated above, it’s not quite apples to apples.
> 
> The player rarely hides the fact he is/was a player. And even if he did, all but the most naive women will see through it.
> 
> However the party girl often does try to dress herself up in church clothes and outright lies and deceives about her past.
> 
> And the shy, stable, ‘Nice Guy’ is just so glad the pretty girl is giving him the time of day finally, that he doesn’t notice or just ignores any red flags.


Men are not completely clueless and ignore red flags for hot all the time. It's gotten much better around here but in times past on TAM men who were cheated on were routinely advised to look for younger and hotter to feel better about themselves and stick in it to the mean ex.

Not a word about looking for decent character or comparably values.

I'm of the opinion that you need to prioritize what's important. If you don't want a party girl then don't overlook the fact that she's a party girl because she's hot.

I agree that women are more prone to hide these things, I just think that men often choose to overlook for hot. You don't need to know 50 guys have gone before you to have a pretty good idea you've got a parrt girl. 

How often do we see men here whining that he knew she was always flirty but she was super hot. Please.....everyone knows "flirty" is code for requires a lot of male attention and probably has a long history. He just chose to ignore it.


----------



## Diana7

CountryMike said:


> Not really.


They usually do in the UK.


----------



## Numb26

oldshirt said:


> I’m not sure where penis envy is coming into the discussion,,,, but ok, good to know LOL.


Someone is a little angry, I think


----------



## Diana7

Divinely Favored said:


> It threw my wife off as on our 1st date i did not even try to kiss her. She told her best friend about it and thought i did not like her. I was talking to her last night about our 1st date. How i was like a teenage boy and telling my friend how fine she was, he whole heartedly agreed. I did not try to push it as i wanted forever and not just tonight. If i tried and she did submit i would have thought less of her and she would not have been a keeper.
> 
> I had one girl i really liked and after a while she was talking about a Fxxkbuddy(FWB) back home. She just thought most people did. To be soo shallow to be able to do that.. It damaged how i thought of her and could not recover. But i am a guy who physical intimacy carries heavy emotion with it. Why i was one of those guys who gets hurt by the women just wanting sex and not relationship. Thank God my wife is same way i am.


I can't actually remember when we first kissed but we did hold hands a lot. I like it when men don't rush in and want physical stuff too soon. I respect a man who waits.


----------



## Divinely Favored

WandaJ said:


> This could be compared to that Freud's "penis envy" that all women were supposed to feel. Another non-sense made by men about women to support their own egos.


Freud dude was a perverted idiot. I dont see how an SO's count has anything to do with ego. Ones personal count yes. Especially tgose that need validation from the opposite sex.


----------



## Divinely Favored

Diana7 said:


> I can't actually remember when we first kissed but we did hold hands a lot. I like it when men don't rush in and want physical stuff too soon. I respect a man who waits.


We are in honeymoon phase at 24 yrs. Kids keep harassing us about "Making Out" no we are not goi g to stop. Always holding hands if we are near each orher. When driving my arm is on console in truck between us and we are holding hands....always. We are like young teen puppy loves. She is 52 and im 49.


----------



## DudeInProgress

Married but Happy said:


> Yes, standards _are _often biases. How often these supposed values are a facade is hard to say, IMO. Agreed, we all have prejudices; but when it comes to prejudices, some are much more harmful than others. I try to be aware of mine, and work on changing those that cause harm to others. It seems some people embrace prejudice, which truly saddens me.


Sure, a bias against things you are unwilling to accept I guess. Some people are so terrified of any judgment/bias that it becomes completely counterproductive.

I think I’ll base my conduct, behavior and performance (and that which I’m willing to accept from others in my life) on values, principles and standards.

Yes, it’s a good idea to recognize our prejudices/biases and question them. But you don’t try to operate without values/principles/standards, that’s a really bad idea.
Unless you mean that your values and standards are genuine and legitimate - it’s just other peoples values/standards that are problematic and suspect.


----------



## Diana7

Divinely Favored said:


> We are in honeymoon phase at 24 yrs. Kids keep harassing us about "Making Out" no we are not goi g to stop. Always holding hands if we are near each orher. When driving my arm is on console in truck between us and we are holding hands....always. We are like young teen puppy loves. She is 52 and im 49.


That's lovely. We still hold hands a lot too, we are in our 60's. Never stop


----------



## oldshirt

lifeistooshort said:


> Men are not completely clueless and ignore red flags for hot all the time. It's gotten much better around here but in times past on TAM men who were cheated on were routinely advised to look for younger and hotter to feel better about themselves and stick in it to the mean ex.
> 
> Not a word about looking for decent character or comparably values.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that you need to prioritize what's important. If you don't want a party girl then don't overlook the fact that she's a party girl because she's hot.
> 
> I agree that women are more prone to hide these things, I just think that men often choose to overlook for hot. You don't need to know 50 guys have gone before you to have a pretty good idea you've got a parrt girl.
> 
> How often do we see men here whining that he knew she was always flirty but she was super hot. Please.....everyone knows "flirty" is code for requires a lot of male attention and probably has a long history. He just chose to ignore it.


Never underestimate men's cluelessness LOL 

Never underestimate his ability to shoot himself in the foot as well. 

But to address your point, guys will put up with a whole lot of crazy and a whole lot of bad character for hot, just as women will put up with a whole lot of bad behavior and even abuse for a bad boy that makes their jay-jay tingle. 

It's not that either are necessarily overlooking it,, it's that they are choosing the hot anyway. 

And just as a woman may think that her love and devotion will somehow "change" the alcoholic, abusive Bad Boy,, men think that his stability and money and guidance will transform the stripper into the dutiful, church-going, devoted wife and mother. 

White Knights and the Captain Save-A-Ho think that strippers and party girls and town bicycles are just uninformed and misguided and haven't had the support they need to live the straight and narrow. They think that between their smarts and their stability and their resources and devotion, that the stripper will finally have the man of her dreams and that will his support and guidance and tutoring on appropriate behavior that she will transform into devoted wife and mother and shall shower him with appreciation and gratitude with her sexuality. 

So yes, they are that clueless.


----------



## Married but Happy

DudeInProgress said:


> ... it’s just other peoples values/standards that are problematic and suspect.


I think we all feel that way occasionally!


----------



## Numb26

oldshirt said:


> Never underestimate men's cluelessness LOL
> 
> Never underestimate his ability to shoot himself in the foot as well.
> 
> But to address your point, guys will put up with a whole lot of crazy and a whole lot of bad character for hot, just as women will put up with a whole lot of bad behavior and even abuse for a bad boy that makes their jay-jay tingle.
> 
> It's not that either are necessarily overlooking it,, it's that they are choosing the hot anyway.
> 
> And just as a woman may think that her love and devotion will somehow "change" the alcoholic, abusive Bad Boy,, men think that his stability and money and guidance will transform the stripper into the dutiful, church-going, devoted wife and mother.
> 
> White Knights and the Captain Save-A-Ho think that strippers and party girls and town bicycles are just uninformed and misguided and haven't had the support they need to live the straight and narrow. They think that between their smarts and their stability and their resources and devotion, that the stripper will finally have the man of her dreams and that will his support and guidance and tutoring on appropriate behavior that she will transform into devoted wife and mother and shall shower him with appreciation and gratitude with her sexuality.
> 
> So yes, they are that clueless.


----------



## Diana7

As I see it being open with a partner about your past sex life is the same as being open about other aspects of your past life. Have you been married before, how many times. How many children do you have/ want. What jobs have you had. How many siblings do you have. Have you ever been in jail, what for. 
All these things can be discussed openly as you get to know each other. I have no idea why anyone would lie about any of this stuff.


----------



## Enigma32

lifeistooshort said:


> Men are not completely clueless and ignore red flags for hot all the time. It's gotten much better around here but in times past on TAM men who were cheated on were routinely advised to look for younger and hotter to feel better about themselves and stick in it to the mean ex.
> 
> Not a word about looking for decent character or comparably values.


There are reasons for this. Firstly, our society values looks/chemistry more than decent character or values. Also, a conclusion I recently arrived at is that a lot of less attractive people out there are pretending to have decent character so they can compete with the more attractive people. Ladies talk about it all the time with the so called "nice guys" that are anything but. Some less attractive ladies play a similar game. In that case, might as well just get someone hot. 



> I agree that women are more prone to hide these things, I just think that men often choose to overlook for hot. You don't need to know 50 guys have gone before you to have a pretty good idea you've got a parrt girl.


Yeah. I have a buddy who overlooked some of the biggest red flags ever for a girl that was actually a professional partier. She was a club promoter in Philly who got paid to promote certain clubs and show up to help turn them into a real party. That sort of work is one small step away from being a sex worker. He was hung up on her for like a year when she wouldn't even call him her BF. She liked him paying for her though, even though she made much more money than he did.


----------



## Enigma32

Diana7 said:


> As I see it being open with a partner about your past sex life is the same as being open about other aspects of your past life. Have you been married before, how many times. How many children do you have/ want. What jobs have you had. How many siblings do you have. Have you ever been in jail, what for.
> All these things can be discussed openly as you get to know each other. I have no idea why anyone would lie about any of this stuff.


Because people are so narcissistic that they are offended if anyone dare judge them based on the life they've lived.


----------



## Numb26

Enigma32 said:


> Because people are so narcissistic that they are offended if anyone dare judge them based on the life they've lived.


This is so true!


----------



## Personal

Diana7 said:


> They usually do in the UK.


And Australia.


----------



## Lila

Diana7 said:


> As I see it being open with a partner about your past sex life is the same as being open about other aspects of your past life. Have you been married before, how many times. How many children do you have/ want. What jobs have you had. How many siblings do you have. Have you ever been in jail, what for.
> All these things can be discussed openly as you get to know each other. I have no idea why anyone would lie about any of this stuff.


This is just based on my experience but what I've learned is that most people who judge others for things like their sexual history do so with a sense of superiority instead of from a position of incompatibility. Some can call it semantics but when you look at the negative and demeaning comments on this very thread, it's not hard to understand why someone would avoid discussing such an arbitrary topic.


----------



## heartsbeating

oldshirt said:


> My question is whether people here think that a woman’s ability to bond with one person and have a stable, healthy, long term relationship is damaged.
> 
> That was my question.
> 
> A lot of people haven’t really addressed the actual question and have gone on to talk about other things.
> 
> But some have said yes and some have said no.
> 
> Each person’s opinion is there own. I’m not here to argue either point. I just wanted to hear other people’s input on the matter.


Okay, from a personal world view stance only, I think the notion is hogwash and a double standard. As a woman whose one sexual relationship has been with my husband, together over 25 years now (and didn't wait for marriage, just the obvious that we dug each other and then kept digging one another) and despite some common thought on such a situation, and side-note, no I don't feel that I 'missed out' or that I couldn't 'know better' due to meeting young.

I recognize that I'm an anomaly among my peers, and the polar opposite to my experience in this regard, is a friend who had more than 50 lovers prior to meeting her husband as she was single much of her adult life and enjoyed casual sex as part of that; as far as I'm aware we are both 'bonded' to our spouses. She's loyal AF as a wife, and as a friend too. Other friends/peers 'counts' range roughly from less than 5 to around 20, depending on when they met their spouse, and they are typically in stable long term relationships/marriage of 10+ years (at least). In my current friend group, the reason a 'bond' didn't last was that her ex was abusive and she is currently remaining single and without casual sex by choice. As I said, from this world view, the notion is rubbish and a double standard.

Meaning of bonding being a close connection based on shared loved and experiences.


----------



## NTA

> Men are not completely clueless and ignore red flags for hot all the time. *It's gotten much better around here but in times past on TAM men who were cheated on were routinely advised to look for younger and hotter to feel better about themselves and stick in it to the mean ex.*


I don't understand the logic hot. A guy who chases after someone who's not so hot is displaying, IMO, real devotion the woman. If she's not physically hot, then there is some deeper reason why her looks don't matter. Think about Prince Charles and the woman ultimately wanted in his life. Princess Di's beauty was obviously not enough.


----------



## NTA

Diana7 said:


> As I see it being open with a partner about your past sex life is the same as being open about other aspects of your past life. Have you been married before, how many times. How many children do you have/ want. What jobs have you had. How many siblings do you have. Have you ever been in jail, what for.
> All these things can be discussed openly as you get to know each other. I have no idea why anyone would lie about any of this stuff.


It's not the same. For me some things are mandatory and fact based. For example, I need to know how many kids you have and where you are in your divorce. Those facts may affect legal situations.

How many guys/ gals you've done, well maybe somebody can suggest a possible legal situation over those facts, that is if the other person will tell the truth or even bothers to count at al.


----------



## lifeistooshort

NTA said:


> I don't understand the logic hot. A guy who chases after someone who's not so hot is displaying, IMO, real devotion the woman. If she's not physically hot, then there is some deeper reason why her looks don't matter. Think about Prince Charles and the woman ultimately wanted in his life. Princess Di's beauty was obviously not enough.


I'm not suggesting that one can't be hot and have great character, only that considering character didn't factor in to the advice.

Then if she turned out to have poor character he was once again a victim of evil women.

And to your point there does come a point where you need something more then hot and sex....you actually have to spend time together and talk about something.

Diana was absolutely more beautiful but she was also much younger and they likely had little to talk about. Camila is homely but has much more in common with him.

A lot can develop from compatibility.


----------



## NTA

The other irony with Prince Charles is that the Duchess of Cornwall was one those _fast girls_ in her younger days. Even used Prince Charles to make her first husband, before they married, jealous.


----------



## lifeistooshort

NTA said:


> The other irony with Prince Charles is that the Duchess of Cornwall was one those _fast girls_ in her younger days. Even used Prince Charles to make her first husband, before they married, jealous.


Doesn't seem to have affected her ability to bond with him.


----------



## NTA

My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Diana7

Lila said:


> This is just based on my experience but what I've learned is that most people who judge others for things like their sexual history do so with a sense of superiority instead of from a position of incompatibility. Some can call it semantics but when you look at the negative and demeaning comments on this very thread, it's not hard to understand why someone would avoid discussing such an arbitrary topic.


To me its about wanting to be with someone who shares similar views on sex and marriage. Also wanting to be with someone who is truthful and honest. If they are going to lie about something so very important then how can they be trusted at all?


----------



## Diana7

NTA said:


> It's not the same. For me some things are mandatory and fact based. For example, I need to know how many kids you have and where you are in your divorce. Those facts may affect legal situations.
> 
> How many guys/ gals you've done, well maybe somebody can suggest a possible legal situation over those facts, that is if the other person will tell the truth or even bothers to count at al.


So if a person told you they had been divorced once and after marriage you found out that they had been divorced three times, that wouldnt concern you that they had lied? 
I guess if a person doesnt know how many that sort of says its been quite a lot so that in itself is a sort of answer.


----------



## Diana7

lifeistooshort said:


> Doesn't seem to have affected her ability to bond with him.


Despite everything Charles and Camilla are really good together. Its just a shame that they didnt get married initially.


----------



## frenchpaddy

NTA said:


> The other irony with Prince Charles is that the Duchess of Cornwall was one those _fast girls_ in her younger days. Even used Prince Charles to make her first husband, before they married, jealous.


the danger of using Prince Charles as an example is everyone knows he was involved with a long list of women so his count was very high , and forced to take Lady D 
AND If we go by all the rumors about Charles and Camilla there is a guy in oz calming to be their son from a time that the state / public opinion would not except her at that time if the then next King did the honest thing and married the woman that he got pregnant , even Lady DI had to go through a test for virginity so it mattered if the wife of the prince was a virgin but he did not have to have the same type test , 

and before any one jumps on me to say there is no test for men look up the test on women and see if it is a ture test , and what is done on some women in eastern culture is nothing less than rape on their wedding night as well ,


----------



## Diana7

frenchpaddy said:


> the danger of using Prince Charles as an example is everyone knows he was involved with a long list of women so his count was very high , and forced to take Lady D
> AND If we go by all the rumors about Charles and Camilla there is a guy in oz calming to be their son from a time that the state / public opinion would not except her at that time if the then next King did the honest thing and married the woman that he got pregnant , even Lady DI had to go through a test for virginity so it mattered if the wife of the prince was a virgin but he did not have to have the same type test ,
> 
> and before any one jumps on me to say there is no test for men look up the test on women and see if it is a ture test , and what is done on some women in eastern culture is nothing less than rape on their wedding night as well ,


I think that man from Oz is rather deluded. One photo he posted of his son who he claims looks just like the Queen was laughable. He couldn't have looked less like the Queen if he tried. 
Yes Charles had a few girlfriends, not a very high number, and we don't know if he slept with them all. People didn't jump into bed so readily back then.


----------



## frenchpaddy

all I am seeing from the debates here over a few trends is that even though we pretend we have evolved from the days of men can bee studs and use the women they find as sex toys 
but woman like this are not wife material , 
like we have one topic here where some single men say they have sex 2 / 3 times a week , and yet 4/5 is said to be a lot for women in this topic over 7/10 years 
we have other topics where women still talk about having to simulate orgasm to make their cheating husband feel good 
so if you say we have changed and we are not still living by yesterdays rules I say sheep shyt , nothing has relay changed we still expert women to be what we are not 
or in other words live as I say but not as I do


----------



## Enigma32

frenchpaddy said:


> nothing has relay changed we still expert women to be what we are not
> or in other words live as I say but not as I do


Of course we expect women to be what we are not. Why would men want women to be like men? We aren't attracted to men. Women generally want men to act a certain way and men want women to act a certain way. If you ask a group of women what they want in a man, they won't describe typical female behaviors since they probably don't want a woman.


----------



## frenchpaddy

Enigma32 said:


> Of course we expect women to be what we are not. Why would men want women to be like men? We aren't attracted to men. Women generally want men to act a certain way and men want women to act a certain way. If you ask a group of women what they want in a man, they won't describe typical female behaviors since they probably don't want a woman.


I think you might have missed my point in that it is ok if men play a lot , we have posters that say they have sex 3 times a week and are single we have posters that seem to think they are gods gift to women , men don't get a bad name if they have many women calling to their house at night , I have a guy next door to me the amount of times I have women that drive into my place looking for him late at night at one point he all most needed to put in a a car park for the women calling , 
the next woman down is a prostitute but when the neighborhood hold a party for the locals once a year she is never invited but he is , 

a woman is expected to be open to be seduces by a mans charm , but if she gives in in then thought to be dirty because she agreed to his demands but he was not dirty for making the demands 

so your saying we rightfully expect women to be virgin or now we let 2 or even 3 exceptions :discretion's pass but if she has passed a number she is not wife material 
but we men can have any number and women like men that have a high number or am I miss reading you post , 

WHEN I was dating the woman that became my wife her mother was very hard on her cross examined my wife every time she went out , there was a time to be home by and she could not hold hands with me , was told every night before going out that if she came home pregnant she would be kicked out of the house , but her brothers all lived with their gf s before except the one that was bisexual and had many partners 
it is looked on as a black mark on the family if the girl was stained they hide a rape so people would not think bad of the family ,


----------



## Enigma32

@frenchpaddy I agree that it is a double standard. It's just one of many double standards that exist in dating and relationships. It's one that people get all upset over for some reason too. The fact remains though, people are going to have preferences and other people don't need to approve of those preferences. 

The reason people often respect a promiscuous guy is simple, it's because he has to be exceptional in some way in order to live that lifestyle. People always respect exceptional individuals. On the flip side, the only thing a woman needs to have to be promiscuous is a lack of restraint. That's not exactly exceptional.


----------



## Divinely Favored

oldshirt said:


> Never underestimate men's cluelessness LOL
> 
> Never underestimate his ability to shoot himself in the foot as well.
> 
> But to address your point, guys will put up with a whole lot of crazy and a whole lot of bad character for hot, just as women will put up with a whole lot of bad behavior and even abuse for a bad boy that makes their jay-jay tingle.
> 
> It's not that either are necessarily overlooking it,, it's that they are choosing the hot anyway.
> 
> And just as a woman may think that her love and devotion will somehow "change" the alcoholic, abusive Bad Boy,, men think that his stability and money and guidance will transform the stripper into the dutiful, church-going, devoted wife and mother.
> 
> White Knights and the Captain Save-A-Ho think that strippers and party girls and town bicycles are just uninformed and misguided and haven't had the support they need to live the straight and narrow. They think that between their smarts and their stability and their resources and devotion, that the stripper will finally have the man of her dreams and that will his support and guidance and tutoring on appropriate behavior that she will transform into devoted wife and mother and shall shower him with appreciation and gratitude with her sexuality.
> 
> So yes, they are that clueless.


I used to dance with a stripper in Lawton, Ok. Shout out to Jade and the girls at the Lucky Lady Saloon. No not on stage, at a night club. She liked to 2 Step and wanted to fix me up with her friend. She definately had a way about her. Her dance style was a bit different tge way she combined it. Kind of felt like she thought i was a stripper pole while dancing. Said her friend needed a a tall good looking cowboy. Went to the club where she worked. Met Shawnee and watched her dance, then "Mingle" with the crowd and let them buy her drinks as required. Not! Friend was 🔥, but i am a jealous man and did not see it boding well to have a girlfriend who takes her clothes off in front of others, who has an alcohol problem, and mingles with the crowd off stage.


----------



## Diana7

frenchpaddy said:


> I think you might have missed my point in that it is ok if men play a lot , we have posters that say they have sex 3 times a week and are single we have posters that seem to think they are gods gift to women , men don't get a bad name if they have many women calling to their house at night , I have a guy next door to me the amount of times I have women that drive into my place looking for him late at night at one point he all most needed to put in a a car park for the women calling ,
> the next woman down is a prostitute but when the neighborhood hold a party for the locals once a year she is never invited but he is ,
> 
> a woman is expected to be open to be seduces by a mans charm , but if she gives in in then thought to be dirty because she agreed to his demands but he was not dirty for making the demands
> 
> so your saying we rightfully expect women to be virgin or now we let 2 or even 3 exceptions :discretion's pass but if she has passed a number she is not wife material
> but we men can have any number and women like men that have a high number or am I miss reading you post ,
> 
> WHEN I was dating the woman that became my wife her mother was very hard on her cross examined my wife every time she went out , there was a time to be home by and she could not hold hands with me , was told every night before going out that if she came home pregnant she would be kicked out of the house , but her brothers all lived with their gf s before except the one that was bisexual and had many partners
> it is looked on as a black mark on the family if the girl was stained they hide a rape so people would not think bad of the family ,


I dont see as women haing sex as any different to men morally. The old idea that men should be able to have casual sex for years while women cant is largely outdated now. 
The man you spoke of, well not everyone would see him as 'inviting him to a party marerial'. 
A man who has slept around and then expecting a wife who hasnt is completely hypocritical. However a man who has has few or no sexual partners before is surely fine with wanting a woman who sees sex as he does.


----------



## CountryMike

Diana7 said:


> I dont see as women haing sex as any different to men morally. The old idea that men should be able to have casual sex for years while women cant is largely outdated now.
> The man you spoke of, well not everyone would see him as 'inviting him to a party marerial'.
> A man who has slept around and then expecting a wife who hasnt is completely hypocritical. However a man who has has few or no sexual partners before is surely fine with wanting a woman who sees sex as he does.


A good recap of common situations that are all incongruous but reality.


----------



## Lila

Diana7 said:


> To me its about wanting to be with someone who shares similar views on sex and marriage. Also wanting to be with someone who is truthful and honest. If they are going to lie about something so very important then how can they be trusted at all?


That's all well and good. Identifying compatibility is very important to the long term success of a relationship. 
The key is to ask the pertinent questions *BEFORE* having sex with the person. If sexual history is a man's way of judging her bonding ability or moral compatibility, then don't wait until you've been ****ing for months to ask the questions.


----------



## Tasorundo

What is the scientific basis for this? Why would women have issues with oxytocin and men not?

Maybe the problem with women not bonding to some men is because it is produced during orgasm...


----------



## NTA

Diana7 said:


> So if a person told you they had been divorced once and after marriage you found out that they had been divorced three times, that wouldnt concern you that they had lied?
> I guess if a person doesnt know how many that sort of says its been quite a lot so that in itself is a sort of answer.


This what I wrote:


> NTA said:
> It's not the same. For me some things are mandatory and fact based. For example,* I need to know *how many kids you have and *where you are in your divorce.* Those facts may affect legal situations.
> 
> How many guys/ gals you've done, well maybe somebody can suggest a possible legal situation over those facts, that is if the other person will tell the truth or even bothers to count at al.


Do I need to be more explicit? I could have written: " what is your history with divorce?" Of course, I want to know how many ex wives a man has before getting serious about. Husband and Wife form a legal status and who knows what legal issues someone can come up with ex post facto.


----------



## Diana7

Lila said:


> That's all well and good. Identifying compatibility is very important to the long term success of a relationship.
> The key is to ask the pertinent questions *BEFORE* having sex with the person. If sexual history is a man's way of judging her bonding ability or moral compatibility, then don't wait until you've been ****ing for months to ask the questions.


Yes I totally agree Lila.


----------



## Diana7

NTA said:


> This what I wrote:
> 
> Do I need to be more explicit? I could have written: " what is your history with divorce?" Of course, I want to know how many ex wives a man has before getting serious about. Husband and Wife form a legal status and who knows what legal issues someone can come up with ex post facto.


So just as you would want to know that I would want to know if a man I was dating and was hopefully going to marry had had no sexual partners, one, two, ten or so many he couldnt remember.


----------



## frenchpaddy

Lila said:


> The key is to ask the pertinent questions *BEFORE* having sex with the person. If sexual history is a man's way of judging her bonding ability or moral compatibility, then don't wait until you've been ****ing for months to ask the questions.


i go along with this


----------



## lifeistooshort

oldshirt said:


> Never underestimate men's cluelessness LOL
> 
> Never underestimate his ability to shoot himself in the foot as well.
> 
> But to address your point, guys will put up with a whole lot of crazy and a whole lot of bad character for hot, just as women will put up with a whole lot of bad behavior and even abuse for a bad boy that makes their jay-jay tingle.
> 
> It's not that either are necessarily overlooking it,, it's that they are choosing the hot anyway.
> 
> And just as a woman may think that her love and devotion will somehow "change" the alcoholic, abusive Bad Boy,, men think that his stability and money and guidance will transform the stripper into the dutiful, church-going, devoted wife and mother.
> 
> White Knights and the Captain Save-A-Ho think that strippers and party girls and town bicycles are just uninformed and misguided and haven't had the support they need to live the straight and narrow. They think that between their smarts and their stability and their resources and devotion, that the stripper will finally have the man of her dreams and that will his support and guidance and tutoring on appropriate behavior that she will transform into devoted wife and mother and shall shower him with appreciation and gratitude with her sexuality.
> 
> So yes, they are that clueless.


I think we're bordering on semantics now. By your examples women are just as clueless....women take on men as projects all the time and imagine he'll change. I doubt anyone really has no idea the object of their desire isn't a great deal, they just choose to believe what they want to believe.

But back to the bonding question, I addressed this in an earlier post and others have as well. The answer lies in what is driving a high partner count....the correlations.

The blanket idea that men should bang everything they can but reject women who get around is written by weak men who are looking for control and the upper hand...these things don't make for a healthy relationship.

If one racks up a partner count through monogamous relationships I don't see how bonding will be affected, though at a certain point you're obviously dealing with a bad picker and that should be addressed.

If you partied a lot and grew out of it I don't see how your ability to bond will be affected. 

BUT....if you have a high count because you require a lot of attention or are regularly looking for a new high....your ability to bond likely is an issue. I think this is key.

There are also plenty of people with low counts that have trouble bonding as well....people should remember this. My ex didn't bond much at all, and even though he liked to talk about ex gf's inappropriately to get the emotional upper hand he admitted later that he really didn't have that many. He had a lot of emotional issues.


----------



## Livvie

All of these pages and still no one has explained the reasoning behind the theory why, supposedly, a high partner count affects a woman's ability to bond but not a man's. 🙄


----------



## Tasorundo

Livvie said:


> All of these pages and still no one has explained the reasoning behind the theory why, supposedly, a high partner count affects a woman's ability to bond but not a man's. 🙄


Oh, that’s easy, misogyny.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Livvie said:


> All of these pages and still no one has explained the reasoning behind the theory why, supposedly, a high partner count affects a woman's ability to bond but not a man's. 🙄


I think I did when I said it was written by losers who are looking for control and advantage.


----------



## frenchpaddy

Diana7 said:


> The old idea that men should be able to have casual sex for years while women cant is largely outdated now


outdated yes , but women sadly are judged more for it than men ,


Diana7 said:


> The man you spoke of, well not everyone would see him as 'inviting him to a party marerial'.


my thoughts on it is that it is a neighborhood get together one Saturday a year very poplar in France builds local spirt everyone portends to like each other for a day , so if everyone is invited she in the last house so should be invited anyway , as all should be or none 


Diana7 said:


> A man who has slept around and then expecting a wife who hasnt is completely hypocritical.


agreed 


Livvie said:


> All of these pages and still no one has explained the reasoning behind the theory why, supposedly, a high partner count affects a woman's ability to bond but not a man's. 🙄


because it is simple it is not true , women are not all that different from men when it comes down to it , women want sex in the same way as men only they are thought to hide it more than men , 
any woman can bond with the right man if there is trust in the same way as a man can bond , but that is something men are thought to hide their feelings more so that girls starts in school john goes to school falls and is told to not cry be a man , but no one will tell Mary to stop crying and be a woman 


*A woman's partner count and her ability to bond? this is a **false*


----------



## frenchpaddy

lifeistooshort said:


> I think I did when I said it was written by losers who are looking for control and advantage.


agree totaly


----------



## Galabar01

The Relationship Between Multiple Sex Partners and Anxiety, Depression, and Substance Dependence Disorders: A Cohort Study


Changes in sexual behavior have resulted in longer periods of multiple serial or concurrent relationships. This study investigated the effects of multiple heterosexual partners on mental health, specifically, whether higher numbers of partners were linked ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov







> Although having multiple sex partners increased the odds of substance dependence disorders for both sexes, the probability of a disorder was higher for men with up to 10 sex partners in the same period compared to women; however, with more than 10 partners, the probability of a disorder was substantially higher among women versus men.


----------



## Galabar01

I'm really confused. Why do folks think that their anecdotal experiences have any bearing on this conversation?

Person A: Here's a study that claims X is more likely among groups of Y.
Person B: I'm in group Y and X is not true for me. So, the study must be wrong.

It makes me want to pull my hair out.


----------



## Married but Happy

Galabar01 said:


> I'm really confused. Why do folks think that their anecdotal experiences have any bearing on this conversation?
> 
> Person A: Here's a study that claims X is more likely among groups of Y.
> Person B: I'm in group Y and X is not true for me. So, the study must be wrong.
> 
> It makes me want to pull my hair out.


I agree. However, statistics apply to a population, and individuals are often exceptions (and don't really understand statistics).


----------



## Tasorundo

Galabar01 said:


> The Relationship Between Multiple Sex Partners and Anxiety, Depression, and Substance Dependence Disorders: A Cohort Study
> 
> 
> Changes in sexual behavior have resulted in longer periods of multiple serial or concurrent relationships. This study investigated the effects of multiple heterosexual partners on mental health, specifically, whether higher numbers of partners were linked ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


What does this have to do with bonding?

I would bet there is a correlation to ****ty parenting and sexual abuse as well, should we blame women for that too?


----------



## heartsbeating

Galabar01 said:


> I'm really confused. Why do folks think that their anecdotal experiences have any bearing on this conversation?
> 
> Person A: Here's a study that claims X is more likely among groups of Y.
> Person B: I'm in group Y and X is not true for me. So, the study must be wrong.
> 
> It makes me want to pull my hair out.


Why anecdotal experiences with this topic is because the OP asked what OUR thoughts are. Also @oldshirt did not provide research articles/evidence of the premise with his opening post either (that’s not a critique, by the way) - as I think he is generating discussion around our personal views.


----------



## Married but Happy

Tasorundo said:


> What does this have to do with bonding?
> 
> I would bet there is a correlation to ****ty parenting and sexual abuse as well, should we blame women for that too?


Sure, why not?! Or fathers, especially absent or abusive fathers. People like to play the blame game, whether or not it's justified. Gotta blame someone, even if they're innocent or can't help it,having been abused themselves. It's complicated, and all to easy to over-simplify in such situations.


----------



## Tasorundo

Married but Happy said:


> Sure, why not?! Or fathers, especially absent or abusive fathers. People like to play the blame game, whether or not it's justified. Gotta blame someone, even if they're innocent or can't help it,having been abused themselves. It's complicated, and all to easy to over-simplify in such situations.


Everything is complicated. I say if you have trouble getting women to bond with you after sex, it’s because it was bad.

The more partners she has had, the more likely she knows it’s bad.


----------



## Married but Happy

Tasorundo said:


> Everything is complicated._ I say if you have trouble getting women to bond with you after sex, it’s because it was bad._
> 
> The more partners she has had, the more likely she knows it’s bad.


Ain't that the truth! We've both had many partners (and may have more), yet have a very strong bond. We know what we like, and what we want. We know we're each other's best, and will make an effort to ensure that remains true.


----------



## NTA

They may not be bonding with the Discussion Starter because they don't see him as marriage material Women get horny too, you know. Maybe women don't find you that attractive, or your life that stable. It's a whole new world order regarding dating and sex. Women, if they're careful, don't have to have their reputation soiled these days for having a "til dawn do us part" encounter.


----------



## Galabar01

heartsbeating said:


> Why anecdotal experiences with this topic is because the OP asked what OUR thoughts are. Also @oldshirt did not provide research articles/evidence of the premise with his opening post either (that’s not a critique, by the way) - as I think he is generating discussion around our personal views.


Thanks Heartsbeating. I assumed from the OP, that he was referring to the research (some presented later in the thread) that the groups he mentioned were relying on. Having other folks post related research reinforced that for me. However, in looking back at the OPs post, it seems more likely that he didn't want to link to any research as it would weaken his argument. He would probably much rather have seen anecdotal responses to reinforce his premise.

I'm not that up on the subject, but a casual search seems to bring up several studies that show that having many sexual partners has various negative effects and, sometimes, those effects are worse for women. There are various things that effect men and women differently. For example, female athletes are more likely to be injured during training. So, I wouldn't put any moral weight on observed differences between men and women (even if it seems negative towards women).


----------



## Galabar01

Tasorundo said:


> What does this have to do with bonding?
> 
> I would bet there is a correlation to ****ty parenting and sexual abuse as well, should we blame women for that too?


It's an example where having many sexual partners has a worse impact on women, similar to the OPs discussion of weakened bonding.


----------



## heartsbeating

Galabar01 said:


> Thanks Heartsbeating. I assumed from the OP, that he was referring to the research (some presented later in the thread) that the groups he mentioned were relying on. Having other folks post related research reinforced that for me. However, in looking back at the OPs post, it seems more likely that he didn't want to link to any research as it would weaken his argument. He would probably much rather have seen anecdotal responses to reinforce his premise.
> 
> I'm not that up on the subject, but a casual search seems to bring up several studies that show that having many sexual partners has various negative effects and, sometimes, those effects are worse for women. There are various things that effect men and women differently. For example, female athletes are more likely to be injured during training. So, I wouldn't put any moral weight on observed differences between men and women (even if it seems negative towards women).


No worries. I actually don't think @oldshirt agrees with the premise though.


----------



## Tasorundo

Galabar01 said:


> It's an example where having many sexual partners has a worse impact on women, similar to the OPs discussion of weakened bonding.


Correlation does not equal causation


----------



## Galabar01

heartsbeating said:


> No worries. I actually don't think @oldshirt agrees with the premise though.


I don't think he does either (that more sexual partners is worse for women's psyche). That is why I feel he would rather have anecdotes rather than actual data.


----------



## Parallax857

I've been on all sides of this. As a very young man, I married my first partner. I was her second and she had an affair after we met but before we got married. Was not a great marriage; in fact, it was a huge mistake. But the problem was us; not the number of notches on our bed stands. By the way, at that age I thought sex was just about getting one's rocks off. 

Then I married the second woman I slept with (and I was her first). That was very special and could have lasted a lifetime (except that I was stupid and screwed it up). She taught me that sex can be sacred. Did it matter that she had no earlier partners? Perhaps in the sense that it allowed her to still believe in innocent notions like that sex can be sacred, and to bring me along to believe it too. There's something to say for youthful innocence but the loss of innocence is more about the heart getting hurt than the physical act of sex. I'd say that having sex opens one to a deep bond which in turn makes one more vulnerable. So in that sense, sure. If one has sex, is then very vulnerable, and one then gets hurt, it can do damage and cause baggage that gets carried to future relationships.

But again that's a huge oversimplification. Ultimately it's all about the state of the heart -- not how many times one has done the deed or with how many partners. There may be people who can have lots of sex without their heart getting damaged. There are definitely people who can get deeply wounded and recover. Healing happens. Therapy can help us get there. So can spiritual work and a million other things. 

Someone can be physically a virgin and their heart can be damaged and closed. Someone can be sexually experienced and their heart can be open. So going back to the initial question, there's no question in my mind that a woman's ability to bond is not tied to or damaged by the number of sex partners. Same for a man. But wounding, damaging emotional experiences in relationship can make it harder to trust and to bond.


----------



## Galabar01

Tasorundo said:


> Correlation/=causation


Yes, very true. So, we can argue that. However, anecdotes != data.


----------



## Tasorundo

Galabar01 said:


> Yes, very true. So, we can argue that. However, anecdotes != data.


So we will never know.


----------



## Galabar01

Tasorundo said:


> So we will never know.


There is very little we can truly "know." We can have a good idea of what multiple sexual partners means for women, but it is unlikely that we'll "know" it.


----------



## Tasorundo

Galabar01 said:


> There is very little we can truly "know." We can have a good idea of what multiple sexual partners means for women, but it is unlikely that we'll "know" it.


You mean we know what other behaviors are correlated with it, not what it means.

I still say if you aren’t bonding there is a lack of oxytocin, but I don’t see studies on partners and oxytocin.


----------



## heartsbeating

Galabar01 said:


> I don't think he does either (that more sexual partners is worse for women's psyche). That is why I feel he would rather have anecdotes rather than actual data.


You raise a valid point.

Although if the question is that more sexual partners is worse for women's psyche, does that mean purely hetero partners, and is the question about women's psyche or the man's, or for both?

And then if we were to really look at studies, we'd need to determine the quality and extent of the research and not as an isolated study. TAM is not the medium for me to delve down those rabbit holes. Would you feel differently if the question for discussion was asked more generally about what is important to a person, in terms of sexual history, when finding a partner? Or perhaps how we perceive - in what ways does having prior multiple sexual encounters influence the ability for women (in this case) to bond with their male partner in long term relationships? (Although the definition of 'bond' would also need to be clarified). Yeah, I need another coffee.


----------



## boonez40

oldshirt said:


> That's called herpes LOL
> 
> (sorry I couldn't resist ;-) )


Or genital warts. They will sometime wait years before they show up and say surprise, remember those 50 guys you slept with. Hahaha 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## DudeInProgress

Tasorundo said:


> Oh, that’s easy, misogyny.


Congratulations, you got your male feminist points for the day. Head pat.


----------



## Tasorundo

DudeInProgress said:


> Congratulations, you got your male feminist points for the day. Head pat.


Oh, I’m sorry, I will go back to calling them whores and saying they are unable to have a normal relationship after being used be manly men that bang lots of chicks.


----------



## DudeInProgress

Tasorundo said:


> Oh, I’m sorry, I will go back to calling them whores and saying they are unable to have a normal relationship after being used be manly men that bang lots of chicks.


Or you could accept that people can have good faith discussions and different opinions on the possibility that a high number of sexual partners affects men and women differently. Instead of reflexively labeling those who disagree with you as misogynists.


----------



## heartsbeating

DudeInProgress said:


> Or you could accept that people can have good faith discussions and different opinions on the possibility that a high number of sexual partners affects men and women differently. Instead of reflexively labeling those who disagree with you as misogynists.


As someone who hit ‘like’ on that comment, he was answering another member’s question with his view. Therefore, he is also stating his view as part of the discussion. I also stated that I think the premise is hogwash and a double standard, lifeistooshort also gave her opinion among others… so I don’t understand why that comment has been singled out.


----------



## DudeInProgress

heartsbeating said:


> As someone who hit ‘like’ on that comment, he was answering another member’s question with his view. Therefore, he is also stating his view as part of the discussion. I also stated that I think the premise is hogwash and a double standard, lifeistooshort also gave her opinion among others… so I don’t understand why that comment has been singled out.


There’s a difference between believing something is nonsense and a double standard - and crying misogyny (and by extension, implying those who disagree with you misogynists).


----------



## Tasorundo

DudeInProgress said:


> Or you could accept that people can have good faith discussions and different opinions on the possibility that a high number of sexual partners affects men and women differently. Instead of reflexively labeling those who disagree with you as misogynists.


Sure, let me know where that discussion is.


----------



## Tasorundo

DudeInProgress said:


> There’s a difference between believing something is nonsense and a double standard - and crying misogyny (and by extension, implying those who disagree with you misogynists).


Or, you could look at it in the context of real human history in which **** shaming is a pretty popular past time.


----------



## DudeInProgress

Tasorundo said:


> Or, you could look at it in the context of real human history in which **** shaming is a pretty popular past time.


Which is a non-sequitur


----------



## Tasorundo

DudeInProgress said:


> Which is a non-sequitur


So a thread about how women with multiple partners are unable to bond with someone has no connection to human history in which women who have multiple partners are shamed for it?

In what world is that a non sequitur?


----------



## Divinely Favored

Livvie said:


> All of these pages and still no one has explained the reasoning behind the theory why, supposedly, a high partner count affects a woman's ability to bond but not a man's. 🙄


I would think it is more about a woman getting burned by the bad boy Fbuddies not wanting to commit and they get the "ALL men are pigs" mindset. I know i bled for a while from me wife's exhubbys actions until she got it out of her system. Now she says she truats me completely and i am only one she trusts.

I think it is about walls they put up because of being hurt by the bad choices they have made in men.


----------



## DudeInProgress

Tasorundo said:


> So a thread about how women with multiple partners are unable to bond with someone has no connection to human history in which women who have multiple partners are shamed for it?
> 
> In what world is that a non sequitur?


So it’s impossible for anyone to have a conversation about sexual dynamics potentially affecting men and women differently, without you wringing your hands about historical oppression and labeling those with opinions you don’t like as misogynists?


----------



## Tasorundo

DudeInProgress said:


> So it’s impossible for anyone to have a conversation about sexual dynamics potentially affecting men and women differently, without you wringing your hands about historical oppression and labeling those with opinions you don’t like as misogynists?


Is impossible for you to see a different opinion and not call it out as though it is automatically wrong?

I noticed you didn’t really argue it, just tell me I am a feminist and make a personal attack?


----------



## Tasorundo

Anyway, I am off to bed, sorry if that hurt your feelings. They might take you man card for that.


----------



## Enigma32

DudeInProgress said:


> So it’s impossible for anyone to have a conversation about sexual dynamics potentially affecting men and women differently, without you wringing your hands about historical oppression and labeling those with opinions you don’t like as misogynists?


Yeah, that's kinda how this stuff usually goes. Basically, whenever a man dare have preferences these days, he can prepare to be insulted. Meanwhile, make sure you bring your wallet on a date since you're still expected to pay.


----------



## RebuildingMe

I am trying to catch up with this thread which got away. For me, vetting a girl is like a job interview. At some point in the dating process, I would ask about history. Just like I’d ask about prior employment if I was hiring. To not do so is foolish. Information is power. Make your own *informed* decisions. This would probably be a thread best suited for single guys to answer.


----------



## RebuildingMe

I’d also be careful treading on a thread like this. We have a lot of married TAM men that are closet feminists and would stop at nothing to serve their wives (masters).


----------



## Tasorundo

Enigma32 said:


> Yeah, that's kinda how this stuff usually goes. Basically, whenever a man dare have preferences these days, he can prepare to be insulted. Meanwhile, make sure you bring your wallet on a date since you're still expected to pay.


There is no problem with preferences. I don’t think anyone said there was. The issue is saying that women are damaged by promiscuity and men aren’t.

If you want a woman with few or no partners, go to town, but let her have the same opinion.


----------



## DudeInProgress

Tasorundo said:


> Is impossible for you to see a different opinion and not call it out as though it is automatically wrong?
> 
> I noticed you didn’t really argue it, just tell me I am a feminist and make a personal attack?


Sorry that a mildly snarky response feels like an attack to you. Guess it’s easier for you to dish it out than to take it.

There’s nothing to argue when someone labels the other side of a discussion as misogynists. You just point out the disingenuousness and move on.


----------



## DudeInProgress

Tasorundo said:


> Anyway, I am off to bed, sorry if that hurt your feelings. They might take you man card for that.


Bless your heart


----------



## Tasorundo

DudeInProgress said:


> Sorry that a mildly snarky response feels like an attack to you. Guess it’s easier for you to dish it out than to take it.
> 
> There’s nothing to argue when someone labels the other side of a discussion as misogynists. You just point out the disingenuousness and move on.





DudeInProgress said:


> Bless your heart


You should go read what I said that in response too. It was a single poster question, pointing out that there has yet to be a single reason given for why women cannot sleep around but men can.

So, what is your answer for that?

Bless your heart as well.


----------



## Tasorundo

Galabar01 said:


> The Relationship Between Multiple Sex Partners and Anxiety, Depression, and Substance Dependence Disorders: A Cohort Study
> 
> 
> Changes in sexual behavior have resulted in longer periods of multiple serial or concurrent relationships. This study investigated the effects of multiple heterosexual partners on mental health, specifically, whether higher numbers of partners were linked ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


I was going to sleep, but there was something in this study that bothered me. I wanted to come back and look at it to see if what I was remember was in there, and it was!

So, in this study, a snippet was posted that said: Although having multiple sex partners increased the odds of substance dependence disorders for both sexes, the probability of a disorder was higher for men with up to 10 sex partners in the same period compared to women; however, with more than 10 partners, the probability of a disorder was substantially higher among women versus men.

Now that makes it sound like it is bad for women, but there is more data here.

First I would include this snippet: Although substance dependence and multiple partners were more common among men than women at each age, the relationship between multiple partners and substance dependence was stronger for women at each age.

So, does that mean that men, no matter the number of sex partners are more prone to disorders? Yes, yes it does, according to this study.

However, lets go further, because the part that makes women look bad is the number of them with multiple partners that also have new disorders!

Two problems with this, the first is that they measure 'new cases' at each stage. Men are higher at every stage, even though those flagged at the first stage can no longer be counted.

The second problem is that the number of women with higher sexual partners is 1/3rd that of the men. So without knowing what other qualities lead men and women to have multiple partners, how can we draw a line between addiction and partners? If as they record, 7 of the 21 women in the 2nd phase that had >2.5, that is a high percentage, but low sample. Some how that is better than the 16 of 61 men in the same group. So, yay, only 25% of men have issues, compared to 33% of women, but the group of men is >2x that of the women. So, is that telling us anything?

I would further state that since they mention women with greater than 10, but give us no data on how many that is, it is going to be a fraction, of the already small number used to show how women are damaged by promiscuity (even though across the board men are more damaged at every level).


----------



## DudeInProgress

Tasorundo said:


> You should go read what I said that in response too. It was a single poster question, pointing out that there has yet to be a single reason given for why women cannot sleep around but men can.
> 
> So, what is your answer for that?
> 
> Bless your heart as well.


Women CAN do whatever they want. They are autonomous human beings with agency.

But men and women are also different. And there are some behaviors that are more problematic for women than for men, and vice versa. This reality is not misogyny.

And just because someone points out this reality, does not make them a misogynist. Even if they think it might apply to a situation where you don’t think so.


----------



## Tasorundo

DudeInProgress said:


> Women CAN do whatever they want. They are autonomous human beings with agency.
> 
> But men and women are also different. And there are some behaviors that are more problematic for women than for men, and vice versa. This reality is not misogyny.
> 
> And just because someone points out this reality, does not make them a misogynist. Even if they think it might apply to a situation where you don’t think so.


Is it reality though? That is the question.

Where is the data that shows it?

Can you also see how this opinion, harkens to the historical view of women and men, which is pretty misogynistic?


----------



## Bluesclues

Enigma32 said:


> Yeah, that's kinda how this stuff usually goes. Basically, whenever a man dare have preferences these days, he can prepare to be insulted. Meanwhile, make sure you bring your wallet on a date since you're still expected to pay.


But this thread isn’t about preferences. Posters like @RebuildingMe who state no fat chicks and no partner counts over 20 are stating preferences. Nothing wrong with that at all. There is also nothing wrong with a guy that prefers a partner count of 0, 2, under 5 or whatever. The issue is applying faux flawed “science” to say all women with more than 4 partners are damaged and presenting that as fact. Own your preferences (that is a general “you” not directed at you at all Enigma32)- your preferences 
are due to your own thoughts/feelings/standards/insecurities, however rational or irrational others view them. RebuildingMe had a defined reason for his 20 partner count limit - it raised red flags for HIM about commitment issues and ability to be in an LTR - but you (again, not you specifically) don’t really need a defined reason to have a preference. There is a big difference between “I can’t be with a woman that has been with more than four other guys. It makes me feel X” and “women who have been with more than four guys are damaged and can’t bond so she is trash”.

I think the guys that have a preference for one kind of woman (chaste) but still hit it and quit it with the non-chaste is where the misogyny comes in and is whole different thread.


----------



## Goobertron

The OP is a woman who is using a strawman argument. I don't remember reading having a high body count doesn't also reduce a man's ability to bond. Those guys are what in the manosphere is known as a Chad or a Tyrone aka Chad/Tyrone. Those are the very few men women actually find attractive. That's why women say oh I was with this great guy but he wouldn't commit. So they settle for a good provider if they can find one to help look after the children they've already had by those men. But they'll never be happy with a lesser man and become what's known as a Chad Widow.

It's far easier for a woman to have a high body count than men. They pretty much just need to show off some bod and show the slightest interest in a guy to sleep with him. For most men its much harder and therefore it isn't treated the same as women. Women find so few men attractive, a stud is much rarer than an attractive, promiscuous woman. Men have to pursue and risk rejection, pay for dates, pick her up in the car, provide most of the content for the conversation. He could do everything right and she'd still dump him as soon as there's a tall, muscular, athletic, rich man, a Chad/Tyrone.

In my experience it rings true. I've been married. My wife cheated on me with a body builder while I was at work. She kept it secret until she was ready to monkey branch to him.

I've had girlfriends since they've swung from wanting to marry me and have my children one day to dumping me by text the next. Then after I've found out they did actually have a male orbiter around and they picked up that option. He was just there one day, and to quote "it just happened".

These days I've given up on dating and any kind of an intimate relationship with women. I always wanted to be married but I'm so easily replaceable, they can just sign up to any online dating site and have 50 guys a day click like on their picture and ask to meet up. A woman on those sites could go have dinner with a new man every night of the week and possibly even sleep with them and get a huge body count in a short time. After that how could she bond strongly to one of them? She can just keep looking and she'll find something better soon enough. 

I want to hold on to what's left of my finances and my mental health. Society has changed and it sucks to date as a man and not be a Chad/Tyrone.


----------



## frenchpaddy

The big problem with these type studies is who is paying for them , I say you find who paid for the study and you will soon know why the result is as it is , 
people who have more partners have different personalities or different attitudes toward marriage or relationships 
then Y have to ask why some people chose to have sex. There are many reasons to have sex .
then you ave to look at what is called good marriages who says that one couples marriage is a good one or just two people living together in a co dependence state 

IT JUST seems to me that it is another way of **** shaming and pro marriage lobbies calling women whor3s for doing the same thing as men do .
It is also calmed that people that go to uni have more partners so is this because more intelligent people are more liberal or more opportunity or just more open to casual sel 
or has it to do with they can't afford to get locked into a committed relationship as the people that leave school get a job and have a wage coming in 

first what is a high number for a study are we going along the lines of sex in the city , of SAMANTA 
or Deseret housewife's this had your different type relationships and showed an image of american life but while a lot of people could relate to the different people on the show , 
it allso showed just like real life sometimes you can't control your relationship because it takes 2 people to make a relationship but only one to brake it


----------



## nospam99

'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?' Does a person 'lose their ability to bond' after 'sleeping around'? Or is it the nature of their personality and values that they want to sleep around and will do so regardless of whether or not they are in a 'relationship'? IMHO neither is an absolute AND, human nature being what it is, the second is the more likely to occur. Personally, I regard my own notch count as 'low' and I am 'uncomfortable' with women who have a 'high' (whatever that means) notch count.


----------



## oldshirt

heartsbeating said:


> Why anecdotal experiences with this topic is because the OP asked what OUR thoughts are. Also @oldshirt did not provide research articles/evidence of the premise with his opening post either (that’s not a critique, by the way) - as I think he is generating discussion around our personal views.


Correct. 

I was/am not making any claims myself, nor have I shared much of my own personal opinions on the matter. 

I was sharing some of what is being presented in the Red Pill community lately and wanted to hear other people's thoughts on the matter.


----------



## oldshirt

Galabar01 said:


> Thanks Heartsbeating. I assumed from the OP, that he was referring to the research (some presented later in the thread) that the groups he mentioned were relying on. Having other folks post related research reinforced that for me. However, in looking back at the OPs post, it seems more likely that he didn't want to link to any research as it would weaken his argument. He would probably much rather have seen anecdotal responses to reinforce his premise.


I don't have an argument and I am not making any claims of my own. 

I am just reporting something I've been hearing frequently being passed around in the Red Pill community recently and wanted to hear the thoughts on from the people here on TAM.


----------



## Torninhalf

All of this goes round and round. I’m not even sure in today’s age what is considered a high count. Women are not encouraged to marry young anymore. Women are also encouraged to longer be stay at home mothers so in the case of divorce they can support themselves. So if a woman does not marry until after college, after some work experience we are looking at what age? 24 or 25? Presuming she becomes sexual active around 18, how many partners should she be expected to have? How many should a man have at the same age?


----------



## Blondilocks

Goobertron said:


> The OP is a woman who is using a strawman argument.


The OP is male and married (for the time being).


----------



## oldshirt

Galabar01 said:


> I don't think he does either (that more sexual partners is worse for women's psyche). That is why I feel he would rather have anecdotes rather than actual data.


I would prefer actual data actually. 

But I think the chances of getting any actual, objective, unbiased data on how people bond after prior sexual activity is going to be pretty much impossible. 

I'm not sure how one even can study how much someone does or does not "bond." That is such a nebulous and subject concept that I don't think it even can be measured. 

It would be nice to have hard, objective data. But I don't think such a thing is even obtainable.


----------



## Tasorundo

oldshirt said:


> I am just reporting something I've been hearing frequently being passed around in the Red Pill community recently and wanted to hear the thoughts on from the people here on TAM.


@DudeInProgress 

I knew from to subject title it was red pill related, which is also why it is highly likely to be misogynistic.


----------



## Livvie

DudeInProgress said:


> Or you could accept that people can have good faith discussions and different opinions on the possibility that a high number of sexual partners affects men and women differently. Instead of reflexively labeling those who disagree with you as misogynists.


But there was absolutely no basis for the assertion that it only affects women. None. Nada.


----------



## oldshirt

Goobertron said:


> The OP is a woman who is using a strawman argument.


I'm a guy and I'm not making any argument or stating any claims myself.


----------



## Goobertron

It's been in the red pill community for quite some time though. I've got Rollo Tomassi's book "The Rational Male". He talks about all this in there. Sorry about saying the OP was clearly a chick I guess you'd be a blue pill male, no offense intended but you're not red pill. I'm probably what they call "monk mode" lol.

I don't believe the red pill philosophy is misogynistic. It's just describing the dynamics within intergender relationships. The genders look for different things. 
Men like women with figure eight curves for example because during our evolution that body type was more fertile with big milk producing breasts and wide hips are better for birthing children and women used to die in child birth often and most children were unlikely to survive to adult hood. Women like big strong looking athletic men because they want that protection for them and their children.

Men can build their own value to attract a female into their frame or choose to live life as a bachelor and avoid the risks. I find it amusing that over history there have been a number of "bachelor taxes" designed to force men to marry. If you have to tax someone to make something in their self interest it says something.


----------



## oldshirt

Goobertron said:


> . Sorry about saying the OP was clearly a chick I guess you'd be a blue pill male, no offense intended but you're not red pill.


I am not any pill.


----------



## 2&out

I don't pay much attention to categorizing people but what little I do know about Red pill philosophy makes me want to ask this question. Why would red pill subscribers give a crap about bonding ?


----------



## joannacroc

My XH had a low notch count and so did I when we married. He still cheated, he still slept around while we were married. Did he make a good choice? Probably not. Because he picked someone who wouldn't tolerate his BS longterm.


----------



## farsidejunky

Divinely Favored said:


> I would think it is more about a woman getting burned by the bad boy Fbuddies not wanting to commit and they get the "ALL men are pigs" mindset. I know i bled for a while from me wife's exhubbys actions until she got it out of her system. Now she says she truats me completely and i am only one she trusts.
> 
> I think it is about walls they put up because of being hurt by the bad choices they have made in men.


The first time you bled (I'm assuming that's a euphemism) was her fault.

All subsequent times were squarely on you as you chose to remain in the relationship. 

Additionally, all of the men she chose to sleep with or get burned by, she willingly entered in a relationships with. 

I'm not suggesting it wasn't worth it, but let's be very clear about who owns responsibility.



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Numb26

"Grabs popcorn"

This is better then a Jerry Springer episode!


----------



## ccpowerslave

Torninhalf said:


> All of this goes round and round.


This is true but I think regardless of partner count love will find a way just give it time.


----------



## Torninhalf

ccpowerslave said:


> This is true but I think regardless of partner count love will find a way just give it time.


I think in today’s day and age that “love” just isn’t a reasonable or useful emotion outside of the love one has for their children. So many posts we see that as evidence. It’s a dog eat dog world now. Millions of walking wounded because they were in “love” and that love was cast aside for that shiny object in the corner. Hundreds of years ago marriages were more contracts than emotions. The success rate was far better. 😂


----------



## Numb26

Torninhalf said:


> I think in today’s day and age that “love” just isn’t a reasonable or useful emotion outside of the love one has for their children. So many posts we see that as evidence. It’s a dog eat dog world now. Millions of walking wounded because they were in “love” and that love was cast aside for that shiny object in the corner. Hundreds of years ago marriages were more contracts than emotions. The success rate was far better. 😂


This is probably the truest thing I have read on this whole thread. "Love" might be an outdated concept in this new world and might actually be detrimental to living a fulfilling life.


----------



## oldshirt

Torninhalf said:


> Hundreds of years ago marriages were more contracts than emotions. The success rate was far better. 😂


That depends on what you classify as success. 

If you consider not divorcing as success, then yes, the success rate was probably better back then as divorce basically wasn't allowed or even a thing for the common citizen ( and the kings that wanted divorce, just had their wife's head lopped off) 

But if you want to consider the health and well being of the participants, then "success" becomes a lot more arguable. There were lots of miserable and dysfunctional people back in the day and lots of abuse and neglect and maladaption. 

Lack of divorce is a not necessarily a sign of success. 

Sometimes marriage is the disease and divorce is the cure.


----------



## oldshirt

Numb26 said:


> This is probably the truest thing I have read on this whole thread. "Love" might be an outdated concept in this new world and might actually be detrimental to living a fulfilling life.


I don't believe that. 

Maybe I am too old and out of touch but I still believe in love and I don't think it is outdated. If anything it may be even more glorified today than in days of yore. 

People simply have more options today and many of the risks and pitfalls have been mitigated. I think love and meaningful union are still high on most people's list. But they aren't under as much pressure to do it right out of the chute today as in times past so people are more apt to take the scenic route than they were a couple generations ago. 

......and they have more options and ability to get out of a relationship/marriage when it turns bad than in our parents era.


----------



## Torninhalf

oldshirt said:


> That depends on what you classify as success.
> 
> If you consider not divorcing as success, then yes, the success rate was probably better back then as divorce basically wasn't allowed or even a thing for the common citizen ( and the kings that wanted divorce, just had their wife's head lopped off)
> 
> But if you want to consider the health and well being of the participants, then "success" becomes a lot more arguable. There were lots of miserable and dysfunctional people back in the day and lots of abuse and neglect and maladaption.
> 
> Lack of divorce is a not necessarily a sign of success.
> 
> Sometimes marriage is the disease and divorce is the cure.


Do you consider your marriage a success? It has not been a traditional union as seen by most.


----------



## Tasorundo

oldshirt said:


> Lack of divorce is a not necessarily a sign of success.


It seems that as women gained independence, the divorce rate went up. I do not know that faithfulness was more common then, just tolerated by women, because they had no choice. There is a reason why punishment for female infidelity has always been harsher than male. The man could move on, the woman, not so much.



oldshirt said:


> Maybe I am too old and out of touch but I still believe in love and I don't think it is outdated. If anything it may be even more glorified today than in days of yore.


I think that love, as in the verb that builds long term relationship has been devalued and replaced with limerence. As though that is the desired state of being and is sustainable.


----------



## Atholk

The irony is the manosphere is overflowing with men who cannot bond with women. Per them, even trying to bond to a woman is utter foolishness.

I'm not saying some of their reasons, and certainly deeply negative experiences with individual women aren't relevant factors in this, just pointing out the blindingly obvious.


----------



## Numb26

oldshirt said:


> I don't believe that.
> 
> Maybe I am too old and out of touch but I still believe in love and I don't think it is outdated. If anything it may be even more glorified today than in days of yore.
> 
> People simply have more options today and many of the risks and pitfalls have been mitigated. I think love and meaningful union are still high on most people's list. But they aren't under as much pressure to do it right out of the chute today as in times past so people are more apt to take the scenic route than they were a couple generations ago.
> 
> ......and they have more options and ability to get out of a relationship/marriage when it turns bad than in our parents era.


Your last paragraph proves my point. With most marriages ending in divorce (and untold LTR ending also), the concept of love has changed. People no longer believe what has been taught for centuries, that you need "love" to complete their lives. 
You can have love and meaningful connections without placing yourself in the meatgrinder that are "relationships".


----------



## lifeistooshort

This idea that somehow the red pill community is just trying to understand and explain male/female dynamics is hogwash.

That would be a worthy goal if the actual finish line goal was mutually satisfying, healthy relationships.

But it clearly isn't. It's about gaining the upper hand through control and advantage for a bunch of weak men who will then abuse said control.

Everyone has an agenda, and that's ok. You should have an agenda because everyone needs to look out for their own interests. But this agenda must be considered when evaluating the credibility of the study or argument.

These guys don't actually give a crap about bonding for its own sake. It's a control mechanism because they can't attract the women they think they're entitled to on their own merits.


----------



## oldshirt

Numb26 said:


> Your last paragraph proves my point. With most marriages ending in divorce (and untold LTR ending also), the concept of love has changed. People no longer believe what has been taught for centuries, that you need "love" to complete their lives.
> You can have love and meaningful connections without placing yourself in the meatgrinder that are "relationships".


I'm not sure "love" (at least what we think of it today) was much of a factor in marriage throughout the centuries. 

Marriage was a legal construct and a means of interweaving tribes, families and communities through the acquisition of inlaws as well as a socially/legally means to protect the provisioning of minor children and nursing mothers. It was also a legal framework through which to pass down property and assets to biological heirs. 

As I said above, if anything, we may be emphasising and maybe even glorifying love too much today. Love probably was NOT a primary factor of marriage in yesteryear.


----------



## Numb26

oldshirt said:


> I'm not sure "love" (at least what we think of it today) was much of a factor in marriage throughout the centuries.
> 
> Marriage was a legal construct and a means of interweaving tribes, families and communities through the acquisition of inlaws as well as a socially/legally means to protect the provisioning of minor children and nursing mothers. It was also a legal framework through which to pass down property and assets to biological heirs.
> 
> As I said above, if anything, we may be emphasising and maybe even glorifying love too much today. Love probably was NOT a primary factor of marriage in yesteryear.


Or a factor today either. Best just to stay away from it


----------



## ccpowerslave

Numb26 said:


> With most marriages ending in divorce (and untold LTR ending also), the concept of love has changed. People no longer believe what has been taught for centuries, that you need "love" to complete their lives.


Some are getting wise to what you said here, one even said. “I don’t believe in love, I never have, I never will. I don’t believe in love, it’s never worth... the pain that you feel.”


----------



## ccpowerslave

Torninhalf said:


> I think in today’s day and age that “love” just isn’t a reasonable or useful emotion outside of the love one has for their children. So many posts we see that as evidence. It’s a dog eat dog world now. Millions of walking wounded because they were in “love” and that love was cast aside for that shiny object in the corner. Hundreds of years ago marriages were more contracts than emotions. The success rate was far better. 😂


I was just trying to insert Ratt lyrics but apparently not many 1980s hair metal fans in this thread. Where is @DownByTheRiver when you need her?


----------



## Torninhalf

ccpowerslave said:


> I was just trying to insert Ratt lyrics but apparently not many 1980s hair metal fans in this thread. Where is @DownByTheRiver when you need her?


My bad! 😂


----------



## farsidejunky

Ratt? You mean Queensryche...right?








ccpowerslave said:


> I was just trying to insert Ratt lyrics but apparently not many 1980s hair metal fans in this thread. Where is @DownByTheRiver when you need her?


----------



## ccpowerslave

farsidejunky said:


> Ratt? You mean Queensryche...right?


Yeah that was the second one. First one was lyrics from Ratt “Round and Round” featuring Warren Demartini on the axe.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

I think most women need love to enjoy marriage.


----------



## oldshirt

Torninhalf said:


> Do you consider your marriage a success? It has not been a traditional union as seen by most.


In many metrics, yes it has been very successful. 


still married after 25 years.
two great kids that are still in the home.
-two busy, demanding and "essential" careers. 
- We don't hate each other or have high conflict.
-have that long term brotherly/sisterly 'love.'
-Nice newer house in the 'burbs with 3 car garage. 
- we get along with inlaws and each other's friends. 
-don't have money problems or conflict over money. 
- Not technically sexless or dead bedroom (in the nursing home maybe, but not dead LOL) 

And yes, at times we have had a very nontraditional union, including what many would be considered a high count for both of us, and yet here we are. We still have the above despite a very nontraditional 

Now are we in a state of bliss or utter contentment? - no, of course not. 

But I want to come back to the nontraditional aspect more to bring it back into the topic of the thread. In the past we did have a very nontraditional marriage and both of us had what the traditionalists would consider a high count....... and yet here we are. 

By current Red Pill logic, my wife should not be here as she has had sex with dozens, many of whom were better men (and a number of beautiful women as well) than I. 

And as for me - I should not have been having any sex AT ALL because I am not quite 6 feet tall, of average looks, average income and lifestyle, am bald, wear glasses and don't drive expensive sports cars or am the CEO of any multi billion dollar companies. By their logic, I should be a 50 year old virgin or at least relegated to the depths of despair as a simp and should have been in a dead bedroom with a cheating wife for the last 20 years. 

So hence my original question - Does multiple sex partners damage a woman's ability to bond??? I've seen my wife have sex with several men and women in a night with my own eyes.... but yet she's still here. She's an educated professional with well paying career and the kids are grown and she has her own bank accounts, 401k and SUV, she could pack the truck and be gone by dinner time tonight if she wanted (and so could I) . 

Are we bonded or is our bond damaged and is that damage due to her having sex with others???


----------



## oldshirt

ccpowerslave said:


> I was just trying to insert Ratt lyrics but apparently not many 1980s hair metal fans in this thread. Where is @DownByTheRiver when you need her?


I'm totally an '80s guy!!!!

And I know at least one other as well ;-)


----------



## oldshirt

DownByTheRiver said:


> I think most women need love to enjoy marriage.


If it weren't for love and romance and affection etc etc why WOULD anyone get married today?

Marriage wasn't all that much of a choice in generations past. It was something people were basically expected and even coerced into doing. 

Love and sexuality and affection and chemistry etc are what makes marriage tolerable.


----------



## ccpowerslave

oldshirt said:


> If it weren't for love and romance and affection etc etc why WOULD anyone get married today?


I wanted to lock it down. Then again I got married over 20 years ago.


----------



## Numb26

DownByTheRiver said:


> I think most women need love to enjoy marriage.


Not if the guy has a huge.....wallet


----------



## DownByTheRiver

oldshirt said:


> If it weren't for love and romance and affection etc etc why WOULD anyone get married today?
> 
> Marriage wasn't all that much of a choice in generations past. It was something people were basically expected and even coerced into doing.
> 
> Love and sexuality and affection and chemistry etc are what makes marriage tolerable.


Yep. Of course, as someone who's always been single and paying all my own bills, it would certainly be beneficial to have a second person sharing the expenses. Instead, I just worked two jobs most of my life, which doesn't leave much time for living. It's all personal. A person like me wouldn't even consider having a roommate unless it was someone I was in love with and could live with (not likely - the guys I loved mostly didn't make good domestic partners, and nor do I) Other women can't fathom living alone, and they outnumber people like me. And of course, having babies alone, the struggle is real financially and otherwise, so women driven to have a family (and men as well) rightly consider trying to work out a marriage.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Numb26 said:


> Not if the guy has a huge.....wallet


That's a minority of men and a minority of women who will marry for a huge....wallet. And it rarely ends well.


----------



## Torninhalf

oldshirt said:


> In many metrics, yes it has been very successful.
> 
> 
> still married after 25 years.
> two great kids that are still in the home.
> -two busy, demanding and "essential" careers.
> - We don't hate each other or have high conflict.
> -have that long term brotherly/sisterly 'love.'
> -Nice newer house in the 'burbs with 3 car garage.
> - we get along with inlaws and each other's friends.
> -don't have money problems or conflict over money.
> - Not technically sexless or dead bedroom (in the nursing home maybe, but not dead LOL)
> 
> And yes, at times we have had a very nontraditional union, including what many would be considered a high count for both of us, and yet here we are. We still have the above despite a very nontraditional
> 
> Now are we in a state of bliss or utter contentment? - no, of course not.
> 
> But I want to come back to the nontraditional aspect more to bring it back into the topic of the thread. In the past we did have a very nontraditional marriage and both of us had what the traditionalists would consider a high count....... and yet here we are.
> 
> By current Red Pill logic, my wife should not be here as she has had sex with dozens, many of whom were better men (and a number of beautiful women as well) than I.
> 
> And as for me - I should not have been having any sex AT ALL because I am not quite 6 feet tall, of average looks, average income and lifestyle, am bald, wear glasses and don't drive expensive sports cars or am the CEO of any multi billion dollar companies. By their logic, I should be a 50 year old virgin or at least relegated to the depths of despair as a simp and should have been in a dead bedroom with a cheating wife for the last 20 years.
> 
> So hence my original question - Does multiple sex partners damage a woman's ability to bond??? I've seen my wife have sex with several men and women in a night with my own eyes.... but yet she's still here. She's an educated professional with well paying career and the kids are grown and she has her own bank accounts, 401k and SUV, she could pack the truck and be gone by dinner time tonight if she wanted (and so could I) .
> 
> Are we bonded or is our bond damaged and is that damage due to her having sex with others???


I appreciate your candor. I’m not sure a marriage where y’all don’t “hate” each other, have a brotherly/sister kind of love and a sex life at 50 which is in the nursing home a successful marriage. It’s a partnership for sure but not a successful marriage with the traditional love and passion most think about. Is it because she had sex with multiple men or maybe that you had sex with multiple women? Who knows…


----------



## Bluesclues

ccpowerslave said:


> I was just trying to insert Ratt lyrics but apparently not many 1980s hair metal fans in this thread. Where is @DownByTheRiver when you need her?


Oh I caught the Ratt lyrics and have had it stuck in my head since you posted it, damn you!


----------



## Numb26

DownByTheRiver said:


> That's a minority of men and a minority of women who will marry for a huge....wallet. And it rarely ends well.


Most times is doesn't end well, no matter what the reasons for marriage were. Which is why I question why even get married, I know that I won't again. I am like you, I prefer to live alone


----------



## Torninhalf

Numb26 said:


> Most times is doesn't end well, no matter what the reasons for marriage were. Which is why I question why even get married, I know that I won't again. I am like you, I prefer to live alone


I agree. Been there done that and the mere thought of it wouldn’t even enter my mind again.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Numb26 said:


> Most times is doesn't end well, no matter what the reasons for marriage were. Which is why I question why even get married, I know that I won't again. I am like you, I prefer to live alone


You know, the main vision I had of something I wanted in life, aside from what I have already had, is I wanted a lakehouse or river home, and that's the one thing I couldn't accomplish on my own even working two jobs. I always wanted one I could take my work and go to for a few weeks or not take work and just go there a couple of days to chill. Too late now, though. I'm too old to get up and down to the water and really enjoy it.


----------



## samyeagar

Torninhalf said:


> I appreciate your candor. I’m not sure a marriage where y’all don’t “hate” each other, have a brotherly/sister kind of love and a sex life at 50 which is in the nursing home a successful marriage. It’s a partnership for sure but not a successful marriage *with the traditional love and passion most think about*. Is it because she had sex with multiple men or maybe that you had sex with multiple women? Who knows…


I would submit that the marriage described is far more traditional in terms of historical norms than modern marriages. It is only very recently that most people even had the luxury of getting married for love and passion. Even into the latter half of the last century, marriage commonly had a transactional and contractual foundation.


----------



## Torninhalf

samyeagar said:


> I would submit that the marriage described is far more traditional in terms of historical norms than modern marriages. It is only very recently that most people even had the luxury of getting married for love and passion. Even into the latter half of the last century, marriage commonly had a transactional foundation


Perhaps. So you don’t believe people marry for love?


----------



## CharlieParker

ccpowerslave said:


> I wanted to lock it down. Then again I got married over 20 years ago.


My thinking too, a bit earlier. Rather foolish in hindsight, but hey it seems to have worked out ok. 

Well, except for 80 hair metal


----------



## oldshirt

ccpowerslave said:


> I wanted to lock it down. Then again I got married over 20 years ago.


I know where you are coming from and think I understand what you are saying. 

I'm in my mid-upper 50s and grew up in a tiny farming community in the midwest. All the pretty girls in my age cohort were married and crapping out babies within a few years of graduating high school and the less pretty ones were married and crapping out kids a year or so later. 

It was a marrrying world back in that time and place and if you didn't "lock down" a marriagable man or woman back then, you were basically left there standing with all the chairs taken. 

I moved away and moved to a little more developed part of the world but 30 years ago it was still a marriage-oriented world. 

I was 31 years old by the time I married 25+ years ago, but even then I was looked at with suspicion distrust as to why I wasn't hitched by then. 

Some people figured I must be undesirable. Some figured I must be immature or man-child. Some thought I must be some kind of playa'. Some even questioned my sexual orientation even though by the time I was in my mid-upper 20s there were women coming in my front door and leaving out the back at all hours of the day and night. 

But the pretty girls were still marrying in their early-mid 20s and if you wanted one of them, you had to pony up and lock her down. 

(women had the same outlook in regards to marryable men back then. They were called "eligible bachelors" back then) 

Today a lot of that time pressure has been lessened and I don't think the kids today feel as pressured to "lock down" either women or men the way we did back then. Or at least not as young. 

In many ways I think that is a good thing. 

Back in my day, a lot of the party girls did get crossed off and left out of the marriage market. By the time they started hitting the wall and getting the Baby Rabies and wanting to get a husband and family, they looked around at the men their age that were left and said, "NOPE!!" 

30 years ago, 30something men and women that were still unmarried were often considered the 'leftovers.' 

It's a different world today and both men and women are waiting until later to marry and start families. There isn't the pressure to "Lock Down" suitable mates early. 

So that leads me to wonder whether these Red Pill gurus are just trying to apply outdated principles and paradigms into today's world (Tomassi and Cooper are in their upper 40s) or whether the current culture of sexual activity and delayed marriage will be damaging to people's ability to form healthy and stable connections?


----------



## RebuildingMe

RP is a philosophy for males to identify red flags to avoid. It's nothing more than that. However, the red flags offend women like (single moms, women with high notch counts, women that mutilate their bodies, women without jobs/careers, women that are terrible with money, social medial attention seekers, women that seek the attention of men, especially men they see as having higher value, etc, etc). Women will argue why RP is incorrect and the men that follow it to the tee will never enter relationships with these women. I consider myself RP. I believe in what (most) of what they convey. I don't believe that marriage is necessary, and is a downright unnecessary risk for a man in today's hostile court environment towards fathers.


----------



## oldshirt

Torninhalf said:


> I appreciate your candor. I’m not sure a marriage where y’all don’t “hate” each other, have a brotherly/sister kind of love and a sex life at 50 which is in the nursing home a successful marriage. It’s a partnership for sure but not a successful marriage with the traditional love and passion most think about. Is it because she had sex with multiple men or maybe that you had sex with multiple women? Who knows…


And this is something that I have discussed in other threads, and for which I do not have the end all/be all answer for.

Yes, our sex life is not what one would likely call passionate or swinging from the chandeliers etc. 

But we are both well into our 50s, have been married over 25 years, have two teens still in the home, both have VERY demanding and exhausting careers (let me put it this way, I haven't caught Covid 19 myself yet, but it has still taken quite a few years off of my life) and along with age I have lost my hair, have put on a few pounds around the middle and she is menopausal, has some chronic health issues and on a variety of meds etc etc 

So the question for the ages here is has our past sexual activities somehow "damaged" our bond and our sex life today?

Or given our ages, 25 years of marriage, our general state of health, menopause, meds, uber stressful careers, dealing with teenagers etc etc is it a wonder we still have a sex life AT ALL and is the fact our bedroom isn't completely dead, is that a testement to our sexual vitality and adventurism to begin with?

Yes we had a very nontraditional marriage and sex life at one time. But how many completely traditional couples in their 50s that have been married for over 25 years do you know that haven't had a sex life at all for years? 

Or maybe a more pertinent question is how many 50somethings, married 25+ years with menopause and health conditions and meds etc are still bouncing off the walls and swinging from the chandeliers all the time??? I'm sure there are some out there. Some here claim to be. 

But I am willing to bet they are in the definate minority. 

Our marriage and sex life may not be a good role model for a young couple. But compared to our contemporaries in similar circumstances, we probably rank right up there. 

Even though I may b1tch and moan, I am sure there are a lot of guys out there that would crawl though broken glass and rusty thumbtacks to have what I have.


----------



## Torninhalf

oldshirt said:


> And this is something that I have discussed in other threads, and for which I do not have the end all/be all answer for.
> 
> Yes, our sex life is not what one would likely call passionate or swinging from the chandeliers etc.
> 
> But we are both well into our 50s, have been married over 25 years, have two teens still in the home, both have VERY demanding and exhausting careers (let me put it this way, I haven't caught Covid 19 myself yet, but it has still taken quite a few years off of my life) and along with age I have lost my hair, have put on a few pounds around the middle and she is menopausal, has some chronic health issues and on a variety of meds etc etc
> 
> So the question for the ages here is has our past sexual activities somehow "damaged" our bond and our sex life today?
> 
> Or given our ages, 25 years of marriage, our general state of health, menopause, meds, uber stressful careers, dealing with teenagers etc etc is it a wonder we still have a sex life AT ALL and is the fact our bedroom isn't completely dead, is that a testement to our sexual vitality and adventurism to begin with?
> 
> Yes we had a very nontraditional marriage and sex life at one time. But how many completely traditional couples in their 50s that have been married for over 25 years do you know that haven't had a sex life at all for years?
> 
> Or maybe a more pertinent question is how many 50somethings, married 25+ years with menopause and health conditions and meds etc are still bouncing off the walls and swinging from the chandeliers all the time??? I'm sure there are some out there. Some here claim to be.
> 
> But I am willing to bet they are in the definate minority.
> 
> Our marriage and sex life may not be a good role model for a young couple. But compared to our contemporaries in similar circumstances, we probably rank right up there.
> 
> Even though I may b1tch and moan, I am sure there are a lot of guys out there that would crawl though broken glass and rusty thumbtacks to have what I have.


I’m sure many would. I’m not so sure however that there isn’t some cause and effect outside health issues etc. It’s just my opinion and certainly can be discarded at will. You are happy and content so that is all that really matters in the end.


----------



## RebuildingMe

oldshirt said:


> And this is something that I have discussed in other threads, and for which I do not have the end all/be all answer for.
> 
> Yes, our sex life is not what one would likely call passionate or swinging from the chandeliers etc.
> 
> But we are both well into our 50s, have been married over 25 years, have two teens still in the home, both have VERY demanding and exhausting careers (let me put it this way, I haven't caught Covid 19 myself yet, but it has still taken quite a few years off of my life) and along with age I have lost my hair, have put on a few pounds around the middle and she is menopausal, has some chronic health issues and on a variety of meds etc etc
> 
> So the question for the ages here is has our past sexual activities somehow "damaged" our bond and our sex life today?
> 
> Or given our ages, 25 years of marriage, our general state of health, menopause, meds, uber stressful careers, dealing with teenagers etc etc is it a wonder we still have a sex life AT ALL and is the fact our bedroom isn't completely dead, is that a testement to our sexual vitality and adventurism to begin with?
> 
> Yes we had a very nontraditional marriage and sex life at one time. But how many completely traditional couples in their 50s that have been married for over 25 years do you know that haven't had a sex life at all for years?
> 
> Or maybe a more pertinent question is how many 50somethings, married 25+ years with menopause and health conditions and meds etc are still bouncing off the walls and swinging from the chandeliers all the time??? I'm sure there are some out there. Some here claim to be.
> 
> But I am willing to bet they are in the definate minority.
> 
> Our marriage and sex life may not be a good role model for a young couple. But compared to our contemporaries in similar circumstances, we probably rank right up there.
> 
> Even though I may b1tch and moan, I am sure there are a lot of guys out there that would crawl though broken glass and rusty thumbtacks to have what I have.


Sorry, but that sounds like one big excuse for staying in a marriage that is not sexually fulfilling. When you start comparing your life to someone else's that has it worse, your settling for less than.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

I don't think in the U.S. many marriages have been transactional anytime in recent history. Take my mom, for example. She grew up in the middle of nowhere and so did a niece my age. They get interested in and fall in love with someone they meet and they met very few people. But young women have love in them and will find a repository. They pour it on to someone out of their innate need to express it. 

In my mom's case, the first marriage didn't last but did get her out of the hills into civilization. 

Her niece my age was pretty and so she and a nice looking guy at their very small school (I went there with her once) married right away and as far as I know, for life. I mean, where else would she find someone with more in common, because the way she grew up was more akin to the 1800s than to the 20th century. 

Just from observation, when I see transactional marriages, they are on two ends of the spectrum. One is low-income and needy desperate, maybe addicted women who have probably dabbled in sex work at some point. The other are affluent women from very rich families who are brought up to protect the family fortune by making a good financial match. 

Certainly, other places in the world, transactional marriages are more common. In some, like the UK, it's maintaining status or wealth, and the rules for those who marry for that get loosey-goosey once the heirs are produced and having your "own life" seem common amongst them. 

In other places, the women are sold like goats and kept wrapped in cling wrap for the remainder of their lives while the men do whatever they want.


----------



## drencrom

Goobertron said:


> Men can build their own value to attract a female into their frame or choose to live life as a bachelor and avoid the risks. I find it amusing that over history there have been a number of "bachelor taxes" designed to force men to marry. If you have to tax someone to make something in their self interest it says something.


If they instituted a bachelor tax........worth it.


----------



## oldshirt

Torninhalf said:


> I’m not so sure however that there isn’t some cause and effect outside health issues etc.


But that's the thing about our lives - we never how things would have turned out had we taken a different path. 

If my wife and I had forever remained a traditional, monogamous couple, would we be better off today? Would we be worse off? Would we be blissfully happy and swinging from the chandeliers? Or would we have been divorced years and years ago and with different partners now?

That's why this thread topic is so nebulous and why the questions posed are so conceptual, there is no way to go back in time and go down a different path and then make a side by side comparison. 

The Red Pill mouthpieces can sit and say that high-count damages women and not men and there really isn't a way to prove them wrong any more than they can prove themselves right. 

Until someone invents the WayBack Machine and we get get complete do-overs, it's all personal conjecture based on your own your own personal beliefs and perspectives.


----------



## oldshirt

RebuildingMe said:


> Sorry, but that sounds like one big excuse for staying in a marriage that is not sexually fulfilling. When you start comparing your life to someone else's that has it worse, your settling for less than.


Some of us grew up in a time when one needed at least a big excuse to leave a marriage as opposed to needing an excuse for staying.


----------



## RebuildingMe

oldshirt said:


> Some of us grew up in a time when one needed at least a big excuse to leave a marriage as opposed to needing an excuse for staying.


We’re probably the same age and times have certainly changed. Everyone has the right to make the decisions that we all do. I no longer make decisions for anyone’s benefit but my own (kids aside).


----------



## Numb26

RebuildingMe said:


> We’re probably the same age and times have certainly changed. Everyone has the right to make the decisions that we all do. I no longer make decisions for anyone’s benefit but my own (kids aside).


Took a messy D with the EX for me to learn this lesson


----------



## Galabar01

My advice to my daughter (19) has been to minimize the number of partners and focus on long-term relationships. Of course, it might be premature as she hasn't had a boyfriend yet (kids nowadays  ).

I'll have the same advice for my son. I think 3 is much better than 100. It's better both physically and mentally. If you are hitting 20, 30, 50, 100, ..., you should really reconsider what you are doing (no matter your gender).


----------



## oldshirt

lifeistooshort said:


> This idea that somehow the red pill community is just trying to understand and explain male/female dynamics is hogwash.
> 
> That would be a worthy goal if the actual finish line goal was mutually satisfying, healthy relationships.
> 
> But it clearly isn't. It's about gaining the upper hand through control and advantage for a bunch of weak men who will then abuse said control.
> 
> Everyone has an agenda, and that's ok. You should have an agenda because everyone needs to look out for their own interests. But this agenda must be considered when evaluating the credibility of the study or argument.
> 
> These guys don't actually give a crap about bonding for its own sake. It's a control mechanism because they can't attract the women they think they're entitled to on their own merits.


Now you're making some sweeping judgements of your own. Maybe we should start a Lifeistooshort Pill movement LOL 

To say that Red Pill is about gaining an upper hand to control by weak men for abuse is probably too harsh. 

Other than actual sociopaths and narcissists, I doubt if world domination is really on anyone's agenda. 

I do however think that a lot of guys drawn to that rhetoric are on the socially conservative and traditional end of scale and may have a little bit too much nostalgia and reverence for what they thought was an ideal domestic dynamic in the Ward and June Cleaver paradigm. 

What I mean by that is some of them may have grown up decades ago in a Bread Winner/SAHM household that seemed to work well for their purposes at the time (ie when they were children) but failed to recognize just how miserable both Mom and Dad were at times. (I mean just look at all the miserable people here who stay "For The Children") 

The other segment of the RP community can be coming from the single mother households who did not have an active and involved father figure at all and saw all the hardships and challenges of the single mother and grew up idealizing traditional marriages and thinking they are the end all be all and that anything else is a recipe for doom. 

My personal thoughts are that many of them are trying to peddle predictabilty and guarantee to people who often feel very powerless and marginalized in the matters of sexuality and relationships.


----------



## drencrom




----------



## Divinely Favored

farsidejunky said:


> The first time you bled (I'm assuming that's a euphemism) was her fault.
> 
> All subsequent times were squarely on you as you chose to remain in the relationship.
> 
> Additionally, all of the men she chose to sleep with or get burned by, she willingly entered in a relationships with.
> 
> I'm not suggesting it wasn't worth it, but let's be very clear about who owns responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


She has only been with 3 guys before me. 1st was hubby #1 17-27 after seperation she had 2 ONS because of being angry about serial cheating STBX. I met her shortly after and went to court with her. Referring to women being burned and thinking all men are the same.


----------



## Rus47

Galabar01 said:


> My advice to my daughter (19) has been to minimize the number of partners and focus on long-term relationships. Of course, it might be premature as she hasn't had a boyfriend yet (kids nowadays  ).
> 
> I'll have the same advice for my son. I think 3 is much better than 100. It's better both physically and mentally. If you are *hitting 20, 30, 50, 100*, ..., you should really reconsider what you are doing (no matter your gender).


Maybe your kids will listen better to your advice than mine did. Mine's reaction to talk like that was "oh Dad, you are so out-of-date". Despite mom n dad living what we recommended.

What if a person decides they want to remain single for life? Then does it make any difference? Changing partners every few months, 100 in a lifetime of 70 years wouldn't be out of range of possibility. My 20 something grandson seems to change GF every few months, he seems pretty happy, says he has no plans to ever marry. And the XGFs are still on friendly terms with him.


----------



## Divinely Favored

oldshirt said:


> I'm totally an '80s guy!!!!
> 
> And I know at least one other as well ;-)


Hey i got all the cassettes. May still have my walkman in the barn. Biggest problem these days in the "Lack of Communication" but Ratt knew all that. Dont dismiss the big beard guys from Texas when talking 80s. Love some ZZ Top in that '34 Coupe.


----------



## Enigma32

oldshirt said:


> I would prefer actual data actually.
> 
> But I think the chances of getting any actual, objective, unbiased data on how people bond after prior sexual activity is going to be pretty much impossible.
> 
> I'm not sure how one even can study how much someone does or does not "bond." That is such a nebulous and subject concept that I don't think it even can be measured.
> 
> It would be nice to have hard, objective data. But I don't think such a thing is even obtainable.


They do it by studying brain activity.


----------



## Enigma32

ccpowerslave said:


> Some are getting wise to what you said here, one even said. “I don’t believe in love, I never have, I never will. I don’t believe in love, it’s never worth... the pain that you feel.”


Hey, I know that song.


----------



## naskurol

oldshirt said:


> One of the sounding points making it's way through the Manosphere and Red Pill community currently is an assertion that a woman's ability to bond with one partner is damaged if she sleeps with too many people previously or has a partner count that is too high.
> 
> The associated point with this assertion is that no such problem occurs with men and that men can get with many women and that their ability to bond with one will not be negatively impacted by their previous count.
> 
> Now I get that if someone has hooked with hundreds of people, then long term monogamy is probably not on their to-do list and monogamy is probably not their thang.
> 
> But what is being presented as fact here, is that women who sleep with too many men actually damage and lose their ABILITY to bond and that after a certain number of prior lovers, she won't be capable of bonding with one partner.
> 
> And what is important to note here is that what is being presented as a cut off point is around 4 or 5 or so previous partners.
> Even here on TAM, people have cited studies showing female partner counts and their likelihood of divorce. And again, these numbers are showing a danger zone in handful of prior partner counts.
> 
> So what say you?? Is a woman that has been with 4 a shakey bet while someone that has been with 5 a lost cause??
> Does that 5th dude have that much power to destroy a woman's ability to bond?
> 
> Ok I'll stop being snarky (something that very hard for me to do) but you get my point.
> 
> This is being presented by the Red Pill gurus like Richard Cooper and Rollo Tomassi et al as FACT. But is it??
> 
> Is there correlation vs causation at play here?
> 
> Is this just a 2021 spin on the old double standard and just today's incarnation of $lut Shaming?
> 
> Is a woman's actual ability, not just desire, but actual ABILITY to bond damaged or destroyed once she gets with that 5th dude?
> 
> Conversely is a man's ability to bond effected by his prior count or is it as the gurus say and is uneffected by his prior partners?
> 
> Are these not simply women of questionable repute but actually damaged and incapable of strong, stable, faithful, monogamous relationships???





oldshirt said:


> One of the sounding points making it's way through the Manosphere and Red Pill community currently is an assertion that a woman's ability to bond with one partner is damaged if she sleeps with too many people previously or has a partner count that is too high.
> 
> The associated point with this assertion is that no such problem occurs with men and that men can get with many women and that their ability to bond with one will not be negatively impacted by their previous count.
> 
> Now I get that if someone has hooked with hundreds of people, then long term monogamy is probably not on their to-do list and monogamy is probably not their thang.
> 
> But what is being presented as fact here, is that women who sleep with too many men actually damage and lose their ABILITY to bond and that after a certain number of prior lovers, she won't be capable of bonding with one partner.
> 
> And what is important to note here is that what is being presented as a cut off point is around 4 or 5 or so previous partners.
> Even here on TAM, people have cited studies showing female partner counts and their likelihood of divorce. And again, these numbers are showing a danger zone in handful of prior partner counts.
> 
> So what say you?? Is a woman that has been with 4 a shakey bet while someone that has been with 5 a lost cause??
> Does that 5th dude have that much power to destroy a woman's ability to bond?
> 
> Ok I'll stop being snarky (something that very hard for me to do) but you get my point.
> 
> This is being presented by the Red Pill gurus like Richard Cooper and Rollo Tomassi et al as FACT. But is it??
> 
> Is there correlation vs causation at play here?
> 
> Is this just a 2021 spin on the old double standard and just today
> I don't think it has a thing to do with bonding but more like a man not wanting an easy woman as a wife. Men who sleep with lots of women is not the same thing as women who sleep with lots of men.
> A man who sleeps with lots of women has skill, a woman who sleeps with lots of men never says no.


----------



## AGoodFlogging

RebuildingMe said:


> Starting a thread about RP and then calling them “mouthpieces” seems disingenuous. I’m sorry you are a stuck, blue pulled beta. I hope you do more research before another 5 years of your life passes you by. All your new houses won’t buy you happiness.


I'd suggest that Red pillers learn to play the ball and not the man when challenged on their assertions. Calling people who disagree with you 'blue pill' means nothing because we don't accept your view of the world in the first place.

All I see with red pill is a misogynistic narrative built up from judging women's ****ty behaviour whilst ignore exactly the same behaviour in men. The classic example of this is the "monkey branching" narrative of why you can't trust women in relationships which completely falls apart when you include the obvious fact that men cheat and act ****ty about it just as much, if not more than women.


----------



## RebuildingMe

AGoodFlogging said:


> I'd suggest that Red pillers learn to play the ball and not the man when challenged on their assertions. Calling people who disagree with you 'blue pill' means nothing because we don't accept your view of the world in the first place.
> 
> All I see with red pill is a misogynistic narrative built up from judging women's ****ty behaviour whilst ignore exactly the same behaviour in men. The classic example of this is the "monkey branching" narrative of why you can't trust women in relationships which completely falls apart when you include the obvious fact that men cheat and act ****ty about it just as much, if not more than women.


Agreed with respect to my comments @oldshirt. I apologize to OP and I hope he accepts it.

Disagree with respect to everything else. Most RP men spin plates and don’t enter into LTRs, so any “cheating” is not cheating because women know up front they are not looking to be monogamous. Personally, I don’t monkey branch and I’m not currently spinning plates.


----------



## Blondilocks

RebuildingMe said:


> Agreed with respect to my comments @oldshirt. I apologize to OP and I hope he accepts it.
> 
> Disagree with respect to everything else. Most RP men spin plates and don’t enter into LTRs, so any “cheating” is not cheating because women know up front they are not looking to be monogamous. Personally, I don’t monkey branch and I’m not currently spinning plates.


Just curious. How many plates would a red piller be spinning if he told the women up front that he would not be monogamous? If he were totally honest with the women, wouldn't that negate the need to spin plates?


----------



## AGoodFlogging

RebuildingMe said:


> Disagree with respect to everything else. Most RP men spin plates and don’t enter into LTRs, so any “cheating” is not cheating because women know up front they are not looking to be monogamous. Personally, I don’t monkey branch and I’m not currently spinning plates.


"Cheating is not cheating because we like to think that the women we are seeing have figured out that we will have a few girls on the go because we are alpha guys."

What a crock.

Red pill is full of judgements of women as a class "it is in their nature" "all women are like that" etc. Just look at Richard Cooper's social media, full of absolute statements about women. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot certain guys are special and should be judged differently... Exactly the misogynistic ******** I was taking about.


----------



## AGoodFlogging

Blondilocks said:


> Just curious. How many plates would a red piller be spinning if he told the women up front that he would not be monogamous? If he were totally honest with the women, wouldn't that negate the need to spin plates?


An excellent question. I look forward to the answer...


----------



## RebuildingMe

Blondilocks said:


> Just curious. How many plates would a red piller be spinning if he told the women up front that he would not be monogamous? If he were totally honest with the women, wouldn't that negate the need to spin plates?


Most likely, the women will still date the alpha as she seems him as higher value. She would then compete for his attention to try and get him to drop the other plates. Again, I don’t spin plates, but if I did, the women I meet would know they are not the only ones I’m _dating_. Remember, these aren’t relationships, it’s just dating multiple people. Has been done for centuries.


----------



## RebuildingMe

AGoodFlogging said:


> "Cheating is not cheating because we like to think that the women we are seeing have figured out that we will have a few girls on the go because we are alpha guys."
> 
> What a crock.
> 
> Red pill is full of judgements of women as a class "it is in their nature" "all women are like that" etc. Just look at Richard Cooper's social media, full of absolute statements about women. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot certain guys are special and should be judged differently... Exactly the misogynistic ****** I was taking about.


Not sure who you are quoting because I never said any of that?? Of course you call it “misogynistic”, not big surprise there…

By the way, there is more to RP then women and dating. They are advocates to men’s rights and father’s rights. But I’m sure you’re in the camp that mom deserves everything, custody and money, during the eventual divorce, which we all know is going to happen anyway.


----------



## AGoodFlogging

RebuildingMe said:


> Most likely, the women will still date the alpha as she seems him as higher value. She would then compete for his attention to try and get him to drop the other plates. Again, I don’t spin plates, but if I did, the women I meet would know they are not the only ones I’m _dating_. Remember, these aren’t relationships, it’s just dating multiple people. Has been done for centuries.


You haven't really answered the question on how many "plates" it is okay to spin. I'm sure you are stand up guy and would be open and honest with any woman you were dating, but you aren't dating multiple women (let's not dance around here, we are talking about undertaking multiple sexual relationships with women at the same time regardless of your protestation that it is not, we aren't talking about a few first dates here) at the moment so how much value is your opinion of the behaviour of men who are doing that and their morals and behaviour?

How many plates is it okay for an "high value" woman to spin?


----------



## Numb26

"grabs a mug of coffee and sits down to watch"


----------



## Blondilocks

RebuildingMe said:


> Most likely, the women will still date the alpha as she seems him as higher value. She would then compete for his attention to try and get him to drop the other plates.


It must be a mind game these guys are playing with themselves. Because they are dating women who don't want a relationship, either. SMH I'm having a serious disconnect here with what they think they are accomplishing with all of this mental hoodoo voodoo stuff.


----------



## RebuildingMe

AGoodFlogging said:


> You haven't really answered the question on how many "plates" it is okay to spin. I'm sure you are stand up guy and would be open and honest with any woman you were dating, but you aren't dating multiple women (let's not dance around here, we are talking about undertaking multiple sexual relationships with women at the same time regardless of your protestation that it is not, we aren't talking about a few first dates here) at the moment so how much value is your opinion of the behaviour of men who are doing that and their morals and behaviour?
> 
> How many plates is it okay for an "high value" woman to spin?


Again, I don’t spin plates and I’m currently in a LTR. I’m not sure what you are asking me? Do you really want an actual number of how many sexual partners a guy can have at once? I suppose as many as he can get and handle AND afford.

I can’t answer your question on high value women, as I am a male. As an alpha or RP, most likely he wouldn’t care if a women spun plates also. Again, he’s not looking for a _relationship_ with her anyway.


----------



## AGoodFlogging

RebuildingMe said:


> Not sure who you are quoting because I never said any of that?? Of course you call it “misogynistic”, not big surprise there…


I am quote the arguments of all the most well know RP influencers out there. Of course it is no surprise that I, a rational individual, would label the obvious misogyny of those statements as that.



> By the way, there is more to RP then women and dating. They are advocates to men’s rights and father’s rights. But I’m sure you’re in the camp that mom deserves everything, custody and money, during the eventual divorce, which we all know is going to happen anyway.


You really are desperate to put words into the mouths of those that disagree with you. I believe in equitable divorce terms both financially and in terms of parenting wherever they can be achieved. I deeply dislike the concept of spousal maintenance (alimony) for example, particularly if granted long term.

Just because a world view has some elements that might be good doesn't make it a good or healthy world view. There are ideas I see in RP that I agree with around men looking after themselves physically, being confident and developing their abilities as leaders but they are just hooks to bring people in to get the poison dripped in their ears about women.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Blondilocks said:


> It must be a mind game these guys are playing with themselves. Because they are dating women who don't want a relationship, either. SMH I'm having a serious disconnect here with what they think they are accomplishing with all of this mental hoodoo voodoo stuff.


Of course. For a RP man, he’d like nothing better than no strings attached with multiple sexual options and partners. He doesn’t want to get into a relationship. If he does, that’s when the chapter on red flags must be used.


----------



## RebuildingMe

AGoodFlogging said:


> I am quote the arguments of all the most well know RP influencers out there. Of course it is no surprise that I, a rational individual, would label the obvious misogyny of those statements as that.
> 
> 
> 
> You really are desperate to put words into the mouths of those that disagree with you. I believe in equitable divorce terms both financially and in terms of parenting wherever they can be achieved. I deeply dislike the concept of spousal maintenance (alimony) for example, particularly if granted long term.
> 
> Just because a world view has some elements that might be good doesn't make it a good or healthy world view. There are ideas I see in RP that I agree with around men looking after themselves physically, being confident and developing their abilities as leaders but they are just hooks to bring people in to get the poison dripped in their ears about women.


We can agree to disagree. I’m not looking to debate a feminist at 6am…really I’m not.


----------



## AGoodFlogging

RebuildingMe said:


> We can agree to disagree. I’m not looking to debate a feminist at 6am…really I’m not.


Not a feminist, but there you go. Classic way to back out of an argument that isn't going your way though, the old "agree to disagree" - label - "it's too early/late" combo.

Top tip: If you don't want to debate your world view (whatever time it is) don't post about it on a message board.


----------



## AGoodFlogging

Blondilocks said:


> It must be a mind game these guys are playing with themselves. Because they are dating women who don't want a relationship, either. SMH I'm having a serious disconnect here with what they think they are accomplishing with all of this mental hoodoo voodoo stuff.


It's called cognitive dissonance and it has been helping people construct philosophical frameworks to justify their ****ty behaviour and the ****ty behaviour of others for a long time.


----------



## Blondilocks

RebuildingMe said:


> Of course. For a RP man, he’d like nothing better than no strings attached with multiple sexual options and partners. He doesn’t want to get into a relationship. If he does, that’s when the chapter on red flags must be used.


I don't think you are a true red piller. And for what it's worth, I can't wait until your court date comes around as I want to see the judge set your entitled wife on her ass and give her her just desserts.

I think I need to apologize to @oldshirt for the threadjack. Sorry, mea culpa.


----------



## RebuildingMe

AGoodFlogging said:


> Not a feminist, but there you go. Classic way to back out of an argument that isn't going your way though, the old "agree to disagree" - label - "it's too early/late" combo.
> 
> Top tip: If you don't want to debate your world view (whatever time it is) don't post about it on a message board.


Whatever dude. You’re just looking to argue with someone. It’s just not going to be me. “World view”???? LOL


----------



## CountryMike

Blondilocks said:


> It must be a mind game these guys are playing with themselves. Because they are dating women who don't want a relationship, either. SMH I'm having a serious disconnect here with what they think they are accomplishing with all of this mental hoodoo voodoo stuff.


In some cases likely. In other cases no, recognizing a woman in some cases will almost automatically switch her attention to a guy who has higher social standing is a realistic thing to understand ahead of time.

A guy will knowingly keep making himself available to women who have said they're here with somebody if the woman keeps giving another look. Knowing she will is a great bit of knowledge. I've been that guy and the success rate is greater that 50 50.


----------



## AGoodFlogging

RebuildingMe said:


> Whatever dude. You’re just looking to argue with someone. It’s just not going to be me. “World view”???? LOL


If you post RP ******** then expect to be called out for it. What is RP other than a world view?


----------



## RebuildingMe

Blondilocks said:


> I don't think you are a true red piller. And for what it's worth, I can't wait until your court date comes around as I want to see the judge set your entitled wife on her ass and give her her just desserts.
> 
> I think I need to apologize to @oldshirt for the threadjack. Sorry, mea culpa.


Thank you! That reminds me, I have to update that thread. I’ve always said I believe in a lot of what the RP community teaches, but not all. After all, I’m in a LTR with a single mom, so I guess I’m already disqualified to some extent.

Yes, sorry OP for the t/j.


----------



## RebuildingMe

AGoodFlogging said:


> If you post RP ****** then expect to be called out for it. What is RP other than a world view?


Damn buddy, you just won’t stop. I have ‘my’ views, not ‘world’ views. Get a grip and go argue with someone else that gives a crap.


----------



## Numb26

"Goes out the door and wonders who left this white horse tied up outside"


----------



## lifeistooshort

RebuildingMe said:


> Thank you! That reminds me, I have to update that thread. I’ve always said I believe in a lot of what the RP community teaches, but not all. After all, I’m in a LTR with a single mom, so I guess I’m already disqualified to some extent.
> 
> Yes, sorry OP for the t/j.


I too hope your ex gets what's coming to her.

She's a real piece of work.

My thoughts are with you.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Blondilocks said:


> Just curious. How many plates would a red piller be spinning if he told the women up front that he would not be monogamous? If he were totally honest with the women, wouldn't that negate the need to spin plates?


Exactly why you can almost always rest assured guys are lying to you on the subject. If the woman can tolerate it or live with it, don't marry him and keep your own other life going as well. I think it's fine if men or women want to stay single and sleep around, but they shouldn't break hearts and lead tender hearted people on. They should play in their own league with people who aren't young and naive and idealistic.


----------



## Enigma32

AGoodFlogging said:


> You haven't really answered the question on how many "plates" it is okay to spin. I'm sure you are stand up guy and would be open and honest with any woman you were dating, but you aren't dating multiple women (let's not dance around here, we are talking about undertaking multiple sexual relationships with women at the same time regardless of your protestation that it is not, we aren't talking about a few first dates here) at the moment so how much value is your opinion of the behaviour of men who are doing that and their morals and behaviour?


Let's see if I can explain a few things as I have consumed a lot of red pill content over the years.

Dating in Westernized cultures is a women's game. Ladies won. Just think about the relationship advice most men get. Use OLD, make sure you craft perfect messages and send them out to all women you're interested in and hope they deem you worthy of a reply. Plan an exciting date to give yourself better chances of a 2nd date. Make sure you pay for everything because if you're the guy not paying for dates, many women will call you cheap since they don't plan on doing anything other than pretending to reach for their wallet slightly slower than you do. If you do manage to score a relationship, you better continuously treat her like you are still in the honeymoon phase or else she will find someone who treats her better. If you get married, just keep in mind that at any time, your new wife can drag you into court and take your kids, your house, half your money, your retirement, and force you to pay her money for the next 1-2 decades. That's just reality.

What they usually suggest is to use dating rules against ladies. You don't have to lie to women to screw around. This is the age of so called female empowerment so most single ladies will blow you in the back seat of your car by the end of the 3rd date. You don't need to promise eternal love and offer a ring to get laid. If she likes you, you just need to show up. So, you learn to play the game and play it with as many women as you can because the only alternative is to give ladies the power to ruin your life. I think what bothers people the most about the whole red pill philosophy is that it actually works. If you use red pill dating tricks to get laid, it WILL work for you, as long as you aren't a completely horrific looking dude. If that stuff didn't work, people would just laugh at them and they'd go away.

Red pill content is meant to prepare men for reality. It teaches you about all that and gives you options on how to deal with it. Those options usually amount to giving up the relationship game altogether though, something I don't agree with, and IMO, the biggest flaw of red pill. I don't think the answer to the problems in modern dating is to make the situation worse but that's really all red pill stuff offers.


----------



## Goobertron

oldshirt said:


> I am not any pill.


The default is blue pill. A blue pill male has been conditioned by society to think that his primary value comes from working hard to provide for his woman. That's his way of providing value in the relationship. Happy wife, happy life. It's all about her needs - provide for her needs. You should be lucky to have that princess in your life. Beauty and the beast. That's the default, the social norm.

The sad part is that chances are any long term relationship will fail. Divorce is a ticking time bomb. Women are more likely to end a relationship than a man statistically because its in their self-interest to do so. When the UK enacted same-sex marriage laws they gathered stats on divorce. Female same sex relationships were the most likely to divorce. They broke up at a higher rate than heterosexual relationships, and the least likely relationships to divorce were male same-sex marriages. Men are easier to keep happy in a relationship.

So a move to red pill thinking is about reducing the financial and health impacts of long term relationships with modern women. Seeing things as they are rather than the popular myth of "love" being happily forever after. A red pill guy will try to focus on building his own value as a man to attract a mate and seek to bond with her as an equal rather than a guy paying for everything and compromising everything to try and make her happy. No one can make anyone truly happy. It has to come from within.


----------



## Goobertron

2&out said:


> I don't pay much attention to categorizing people but what little I do know about Red pill philosophy makes me want to ask this question. Why would red pill subscribers give a crap about bonding ?


He may want to improve his own value and worth as a man to attract a woman who will fit into his frame in a supportive way. The goal being to be in a relationship on fair, honest and equal terms. Then rather than "chase women" which doesn't work, he can attract women and date them safely in a way so as to check for "red flags" and avoid situations where the legal system enters the relationship. This is important as he could lose his assets, relationships (eg. kids) and mental health as a result. So it's bonding with eyes open to the fact that the man is taking on a very real risk.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Watch the series “Sex/Life” on Netflix and you’ll see exactly what many men are claiming here about a woman’s past behavior and her inability to settle down into a normal, monogamous relationship. Of course, it is Hollywood.


----------



## Torninhalf

RebuildingMe said:


> Watch the series “Sex/Life” on Netflix and you’ll see exactly what many men are claiming here about a woman’s past behavior and her inability to settle down into a normal, monogamous relationship. Of course, it is Hollywood.


I saw that come up on my recommended watching but it looks like it would be loaded with triggers. 😫


----------



## Livvie

Goobertron said:


> He may want to improve his own value and worth as a man to attract a woman who will fit into his frame in a supportive way. The goal being to be in a relationship on fair, honest and equal terms. Then rather than "chase women" which doesn't work, he can attract women and date them safely in a way so as to check for "red flags" and avoid situations where the legal system enters the relationship. This is important as he could lose his assets, relationships (eg. kids) and mental health as a result. So it's bonding with eyes open to the fact that the man is taking on a very real risk.


I can't roll my eyes hard enough at this one at some of the terms used.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Torninhalf said:


> I saw that come up on my recommended watching but it looks like it would be loaded with triggers. 😫


Lots of triggers, especially the last episode for any betrayed men. Lots of sex and nudity with the main characters. I wasn’t triggered until the last scene, the last episode and the last three words spoken out of our very promiscuous main character wifey. The target audience is women, but my gf liked the sex and turned me on to it. I don’t think I will be watching season two.

On a side note, the two main characters are dating in real life. She met him on set, just a month after her separation from her husband. She’s already in character in her real life. She’s not a person I root for on the show. No guy would.


----------



## Al_Bundy

All pills aside, an object in motion tends to stay in motion. If someone has had a lot of partners, why would I expect to be "the one" to stop that trend? I wouldn't.


----------



## Torninhalf

RebuildingMe said:


> Lots of triggers, especially the last episode for any betrayed men. Lots of sex and nudity with the main characters. I wasn’t triggered until the last scene, the last episode and the last three words spoken out of our very promiscuous main character wifey. The target audience is women, but my gf liked the sex and turned me on to it. I don’t think I will be watching season two.
> 
> On a side note, the two main characters are dating in real life. She met him on set, just a month after her separation from her husband. She’s already in character in her real life. She’s not a person I root for on the show. No guy would.


I’m going to take a hard pass on it. Looks like more than I could handle. 😂


----------



## frenchpaddy

RebuildingMe said:


> Lots of triggers, especially the last episode for any betrayed men. Lots of sex and nudity with the main characters. I wasn’t triggered until the last scene, the last episode and the last three words spoken out of our very promiscuous main character wifey. The target audience is women, but my gf liked the sex and turned me on to it. I don’t think I will be watching season two.
> 
> On a side note, the two main characters are dating in real life. She met him on set, just a month after her separation from her husband. She’s already in character in her real life. She’s not a person I root for on the show. No guy would.


I watched it as well and did not get the same take on it as you , for me the story was that the wife never fully got over one ex both him and her had strong feeling for each other I think it had little to with their promiscuous past ,


----------



## RebuildingMe

frenchpaddy said:


> I watched it as well and did not get the same take on it as you , for me the story was that the wife never fully got over one ex both him and her had strong feeling for each other I think it had little to with their promiscuous past ,


I get that but she was the party girl who married the beta provider but went back to the alpha, Chad Thundercock. Despite having the perfect life with the beta.


----------



## frenchpaddy

RebuildingMe said:


> I get that but she was the party girl who married the beta provider but went back to the alpha, Chad Thundercock. Despite having the perfect life with the beta.


 yes true and if I can think of the story was the husband neglecting her and the other pushed , any way yes it does have a kind of link to the topic


----------



## CountryMike

RebuildingMe said:


> I get that but she was the party girl who married the beta provider but went back to the alpha, Chad Thundercock. Despite having the perfect life with the beta.


Chad Thundercock. Now that's funny. 🤣🤣🤣


----------

