# POLL: Would you take a girl serious if she has a high body count?



## Packmangdi (Sep 1, 2021)

Speak up, fellow men. I need this for my podcast! Thank you in advance!


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Packmangdi said:


> Speak up, fellow men. I need this for my podcast! Thank you in advance!


This has been discussed many times, to death


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Of course I would it would be hypocritical not to.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I always thought that body count referred to something different than partner count.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Lyudmila Pavlichenko had a high body count, and was married. So I can't imagine why anyone would consider a high body count, to preclude a woman form being taken seriously as wife material.


----------



## Jamieboy (Jan 14, 2021)

Contextualising my response, if she was 18 and had triple digits then yes, if she was 40 then no


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Who would take a man seriously who refers to women as "girls"?

Unless they are referring to teens or something, and that's just gross to be thinking about a teenager's sex partner count and marrying that teen right now.


----------



## uwe.blab (May 2, 2019)

What is a 'high body count'?


----------



## uphillbattle (Aug 17, 2011)

Three basic outlooks on this.
She has seen the field and has decided I was best in show.
There is no way I can measure up to that.
She is dirty and not trustworthy.

I would bet most people who would claim the third one are actually in the second group.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

What do you mean by - take seriously?

I wouldn't judge them as a bad person, if that is what you mean.

Would I enter into a relationship with them? For me, I purposely had a low count because of my feelings about sex, I wanted it to be about love and connection, and I wanted someone who felt the same way. I said that very early in the dating process and also lost out on a lot of fun times. However if I were to ever be in a position to date now given I am almost 20 years older, I think I would have to be realistic.

I think if we are talking about hookup culture then I would be wary. Seems to me, in hookup culture, both sexes use sex as a way to gauge their worth. For me I think sex is about really about intimacy, so if you are using sex as a lure, like a dress or a nice car, as a way to attract a mate, I am going to be wary. I think often times a high count can be a sign that this is the persons way of assessing their attractiveness or worthiness (again this happens for both sexes). I believe for a lot of people that doesn't go away, so that would make me wary about choosing them as a mate. If a guy feels like he gets his status from his sex count, how does he square that with fidelity in marriage? Does that become a crutch that he loses that therefore leads to challenges for him? How many women say they cheated because they didn't feel attractive anymore, well for many of these women, before when they were single one of the primary ways they were able to attract mates was to use the potential of sex and one of the ways they kept them was with sex. This is one of the tools in their toolbox and they seem to go right back to it when they are feeling insecure. This is why I would probably pass.

Now there are people who are capable of thinking of it as just like having coffee with someone. I would be less wary about those folks, but I suspect those folks tell you that right away, don't hide their count. Two people who think this way seem like a reasonable match. That wouldn't work for me, but that is OK. I think they are a perfectly fine choice for others.

So what I am saying is it's less about count and more about your feelings about sex and being on the same page.

Lastly there are people, men in particularly that have a high count themselves but want someone with a low count. To me this is more about insecurity and not wanting to compete. That is just hypocritical and a red flag. For this women with a high count she would do better to dump this guy as soon as it becomes an issue, he is not a good choice. But everyone might also do well to really think about why they have a high count and if it's for healthy reason or more about using your sexuality to give yourself value. That is a slippery slope in my mind.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

uwe.blab said:


> What is a 'high body count'?


Through circa 10 months Lyudmila Pavlichenko was credited with 309 kills.


----------



## Hiner112 (Nov 17, 2019)

If I was dating someone that has had a lot of relationships, I would probably dig into her personality and motivations past and present.

Is she unstable and perpetually unsatisfied?

Does she usually pick men that aren't long term relationship material? (then why is she with me now?)

If she 'had her fun' and is ready to 'settle down' does that mean that she's not going to have fun with me or is she going to get bored in a couple years?

If she doesn't consider sex a big deal, would she be able to understand that I might think it is in our relationship?

If I'm dating someone that has had lots of partners and wondering if they are long tern relationship material I'd take some time making sure to them I was "the one" and not just "the next one".

And as for what is a 'high body count', my rule of thumb would be "do you remember all of their names?".


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

Hiner112 said:


> And as for what is a 'high body count', my rule of thumb would be "do you remember all of their names?".


My count is 2 and I fail that one!


----------



## 2&out (Apr 16, 2015)

I do not care about "body count" in the slightest and it isn't something I'd spend any time thinking about.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

We're told to "sow your oats" and get it out of your system before getting into a serious relationship. This applies to women as well, IMO, but a double standard continues to exist.


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

Married but Happy said:


> We're told to "sow your oats" and get it out of your system before getting into a serious relationship. This applies to women as well, IMO, but a double standard continues to exist.


Yes, it is a double standard (to an extent). And that’s because men and women are different, and men and women select for different qualities in a spouse/long-term relationship.

You can hate reality and you can curse reality, but you ignore it at your own peril.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

DudeInProgress said:


> Yes, it is a double standard (to an extent). And that’s because men and women are different, and men and women select for different qualities in a spouse/long-term relationship.
> 
> You can hate reality and you can curse reality, but you ignore it at your own peril.


They are indeed different, but some of the difference is due to biased social standards and indoctrination, some of which leads to misogyny and increases violence against women. In some things, this inequality should be changed, IMO.


----------



## Jeffsmith35 (Apr 8, 2021)

On one hand, she would be experienced. But even then, that is no indication of skill level. On the other hand, Tarzan behavior indicates perpetual inability to be satisfied, which tends to doom any future relationship she enters into. Even if you're supposedly the "best she's ever had", she probably thought that about one of her exes before you and is wondering if there's a better one after you yet to be discovered 🤔.


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

Married but Happy said:


> They are indeed different, but some of the difference is due to biased social standards and indoctrination, some of which leads to misogyny and increases violence against women. In some things, this inequality should be changed, IMO.


With respect, these are all nebulous platitudes and ideological/emotional fluff.

The reality is that men and women select for different qualities based on their own preference and choice. And that’s ok.

And on average, the majority of men (as far as I can tell) prefer women that have not been overly promiscuous (how one defines that will be subjective) when selecting for LTR/marriage. And that’s also ok.

We’re all free human beings and we get to make our own choices.
Women are free to be as promiscuous as they want, but they should recognize the reality that they’ll probably find themselves less attractive marriage candidates for many men. Some men don’t care, cool. Many do, also cool.

And that’s not misogynistic or oppressive to women, it’s just the reality of human intersexual dynamics and selection trends.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

DudeInProgress said:


> With respect, these are all nebulous platitudes and ideological/emotional fluff.
> 
> The reality is that men and women select for different qualities based on their own preference and choice. And that’s ok.
> 
> ...


I'm not disagreeing that this IS the case, I'm saying that we're indoctrinating men with this puritanical view of women's sexuality, and also that society is largely okay with the double standard, but should not be.


----------



## Jamieboy (Jan 14, 2021)

Married but Happy said:


> I'm not disagreeing that this IS the case, I'm saying that we're indoctrinating men with this puritanical view of women's sexuality, and also that society is largely okay with the double standard, but should not be.


Sorry I think you're wrong, this is a judgement based on someone's actions not an immutable characteristic. So each individual is free to make their own call. The same holds for women


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Jamieboy said:


> Sorry I think you're wrong, this is a judgement based on someone's actions not an immutable characteristic. So each individual is free to make their own call. The same holds for women


Then we'll have to disagree. If people are taught racial bias, and act on that, should they be free to make that call? This actually harms someone. Promiscuity (or simply a high partner count) does not harm anyone, just as being a person of color does not harm anyone. But judging someone for past actions (that may no longer occur) can harm that person. Of course everyone can - and does - decide for themselves, but often their decisions are based on erroneous or biased social conditioning, and I think _that_ is what should change.


----------



## Al_Bundy (Mar 14, 2021)

It's an indicator. It's something to make you stop and look deeper. You said wife (bad idea in the US) but I'll play along. For a wife you would want someone loyal. If this person has a new love of their life every few months then that's a red flag. That's not loyalty if they are always in a new "relationship"


----------



## DudeInProgress (Jun 10, 2019)

Married but Happy said:


> I'm not disagreeing that this IS the case, I'm saying that we're indoctrinating men with this puritanical view of women's sexuality, and also that society is largely okay with the double standard, but should not be.


You’re entitled to your opinion, we differ completely.

Men are not being indoctrinated to prefer non-promiscuous women for marriage - that’s the natural preference for many, if not most.

The indoctrination being pushed is try to convince men that they are wrong and bad if their standards and preferences include not wanting to marry promiscuous women. 
But the programming isn’t taking, and many (I suspect the majority) men are refusing to accept the program.

So here we are, with one group of folks telling everyone how they “should” feel/react, what behaviors and qualities they “should” accept in relationship partners, and what they “should” choose for their own lives.
And another group saying here’s the reality of how certain choices can impact you down the road. Be advised, and go make your own choices as you see fit.


----------



## Jamieboy (Jan 14, 2021)

Married but Happy said:


> Then we'll have to disagree. If people are taught racial bias, and act on that, should they be free to make that call? This actually harms someone. Promiscuity (or simply a high partner count) does not harm anyone, just as being a person of color does not harm anyone. But judging someone for past actions (that may no longer occur) can harm that person. Of course everyone can - and does - decide for themselves, but often their decisions are based on erroneous or biased social conditioning, and I think _that_ is what should change.



Clearly you didn't understand my previous post; being a person of colour is an immutable characteristic, and so judgements should not be made, however previous conduct is often used as an indicator of future conduct, and as such you are free to use that information however you choose without some preachy person telling you how to think.

Evidence judgment vs preconceptions, you see the difference?

To give a very blunt example, would you consider someone's past criminal record for repeated theft, when deciding to give them a job as a bank cashier? 

I would fully expect, a woman to use the same information when selecting a male partner.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Married but Happy said:


> We're told to "sow your oats" and get it out of your system before getting into a serious relationship. This applies to women as well, IMO, but a double standard continues to exist.


Who tells you that?


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

@Packmangdi If you want to do research for your podcast on TAM, I'd suggest you ask though official channels,please.


----------

