Translation: > 300
And then people wonder why women avoid posting here…
Is the former not indicative of the latter? (Not a rhetorical question. I’d actually like to hear some opinions.)
That’s true , the way you connect with each other is rather far more imp than the number of partners he/she had before… The mutual trust, connectivity, the way people treat each other, honesty, transparency etc is more imp… I wouldn’t rly care about someone’s past unless there are some obvious red flags or number of partners exceeding 10. I agree 10 is a lot but I would give the benefit of doubt and prefer knowing the person myself… But yea anything more than 10 is a no no…
all that being said my question is how do you actually know the number of partners someone has had before… It’s obvious that he /she won’t come and tell you “hey you’re my 11th partner”
+1
no, because it means the guy is trying to evaluate the girl based on one of the points being the number of partners she had which shouldn’t be at least the first parameter of evaluation… It can be the last and the not that imp one…
ofcourse that being said >10 would be a red flag
There are plenty of other ways to learn the core values of a person and see if they are compatible to yours.
^true
KMYC say she only been with like 4-5 brothas, so you know you gotta multiply by 3.
The real question is how many is too little? Four?
Interesting…We have hard time figuring out the “number” of the person we are dating and spending so much time with while you know her number just based on her posts. Bravo!
^
Chill out, studmuffin is awesome.
I just know the number of brothers.
Absolutely, though I suspect you are missing the forest for the trees so to speak. No one is advocating being ‘obsessed’ with the number but learning the core values of a person in the begining is intuition and no matter how good we are at it, a persons past is one of the most tangible aspects we can use to judge his / her moral compass.
Hypothetically speaking, you ‘connect’ with a guy or whatever and you’re seeing him for 6 months. You haven’t met him through mutual friends and after 6 months you find out however that he has had no prior long term relationship and his ‘number’ is >30. He has no experience on how to make a relationship work, you can assume he basically has no idea on how to compromise nada nada. Sure in a ideal world he’d figure it out as you both went along but at that point when you aren’t so invested, do you cut your losses?
Nothing is more ancillary towards core value than promiscusity.
With that said, I’d never partner another who has more notches than I do. The same should be said about everyone.
Monogomy for the monogamous. This is strictly true for women more so than men, for evolutionary reasons.
To the guys who live in large enough cities like NYC… if 10+ is a red flag for you… Good luck lol. Assuming shes in mid 20’s and has been active since 17ish, let’s not get naive here.
The average number of sexual partners a man has is higher than a woman because the top 20% of men increase that average. If you look at the median number, women have a higher number especially in urban centers. Women’s numbers are more proportionally dispersed than men’s. Men’s numbers are top heavy with the top having slept with several hundreds and thousands of women and the bottom are in virgin territory. Pick a random individual from the street walking downtown in a major center, and I’d put my money on the woman having more sexual partners.
A man doesn’t just turn a light switch and becomes a player. He has to possess the skills to pull it off and beat out his competition as women are the more selective sex. They (women) rarely sleep with someone below their league.
The 80/20 rule applies to men.
Basically, 80% of men are genetic trash not fit for reproduction. This is a fact that is taboo in society. You don’t need to be good at pickups or a smooth talker, that PUA bullshit is a con for unfit men to score lays. Even though they might get laid through the ‘numbers’ game, they ultimately end up with the women from the bottom of the barrel who would sleep with anything that moves. The world is not ready for the truth, and it never will be, imagine the outrage it will cause. Religion, capitalism and the media does a good job at keeping the public sane through corporate slavery, marriage, personality and love.
It sounds absurd when you used to believe that there is someone for everyone. Being bald, short, low testosterone, ethnic, asymmetrical, or any other common trait is a sexual death sentence to most men. In the hunter-gatherer period more than 10,000 years ago, it was extremely common for males to father children that weren’t theirs. It’s just how nature is. Women have been promised and genetically programed to seek out the best interest of our species. They want the best possible genetic recombination to create better odds of healthier, and attractive offspring with a high chance of procreation. This is why when a woman finds a guy attractive, there is a very big chance that all women find him attractive as well.
Men demand a hot women, as men need to be aroused to have sex. But women also need to be aroused to have sex. A woman does not need to be aroused to get pregnant. But it isn’t a good idea to take a woman against her will in today’s society. This is currently compensated with money and status. She will give you babies if you can provide her with resources. But she will cheat on you with a more attractive male given the chance.
Your analysis doesn’t make sense, FT (admittedly, this criticism also applies to my original analysis). Yes, there will be some with extraordinarily high numbers, but the average will be dragged down by the number of Demi-virgins they displace. For each heterosexual pairing, there’s a man and a woman. If the population of men and women are about the same, the averages should be the same, since we are not measuring number of sex acts, but instead, number of unique partners. For every new unique partner a man has, it means a woman has also gotten a new unique partner. If the number of men is the same as the number of women (assuming 50:50 M:F split), then the average number of unique partners must be the same, no matter how skewed the distribution.
The possibility of threesomes might skew this, except for the fact that there are generally more MMF threesomes in practice than FFM. [Edit: I said this with too much certainty… my hypothesis is that there are ‘probably’ more MMF than FFM]
A simpler explanation is simply, “lying.” Men inflate the number they say they’ve slept with, and women deflate it.
FT, looks like Mr.Smart is giving you competition for jading krnyc’s heart.