What to expect from used goods?

Imagine referring to women as "used goods".

Or caring how many guys a fictional woman supposedly slept with, lol.

Imagine referring to women as "used goods".

Or caring how many guys a fictional woman supposedly slept with, lol.

@Dracowyn If it's just fiction, why so angry about it?

In fact, why are you even on a forum if you have no interest in discussion?

Take your own advice.

@EyeAmTheI

Hey if you all had high counts and it worked out, good for you all. There are also countless stories online about spouses who had colorful pasts divorcing their other half, cheating, asking for open marriages, etc and there are studies done on body count and divorce statistics. It's also not like purity is the only standard either, like after you reveal your pasts then you'll probably date for a much longer period where you see how their personalities and other more complex aspects are, and if there's any red flags then you break up with them. All that can be done without sleeping with each other.

@Dhx379 do you happen to have links to said studies? I'd love to read about them

@EyeAmTheI

Hey if you all had high counts and it worked out, good for you all. There are also countless stories online about spouses who had colorful pasts divorcing their other half, cheating, asking for open marriages, etc and there are studies done on body count and divorce statistics. It's also not like purity is the only standard either, like after you reveal your pasts then you'll probably date for a much longer period where you see how their personalities and other more complex aspects are, and if there's any red flags then you break up with them. All that can be done without sleeping with each other.

@Azuyorou You have Keyaru as your favourite. Rapists roots from here.

@Dhx379

I think the point being made is that you cannot reduce people to a single statistic. The behavior of the person matters much more than inquiring about their sexual history, and that encouraging young men to focus on this is counterproductive in lieu of actually spending time with someone. having the term "body counts" actually contributes to the problem more than it helps. Again, if someone is 26 and had say an orgy or a few flings in middle school, that is a child being stupid, and I think you are stupid to focus on it as if it mattered.

Can you imagine asking someone for their entire sexuual history not in the last decade, and pretending that their sloppy blowjob in middle school is somehow relevant? Children do stupid shit all the time.



Acting as if their behavior in middle school is relevant to the person that they are at 26 is complete puritanical rubbish compared to I don't know...actually spending time with the person?



There is no reason to have the term "slut" or "whore" other than to shame women for their sex lives. It is not simply a a descriptive term as you seem to claim, it is a pejorative that deems your preferences on sexual activity to be the only acceptable preferences. The term literally exists to shame women for not following traditional values of relationships, often exalting relationships which put the women in second class positions.

This attitude also encourages women to not disclose their recent sexual history because it is viewed as a bad thing. I don't see simplu having multiple sexual partners as immoral. If it is consensual, than why criticize a random woman for it? It goes beyond negative connotations because it is women having premarital sex with multiple men is bad, claiming that this is immoral, regardless of the relationship between the woman and the man using it. Men who tend to use these terms frequently are the weirdos who do care about women in general having greater sexual freedom. (They also tend to be single)

Individual desirability is perhaps one thing, and you are entitled to your preferences, but I take issue with shaming others for not following traditional values who are not actually harming anyone. Let people live their lives.

In any case, it is a pretty complex topic.



You are right, a majority do not, but there is a growing subsection of men who do lambaste women for not following these traditional values. I think if you agree then that no one should care how a random woman their life, you should also agreed that men who obsess over female promiscuity not as an outcome of a free society but something to criticize as "morally wrong" need to get their heads checked. I hardly ever seen a man use either terms that was not obsessed with curtailing individual freedom for the opposite sex.



The thing here is that divorce becoming more common is not necessarily a bad thing. While perhaps some of this can be chalked up to growing social differences and more progressive attitudes, I think what is truly occuring is that people are no longer staying in unhappy or unfulfilling marriages because they no longer have to and there is a lower social disincentive to not divorce. Catholicism is notorious for having many adherents remain in unhappy marriages because surprise, Catholicism is against divorce.



People being able to separate should be a good thing due to these differences in religion and sexual predilection is a GOOD thing. The researcher themselves said that individual differences are the most relevant thing. What is more concerning is this.



1-8 sexual partners is a wide range that covers a ton of demographics and lies way above the usually report medians for both men and women. In short, this is not any different than saying "people with an unusually high number of divorces are more likely to get divorced earlier". Well, okay...I think that should be somewhat intuitive. A small minority of either sex has 9 or more partners.

In addition, the Institute for Family Studies leans very conservative from what I can tell. I think you should use scientific journals rather than ripping papers from Thinktanks and Organizations like them.

Also, protip.



As much as I do think datings can reveal some issues with society, I think you'll find that the women who use dating apps and women in general are very different, and can even differ across apps. Tinder is not representative of either sex. In addition, again, I have not seen many women haranguing others on their height to the point of saying "do not be short". I certainly am not 6 feet, but I also have not been harassed for it either. Seriously, take dating apps with a grain of salt. I am also an Asian male, one of the more discriminated groups in terms of romance, so yeah. No one ever came after me demanding I'd be white, at least in this context.

So why should we shame women for sleeping around? And why focus on sexual history from over, say, a decade ago in lieu of their current behavior?



There is a key difference between wanting a partner to fit your criteria and then demanding everyone else to fit your criteria. You are in fact lambasting women with a moral judgement here, and what even worst is the fact that your study does not consider sex and gender. So yeah, don't call random women sluts or "used goods", and let them live their lives.

Notice that I am not actually disagreeing with the factual basis of your claims, be it "body count" and "height" but rather the conclusions you draw from it. I think the best question we can both ask ourselves is whether or not a more equitable society should seek to decrease the divorce rate, and I think this is ultimately where we disagree. I don't think lower divorce rates equals more happier marriages, just longer lasting ones, and I rather people be more free to split up rather than stay in the first relationships they have gotten themselves into. Eye said it best, experience is pretty great if someone learns from it, and woman cannot have experiences if they discouraged from having them.

The other thing is that you are arguing essentially arguing, albeit indirectly, that men should stay in relationships with women they disagree with or are unhappy with by focusing on higher divorce rates as if it were a bad thing for either men or women. This is untenable to me.

@Makall If favoriting a criminal is the same as a criminal, you may be right. Then I would favorite your mom, and Id be happy to be your father

@Azuyorou Hey man, just using your own logic.

@Makall literally same

@Azuyorou I'm glad you agree that your logic is non-sensical.

I hope you've now learned how to separate fiction from reality.

this could've been them

@Mitsurae Oh I LOVE the women that are nice, kind, loyal, NOT sluts. And they get even more important because there's much fewer of them around.

@Leonhart93 so ur not going to get laid when the hottest supermodel wants to have your babies? the girl is not a slut if she was she would not go along with the mc.

Lmao, these guys be talking about marriage as if it's a holy grail every woman should aspire to, and oh no, they'd miss out so much in life if they don't marry someone who calls people used goods.

And some honesty believe the body count somehow correlates with loyalty... There are about the same chances an inexperienced girl would cheat if she has curiosity in sex and wants to gain experience. You all so hang up on being the first, but that gives you absolutely no guarantee you'd be the last.

Lmao, these guys be talking about marriage as if it's a holy grail every woman should aspire to, and oh no, they'd miss out so much in life if they don't marry someone who calls people used goods.

And some honesty believe the body count somehow correlates with loyalty... There are about the same chances an inexperienced girl would cheat if she has curiosity in sex and wants to gain experience. You all so hang up on being the first, but that gives you absolutely no guarantee you'd be the last.

@Ten Absolutely not, you pulled that out of your *ss. Sex is not an act that is completely separated from feelings, especially for women.
There are actual studies that show great correlation between a woman's body count and satisfaction within a marriage 10 years later. For virgins it was very high, the likelihood of being happy and satisfied was 70-80%. But it drops sharply as the number of sexual partners before marriage increase, and 10+ is like bellow 25% chances of being satisfied. Hence the insane divorce rate of today.
Explanation: women can't really separate sex from feelings and at some point there will be some men that she can't forget and will compare her current relationship with those all the time, until she wakes up one day saying "I am not happy", which inevitably results in either cheating or divorce.
But for virgins they fell it love with their first and stayed in love with him.

@Leonhart93 How about looking at an individual, their personality and building a mutual trust with a person, instead of operating with percentages and clinging to misogynistic beliefs?

And since you mentioned actual studies, please state your sources. They better be from an actual peer-reviewed journal, not a blog article written by a random male bigot.

@Ten Promiscuity is one of the most telling personality traits, to think that it doesn't matter is dumb. Society these days pushes the most retarded concepts and those that are gullible fall for all of them.
Promiscuity reveals shallowness, poor impulse control, decision making and excitement seeking and hedonism. Anyone with a brain would draw such obvious conclusion. And none of that makes good marriage material. So get out of here with your poor attempts at shaming, you will never make someone accept sluts with such worthless attempts.

@Leonhart93 Are you seriously equating a non-virgin to a slut?

Promiscuity reveals only the fact of multiple sexual partners; the circumstances and personalities of such people may differ. Anyone with a brain wouldn't jump to generalising just based on preconceived notions. While in some cases it could pose a valid concern, virginity isn't something to put on a pedestal either.

@EyeAmTheI No, I was not talking about you or anyone specific, I was talking about women in general. And I would not consider just talking as being part of any of that, it would be ridiculous. I was very much referring to sexual relationships.
In fact, I consider the women that evaluate men for longer and keep assessing them in the talking stage very smart.

And yeah, I do have an array of ways to test them even if they should happen to be dishonest about their dating patterns.
The secret is to not openly judge them so that they would feel comfortable spilling the beans, although funnily enough women probably have the idea that men don't care about their past EXACTLY because men on dates pretend to not care in order for them to get what they want 😅

@Leonhart93



Yeah despite how much women claim that their count doesn't matter, they'll often lie to men about their actual count if they want something serious with that man and thinks it matters to him. They'll usually lie that they have 1-3 partners though, so if you're looking for 0 then usually you're fine. You'll probably be dating them long term too so you'll find out eventually if they actually lied through behavior, friends/family, inconsistent stories, etc.

@Ten And by the same token there is an insurmountable difference between promiscuous women and those that had one or two serious relationships. In this day and age where the average woman racks up a pattern of getting smashed as a sport, virginity and low body counts do indicate the best kinds of traits oriented towards relationships and actually intending to keep a partner for long term.

@Leonhart93 Virginity and low body count could also indicate asexuality without orientation towards relationship at all. Or if there is intention to find a long term partner they'd be inevitably met with demands to have sex because "that's what dating means" and then dumped because men got dissatisfied with the girl who doesn't want it or only treats it as a duty.

The number of short-term relationships can stem from myriad of reasons, and at least half of them caused by men. The same men who preach about virginity would look at a 30+ adult woman automatically expecting experience to satisfy their stupid porn fantasies, and if she turns out to be a virgin, who didn't date much for whatever reason, they'd look at her as if something is definitely wrong with her, because surely she should have been long married to some guy who worships virginity.

We keep saying "them, they, they" and clearly there can be a lot of assumptions with different angles to it. Life isn't limited only to your 30-times-anecdotes from men. I know just as many anecdotes about women who say "I'm not happy" because their husbands don't treat them well, don't bother to communicate, look at other women, etc. etc. but of course men can't just admit their mistakes or accept a blow to their ego, so they'd say it was all wife's fault because she's a slut who got bored and suddenly remembered her previous crush. As if a sudden dreaded "I'm not happy" isn't a clear indication of poor communication and something being wrong in the current relationship, both wife and husband responsible for.

@PeripheralVision



I'm not reducing anything. I'm examining a single factor and how it impacts divorce and marriage. I never said purity should be the end all be all of selecting who to marry either, merely a potential filter.



There are also studies that show that the younger the age someone loses their virginity at, the higher the divorce rate. I'm not going into this further as talking about children and orgies is disgusting.



It's becoming a circular discussion at this point. Would you rather me spend more words saying "person with alot of casual sex partners" instead of slut? Because they mean literally the same thing. Women who aren't ashamed of being promiscuous also will not care about being called sluts. If they are, then that's a consequence of their actions.



Divorce is absolutely a bad thing, especially for men. You can look up numerous sources online saying that the family courts are absolutely stacked against men, especially in no fault states. Children growing up in separate parent households or even worse a single parent households often do alot worse too. Divorce should absolutely not be celebrated in any way.



There's actually a wide range in terms of what people consider to be the median/average. From what I can find it's 5-10, which is reasonably in the range. Yes thats the point. Its a very large dataset that is supposed to cover a wide variety of demographics. There are tons of other studies done on divorce focusing on those demographics themselves. The point of this is to show that body count is singificant in predicting divorce when trained on a large, randomly sampled dataset.

If you want to examine sources of bias in a scientific study, you look at how and where the data was collected.

The data for this study come from the first, third, and fourth waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) (https://addhealth.cpc.unc.edu/) (Harris et al., 2019)."

As far as I know, there's no bias whatsoever from the data source, and unless you think regression models can be purposefully made to be biased, you're deluding yourself.



"Sage publishes a rapidly growing list of Gold Open Access journals. All articles are rigorously peer-reviewed retaining the quality hallmarks of the academic publishing process that authors would experience in publishing in any traditional Sage journal."



Well you honed in on the dating apps point but the dates point still stands. If you think that women are indifferent to how tall a guy is, again you're deluding yourself. You have the entirety of the internet to look for proof.



Lol I don't care whatsoever how a random woman lives her life. If she wants to have fun and sleep around, who the hell cares it's her life. I can, however, have standards, justify those standards, and inform others about the risks of dating a promiscuous woman. I can also call her a slut because that's what she literally is. I have no problem calling a man whore a man whore either. Whatever negative connotations you have of words like slut should also apply to its meaning. If I say she has multiple casual sex partners, would that offend you?



Sure. If you get rid of no fault divorce, divorce lawyers, and the horrendous family court system and also minimize the impact of what divorce will do to a couple's kids, then sure. Divorce isn't a big deal anymore. All those things however, make divorce an utterly miserable scenario for men so men should therefore minimize the risk of it.



That depends entirely on the reason why they are unhappy. Most of the time unless someone cheats or asks for some dumb shit like an open marriage, those problems are fixable whether by themselves or some counseling. That's also a small subset too. Considering the percent of couples who reported to have a happy marriage us around 70-80% and 50% of marriages on average end in divorce, you're looking at about 10-15％ of total marriages.

@Makall Weren't you the one who brought up Keyaru? I didn't state any fictional character. Unless your mother is not real

If you could use the phrase "she has multiple casual sexual partners", then yeah, that would be accurate. I do not think you realize how women do differentiate between a pejorative like slut and a descriptor like "someone with multiple casual sexual partners". We see distinction between words that may appear to be synonyms but otherwise have different contexts.

"Slant-eyed" may describe some Asians, but it is an offensive term for a reason: part of this is because the historical use of the term considers it having slant-eye features a bad or undesirable thing and it reduces someone to a single physical descriptor. Trying to defend the use of the word slut in the manner you are doing is not at all different than someone trying to defend their usage of calling me "slant-eyed".

This is also an issue with using many other terms in an insulting manner, such as gay or retarded which while proper in some usages are improper in others; calling a gay man "gay" during a fight is going to have different connotations than saying to someone else that said gay man is gay. Maybe our experiences differ, but people will react negatively to some terms and not others. "Retarded" and "intellectually disabled/individual with an intellectual disability" are technically synonyms, but "retarded" has fell out of common/medical parlance precisely because it is used as an insult. Likewise, "slut" and "she has multiple casual sexual partners" are going to elicit very different responses, and that largely has to do with what group of people are using those terms and why.

Or in essence, I am discouraging you from using the term because despite your intentions, people are not going to understand that anymore than "negro" vs "black person". If you want to avoid being called a bigot, do not use the language of bigots. "Wonderful example of positive masculinity" is after all quite different than the term "alpha male", regardless of how the manosphere wants to spin it.

Yes, using the historical term negro makes you sound fucking racist. Yes, calling me "slant-eyed" makes you sound fucking racist. Yes, calling women a "slut" makes you sound like a misogynist. You are ultimately judged by the company of your peers, after all, and the language you use can determine how you are received. You can say the same thing in Chauncer's Middle English and the same in modern English, but one of them makes you sound like a tool.



I mean, women aren't, you are correct. Height is a pretty big factor The thing I always tell young men is that in bars or clubs and whatnot, women cannot swipe left on you in a bar and make you disappear. Attraction is holistic for both sexes.



The point I am making regarding dating apps is that you cannot use the height preferences many women have and compare them to the reality of women being policed for sexual behavior outside of chasity. One is a superficial preference, the other is using social disapproval to further bully and shame women for their behavior. This goes BEYOND PREFERENCE, BUT BEING CONTROLLING.

Are you suggesting that there aren't men out there that call every women who ever had sex once "sluts"? That women are shamed for daring to have premarital sex or to be divorced and expressing sexual desires and so forth? You might think that perhaps these men are using the term "sluts" too loosely, but in my opinion I think the issue is using the term "sluts" period. We have terms for people who aren't marriage material. Cheaters. Unfaithful. Backstabbers. Adulterers. Hell, use the gender neutral term assholes. My point is, maybe don't use the term misogynistic men like Andrew Tate have used like "sluts" or "used goods" or as my teacher said "if you do not want to be seen as a Nazi, then do not act like a Nazi".



I wasn't really commenting on the Sage articles, and even then, I would argue if they were by the same author to have this study being observed by multiple other researchers. That is simply good practice, especially since sociology and psychology has had a reckoning that I and many others have to come to terms with regarding the repeatability of prior studies.



I am not contesting that, but I am contesting what we take from the data, and I argue your approach is at minimium stupid and at most extremely harmful and destructive. Firstly, at what point would I inquire about this sort of sexual history compared to say, the last two years?

No matter how you look at it, it is irrelevant to most people in those relationships to ever inquire about middle school or high school. Secondly, at what point would I inquire about this? I argue that if someone is unfaithful or not "marriage matterial", there are many more important things to focus on in terms of current behavior. The past can only go so far back, which brings up an interesting point.

Children who engage in sexually activity at this age tend to come from less stable backgrounds if I recall correctly. Your approach seems to focus on the correlative as if it were causative. I argue that it is inconclusive, honestly.

In essence, as much as I am a fan of studies and data, they alone cannot substitute for actual dating advice and knowhow. You simply cannot rely on statistics alone to tell if someone is right or wrong for you. Relationships are highly interpersonal. That is my major point of contention with your focus on statistics. I argue that in the end, whether or not someone had a sloppy blowjob in middle or high school is irrelevant to the type of person they are now. After all, people with juvenile records are the group most likely to commit crimes as adults. That doesn't mean we should make juvenile serve life sentences or have them wear ankle monitors. Rather, these people ought to be judged as individuals, not a statistic.

This is just Hume's Law at work. You cannot prove an "ought", and you cannot argue for an "ought" solely on "what is". I am arguing that your "what is" cannot justify your proposed "ought", or that your focusing on "what is" is perhaps indirectly encouraging a stupid and short-sighted"ought", you saying that we ought to judge others by this given the data and general observed trend.

There is not enough nuance here.

It is just so weird to see people rely on statistics at the expense of everything else. Understanding statistics is a field in itself.



I mean, not everyone has children, and many times divorce is a means for women to escape abusive relationships which were swept under the rug. In fact, I would argue the issue here is that men and women are becoming parents, or divorce courts favoring women over men. I think the easy solution is for both parties to sign a prenup, but divorce is not a bad thing for either sex in lieu of forced marriages. I do think it could be more equitable, but this is no reason to make divorce more inaccessible indirectly or otherwise.

I personally think people should be able to exit relationships for any reason. This is not to say I agree with said reason, but that a more equitable society is going to have divorce as an option. No one stays in a relationship they are forced into.



It doesn't really appear "useful" in the sense that it looks at extreme outliers in thhe binary sense. There is a study earlier where I look at how results were clustered on the extreme end, with the claim being made that it demonstrates a linear or expontential trend of "more of X equals more of Y". The issue is that you cannot extrapolate data from this extreme subset because we essentially only made two data points.

The table itself seems to prove my point here. People who have taken virginity pledges are at greater risk of divorce, seemingly comparable to those with deliquent behavior.

Likewise, I would argue people who sleep around with an incredible amount of people is one thing, but the determining the trend of a comparison of a person having three sexual partners versus one are less than apparent compared to say 20. Is there a statistical difference there between 1 partner and 3? Maybe I miss this in the study.

The thing is that we risk losing so much insight by using one larger category encompassing the medians and averages across several groups, from the heavily Christian to the typical atheist, and then comparing them to an extreme outlier. The study seems much too binary. I suppose this brings to question "what is a large amount of sexual partners"? To me, the study can also say "people who sleep with a ton of (20+) people are typically not marriage material", which okay, fair enough I suppose?

Lmao
man, the incels seem to be out in full force on this one, and there’s only one episode out so far. That explains part of the lower rating.

who cares if a woman likes to sleep with people.. doesn't mean she can't be kind and loyal and a good person. it's crazy to me that when guys sleep with loads of women it's totally fine but when women do it they're 'sluts' that aren't worth anybody's time.

either way, anyone coming for her for sleeping with boys IS ENTIRELY missing the point... its clearly said that it's what she thinks men expect in return for a relationship, isn't that the thing we should be taking issue with? that society has her thinking she doesn't even have to want it herself.... she even said that when she's with someone she's entirely loyal.. what more could you ask of someone? men want women to be easy for them until it means that she might've been easy for other people, and if someone isn't easy they're a prude. we literally can't win.

such a stupid topic. what to expect from used men should be the real question.