Forum SettingsEpisode Information
Forums
New
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Pages (3) « 1 2 [3]
Oct 10, 2023 12:52 PM

Offline
Aug 2012
302
Imagine referring to women as "used goods".

Or caring how many guys a fictional woman supposedly slept with, lol.
Oct 10, 2023 1:18 PM
Offline
Oct 2011
137
Reply to Dracowyn
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.
Oct 10, 2023 1:23 PM

Offline
Oct 2013
7740
Reply to Dracowyn
Imagine referring to women as "used goods".

Or caring how many guys a fictional woman supposedly slept with, lol.
@Dracowyn Well, it's a discussion board. We chat about a certain anime share our thoughts, predict what might happen later (at least anime only viewers do). Nothing's wrong with that. You could've gone farther and just asked about the purpose of discussing about the anime at all. After all, all of that is just fictional stuff, so why getting invested into discussions about it? 😉
Oct 10, 2023 1:42 PM

Offline
Aug 2012
302
Reply to Makall
@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.
@Makall Oh no, you're mistaking general boredom for anger. Just saw a topic with a trashy title in the "popular new topics" section and kinda felt like commenting on it. No need to get worked up or anything.
Oct 10, 2023 2:31 PM
Offline
Oct 2023
65
@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.
Oct 10, 2023 6:57 PM
Offline
Aug 2016
1
Reply to Dhx379
@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
Oct 10, 2023 7:18 PM
Offline
Oct 2023
65
Reply to MythJas
@Dhx379 do you happen to have links to said studies? I'd love to read about them
@MythJas

Sure,

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0192513X231155673

The one above is the detailed one examining the link between body count and divorce rate:

"As expected, we find evidence of a nonlinear relationship between the number of sexual partners and the risk of divorce. Those in the highest category of partners (9+) consistently show the highest divorce risk by a substantial margin, followed by those with one to eight partners, with the lowest risk for those with none."

https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ke5fj/

This one is an earlier draft of the main paper above, but breaks down the partner bins 1-2, 3-5, 6+ instead of a large 1-9 partner count bin

https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marital-happiness

Last one is a blog post written by the same author specifically studying marital happiness.
Oct 10, 2023 8:31 PM

Offline
Aug 2013
85
Used "goods". Really now. Please treat your partner as human beings. Happy or not, that's a scumbag thinking. Abusers roots from here
Oct 10, 2023 8:37 PM

Offline
Mar 2013
2942
Reply to Dhx379
@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

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.

This is just saying that you have a higher likelihood of having a better marriage if both people have lower premarital sexual partners, and considering it's an easy factor to control for, then why not do it.


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?

If you want to call someone something, you look at the actual definition of the word, and if that person matches that word, then you can use that word on them. She does have alot of casual sex partners, so she is a slut. If purity doesn't matter to you, why does it offend you?


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.

Most men do not care how a random woman lives their life. If she wants to sleep around and have fun, who cares, she can do whatever she wants. The main point I made, which you seem to agree with, is that men can have standards and not want to date someone like that.


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.

I can list alot of reasons. People with lower body counts tend to have more stable, happier, more sexually active marriages and lower divorce rates. Purity standards are also for very traditional things like marriage. No guy is going to act traditional towards a woman who is not traditional herself. Also let's not pretend that women don't have arbitrary standards too. If women are allowed to have height and income standards, then men can have purity standards.


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.

These three studies have suggested various possible explanations for their findings, which largely mirror the literature on cohabitation and divorce (e.g., Rosenfeld & Roesler, 2019; Sassler & Lichter, 2020). Premarital sex may be an indicator of permissive attitudes toward sex and marriage, low religiosity, or a predilection for sexual variety, all of which are linked to higher divorce risk (Kahn & London, 1991; Paik, 2011; Vaaler, Ellison, & Powers, 2009). In this case, the premarital sex-divorce link is best explained by pre-existing differences between individuals


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.

Try this thought exercise: who will get more dates or matches on dating apps, the 6 foot tall guy who's making 6 figures but is a fuckboy or the 5 foot 5 guy making 60k but is a virgin and loyal? The first guy is. That guy has no incentive to act differently because he has no problem finding women. If those women started enforcing purity standards, he would probably change hid actions. Do that en masse and you kill hookup culture.


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?

Try this thought exercise: Would you take a woman who has five sexual partners in middle school and is currently say, a happy and mature adult with a job helping children and doing good in the community, or the woman who grew up protestant who currently professes a desire in open marriage?

(I am honestly not good with examples but I hope you at least understand the point I am making here)


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.
PeripheralVisionOct 10, 2023 8:55 PM
Oct 10, 2023 8:58 PM
Offline
Oct 2011
137
Reply to Azuyorou
Used "goods". Really now. Please treat your partner as human beings. Happy or not, that's a scumbag thinking. Abusers roots from here
@Azuyorou You have Keyaru as your favourite. Rapists roots from here.
Oct 10, 2023 9:17 PM

Offline
Aug 2013
85
Reply to Makall
@Azuyorou You have Keyaru as your favourite. Rapists roots from here.
@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
Oct 10, 2023 9:27 PM
cinnamon girl ♡

Offline
Apr 2021
988
referring to a woman as a commodity ? WOW




it's a cruel world out there
Oct 10, 2023 9:36 PM
Offline
Oct 2023
65
Reply to PeripheralVision
@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.

This is just saying that you have a higher likelihood of having a better marriage if both people have lower premarital sexual partners, and considering it's an easy factor to control for, then why not do it.


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?

If you want to call someone something, you look at the actual definition of the word, and if that person matches that word, then you can use that word on them. She does have alot of casual sex partners, so she is a slut. If purity doesn't matter to you, why does it offend you?


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.

Most men do not care how a random woman lives their life. If she wants to sleep around and have fun, who cares, she can do whatever she wants. The main point I made, which you seem to agree with, is that men can have standards and not want to date someone like that.


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.

I can list alot of reasons. People with lower body counts tend to have more stable, happier, more sexually active marriages and lower divorce rates. Purity standards are also for very traditional things like marriage. No guy is going to act traditional towards a woman who is not traditional herself. Also let's not pretend that women don't have arbitrary standards too. If women are allowed to have height and income standards, then men can have purity standards.


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.

These three studies have suggested various possible explanations for their findings, which largely mirror the literature on cohabitation and divorce (e.g., Rosenfeld & Roesler, 2019; Sassler & Lichter, 2020). Premarital sex may be an indicator of permissive attitudes toward sex and marriage, low religiosity, or a predilection for sexual variety, all of which are linked to higher divorce risk (Kahn & London, 1991; Paik, 2011; Vaaler, Ellison, & Powers, 2009). In this case, the premarital sex-divorce link is best explained by pre-existing differences between individuals


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.

Try this thought exercise: who will get more dates or matches on dating apps, the 6 foot tall guy who's making 6 figures but is a fuckboy or the 5 foot 5 guy making 60k but is a virgin and loyal? The first guy is. That guy has no incentive to act differently because he has no problem finding women. If those women started enforcing purity standards, he would probably change hid actions. Do that en masse and you kill hookup culture.


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?

Try this thought exercise: Would you take a woman who has five sexual partners in middle school and is currently say, a happy and mature adult with a job helping children and doing good in the community, or the woman who grew up protestant who currently professes a desire in open marriage?

(I am honestly not good with examples but I hope you at least understand the point I am making here)


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.
@PeripheralVision

PeripheralVision said:
I think the point being made is that you cannot reduce people to a single statistic.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
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.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
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, it is a pejorative that deems your preferences the only preferences. The term literally exists to shame women for not following traditional values of relationships, often ones which put the women in second class positions.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
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.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
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.


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.

PeripheralVision said:

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.


"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."

PeripheralVision said:
Seriously, take dating apps with a grain of salt.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
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.


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?

PeripheralVision said:
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.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
The thing is, 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


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.
Dhx379Oct 10, 2023 10:42 PM
Oct 10, 2023 10:20 PM
Offline
Oct 2011
137
Reply to Azuyorou
@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.
Oct 11, 2023 1:40 AM

Offline
Aug 2013
85
Reply to Makall
@Azuyorou Hey man, just using your own logic.
@Makall literally same
Oct 11, 2023 2:12 AM
Offline
Oct 2011
137
Reply to Azuyorou
@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.
Oct 11, 2023 3:28 AM

Offline
Aug 2013
85
Reply to Makall
@Azuyorou I'm glad you agree that your logic is non-sensical.

I hope you've now learned how to separate fiction from reality.
@Makall Weren't you the one who brought up Keyaru? I didn't state any fictional character. Unless your mother is not real
Oct 11, 2023 3:45 AM
Offline
May 2017
2
Reply to _Douma_
this could've been them
@_Douma_ somehow i laughed at this lmao
Oct 11, 2023 5:28 AM
Offline
Mar 2021
276
how old are you btw? you sound like a 13 year old
Oct 11, 2023 6:53 AM
Offline
Sep 2023
74
Reply to Leonhart93
@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.
Oct 11, 2023 7:29 AM

Offline
May 2015
3092
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.
Oct 11, 2023 8:56 AM

Offline
Apr 2014
341
Reply to nonsenseone1
@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.
@nonsenseone1 Lust and love are two different things, especially for men. If the girl is good looking and available then almost no single men would deny easy sex because for the most part they get ZERO such offers or opportunities, but offering her a long term relationship is another matter altogether. Investing feelings, time and resources into someone that I don't see a future with is a big nope.
Oct 11, 2023 8:59 AM

Offline
Apr 2014
341
Reply to Ten
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.
Leonhart93Oct 11, 2023 9:04 AM
Oct 11, 2023 9:24 AM
Offline
Oct 2023
65
@EyeAmTheI

EyeAmTheI said:
Yes, it is bad, but don't tell me all those men and women were forced to marry. They choosed to. Did they make a bad choice? Well, yeah, but who's fault is that? Their own inexperience and ignorance.


I agree, it was their own choice. There's always people who will choose to marry because either they think it's the right thing to do based on religion/morals or they want kids.

EyeAmTheI said:
More importantly though, it is way better if they divorce quickly, preferably before they even have a child. At least they don't ruin a 3rd and innocent life with their stupidity and stubborness. At least they'll have a second chance to make it better next time. Most likely they are better off monetarly and possibly emotionally as well, since they are still young enough for a restart.


Well a quick separation is an annulment, which you can usually get within a year of marriage which doesn't really have too many drawbacks so yeah I agree. There's also the fact that the divorce rate increases for every marriage, 50% first marriage, 60%+ 2nd marriage, 70% 3rd, etc so more often then not it's not better the next few times.

EyeAmTheI said:
The only case when a divorce is arguably worse than a toxic marriage, when there is a child in the picture, but even then it would have been way better, if they didn't even marry at the first place.


Actually in this case I think divorce is better for the child because a child growing up in a household where there's constant tension between the husband and wife is pretty bad for the kid too.

EyeAmTheI said:
So yeah, my issue with these kind of arguments is it doesn't address the root cause (aka the stupid choice), it just sweeps the issues under the rug... All in all, if nothing else, it is definietly a celebration worthy event, if a crap marriage ends, before a child was born.


Yeah I think marriage is a shitshow these days, people rush into it, things turn toxic, they either divorce or stay miserable, and the courts screw over one person, more often than not the man. There will always be people that want children and get married though. If they insist on making that choice even after knowing all the risks and drawbacks, then they should minimize the risks of a potential divorce or a miserable marriage down the road by looking at different statistics of what drives divorce and successful marriages.
Oct 11, 2023 9:36 AM
Offline
Oct 2023
65
Reply to Ten
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

Hey no one's forcing women to get married, if they're content with no marriage then they can have fun and sleep with anyone they want, no one cares. These two statements can simultaneously be true: 1. inexperienced girls can cheat/divorce their husbands 2. experienced girls, on average, cheat/divorce their husbands more.
Oct 11, 2023 11:39 AM

Offline
Apr 2014
341
@EyeAmTheI So the first thing you have in mind when you think of happiness and marital satisfaction is sex? That's a woman's logic, they are always the first ones to shame men about stuff like that once they don't have a rebuttal, especially the women of today that want only excitement from love.
While sex is important, if you count on only that to keep your marriage together for a lifetime then it's already lost.

And guess which women are far more likely to rate sex as the most important: high body count women, a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are always the ones looking for bigger and bigger excitement, as their life choices up to that point clearly indicate
Oct 11, 2023 12:00 PM

Offline
May 2015
3092
Reply to Leonhart93
@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.
Oct 11, 2023 12:08 PM

Offline
Apr 2014
341
Reply to Ten
@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.
Oct 11, 2023 12:32 PM

Offline
May 2015
3092
Reply to Leonhart93
@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.
Oct 11, 2023 12:47 PM

Offline
Apr 2014
341
Reply to Ten
@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.
@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.
Oct 11, 2023 1:34 PM

Offline
Apr 2014
341
@EyeAmTheI Or their exes were better looking, taller, richer or of a higher social status, since women value those traits, after which those same women will look at anything else as downgrading. But don't confuse her "exes" with serious relationships, even if a dude like that just ejaculates and evacuates without ever taking her seriously, she will still think her level is there and anything else is "settling", because they don't know how men view sex.

Then 3 years into the marriage she will hit a dude with the dreaded "I am not happy" after he did everything for her. I must have heard that anecdote like 30 times in the past years, the poor dudes are always hit from the left field since they can't understand what went wrong, when in reality it's impossible to fix or please her.

Women's standards and preferences are celebrated, while men's standards are always met with protests and insults such as this. A man can't even demand the bare minimum of "not a hoe" these days....
Oct 11, 2023 2:16 PM

Offline
Apr 2014
341
@EyeAmTheI I'm not even necessarily looking for a virgin considering 1 in 10 is already a pretty darn small pool of women. But I certainly would keep under intense scrutiny someone that had a chain of short relationships. And if we are talking about "situationships" or one night stands then it's a clear deal breaker, I just can't bring myself to do it.
Oct 11, 2023 2:40 PM

Offline
Apr 2014
341
@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 😅
Oct 11, 2023 3:39 PM
Offline
Oct 2023
65
Reply to Leonhart93
@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

Leonhart93 said:
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 😅


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.
Dhx379Oct 11, 2023 3:43 PM
Oct 11, 2023 3:57 PM

Offline
Apr 2014
341
Reply to Dhx379
@Leonhart93

Leonhart93 said:
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 😅


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.
@Dhx379 Yes, they know very well how much their body count matters, which is why the very idea is always met with a visceral reaction of shaming language. They would love nothing more but to force the men into submission in order for them to accept them any kind of past debauchery, but they don't realize that men's primal instincts aren't going to change with just words. All that does is make the men pretend they don't care about it and not take those women seriously for anything long term.
Oct 11, 2023 4:44 PM

Offline
May 2015
3092
Reply to Leonhart93
@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.





Oct 11, 2023 6:44 PM

Offline
Apr 2014
341
Reply to Ten
@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.





@Ten I haven't met any men looking down on virgin women in the real world, and I am pretty sure they were honest about it, but I am not around femboys so that might be it 😂. Even on the internet I can't recall something like that.
if anything, I heard many times of women shaming other women for their virginity and pushing them to sleep around, and it's quite clearly because they don't like the fact that it makes their high body counts look even worse. Disgusting, miserly loves company.

And there is also nothing that weird about 30y virgin women, just like the men they are probably shy or socially awkward. Since there are tons of 30y virgin men today as well, much more than the women for sure. And women do tend to look down on virgin men, yet another thing where men and women think completely differently.
Leonhart93Oct 11, 2023 7:05 PM
Oct 11, 2023 7:23 PM

Offline
Mar 2013
2942
Reply to Dhx379
@PeripheralVision

PeripheralVision said:
I think the point being made is that you cannot reduce people to a single statistic.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
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.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
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, it is a pejorative that deems your preferences the only preferences. The term literally exists to shame women for not following traditional values of relationships, often ones which put the women in second class positions.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
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.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
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.


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.

PeripheralVision said:

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.


"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."

PeripheralVision said:
Seriously, take dating apps with a grain of salt.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
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.


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?

PeripheralVision said:
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.


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.

PeripheralVision said:
The thing is, 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


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.
Dhx379 said:
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?


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.


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.

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.


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".

"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."


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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.


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?
PeripheralVisionOct 11, 2023 7:36 PM
Oct 11, 2023 7:42 PM
Offline
Oct 2011
137
Reply to Azuyorou
@Makall Weren't you the one who brought up Keyaru? I didn't state any fictional character. Unless your mother is not real
@Azuyorou Again with the mother jokes? Speaks volumes of your maturity.

I suppose that means you agree you have rapist roots since your idol is Keyaru.
Oct 11, 2023 8:12 PM
Offline
Oct 2023
65
Reply to PeripheralVision
Dhx379 said:
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?


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.


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.

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.


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".

"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."


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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.


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?
@PeripheralVision

PeripheralVision said:
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.


The difference between slut and words like "negro" and "slant eyed" is that slut is describing someone's actions while those are describing genetic traits, something people can't control. If you are a serial killer, you are a killer. If you killed someone in self defense, you are technically still a killer and could be charged for murder if you dont have solid evidence / a good attorney. I can repeat the literal definition but again, circular argument.

PeripheralVision said:
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.


If I reject a woman because she has a high body count / non virgin, I am not bullying or shaming her. If I cite studies on body count / divorce rates and many stories of women with high counts screwing over men, im not bullying or shaming her. If i tell other men not to date her due to x y z risks, I am not bullying or shamint her. If I tell a woman she shouldn't sleep around because it's immoral and that women who sleep around are degenerates, then yes I'd be doing what you said. Never said the latter though. There's also women who shame men for being short and use words like "midget," which you could also say has negative connotations. Only differenfe is height is something they can't control for like race, so yeah its definitely not one sided and if you think one is a double standard, the other is as well.

PeripheralVision said:
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 can easily reverse this. If Nicholas Wolfinger is able to get his research peer reviewed and published in Sage, then that gives at least some validity to his other works too. It just so happens that his research fits the agenda of IFS, which likely sponsors him to show his research and findings. It's probably not as black and white as what we both argue, but there's little point in doubting his work just because a conservative organization is involved.

PeripheralVision said:
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.


I never said purity is only factor though, merely its a prominent one. Let's assume people live busy lives. They have a career, they go to the gym, they have social lives and hobbies. Dating and investing in a relationship takes time and effort. If I, on the first or second date find out that she has a colorful past, I can end it there and find someone else because of what the statistics say. If I find out she doesn't, I can invest more time and effort into "focusing on the much more important things in terms of current behavior." Would I exclude someone potentially good, sure. On average though, I am more likely to find a partner who is less likely to divorce me and more likely to have a happier stable relationship.

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


So no, I'm not marrying someone just because they are pure without knowing the "more important things in terms of current behavior," im just not willing to invest time into learning those from someone with a massive body count.

PeripheralVision said:
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


Prenups get thrown out all the time. The woman can claim the prenup was "signed under duress" and it becomes useless. Divorce lawyers sometimes also convince women to lie that there was "abuse" to get the prenup thrown out too. There's people out there who can't afford child support and alimony payments because they lost their job and get sent to jail, only to be released and get sent back to jail because they cannot pay child support and alimony. In a no fault state, this divorce could be that the wife cheated. This is a specific scenario yes, but it shows how far divorce can mess up a man's life. Divorce is horrible for men.

PeripheralVision said:
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.


PeripheralVision said:
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


Yeah the paper in the Sage journal had a previous draft where they tested the bins as 1-2 partners, 3-5 partners, and so on where 1-2 actually had a higher chance of divorce than 3-5, so the relationship isn't linear. I guess for simplicity they decided to just bin it as 1-8 and 9+ but yeah. You do have a point that it would be stupid to set an arbitrary boundary of what count to accept, like 3, but there's an obvious increase in divorce rate from someone with premarital partners and someone who doesn't.

If you don't care about marriage, kids, or cohabitation, then body count really does not matter. Find someone without stds that you can have fun with. In fact, I'd say it's a terrible idea to get married these days due to how expensive housing is and the 50% divorce rate but I'd argue if you must get married, do it with a virgin. I'd tell women to go for virgin men too, but I'd get called a misogynistic incel for telling women what sort of man they should go for.
Dhx379Oct 11, 2023 10:17 PM
Oct 12, 2023 5:54 AM

Offline
Apr 2014
341
@PeripheralVision All of this effort in order to give women an excuse to keep sleeping around?
@Dhx379 speaks true, I don't see what's so hard to understand that being promiscuous/slut/having a lot of casual sex is a very good indicator of very specific personality traits that are completely against family values and stability. It's unignorable, IRL every woman like that has a bunch of issues, none of them thinks and views relationships in a normal light, it's always wrapped.
Women have all these standards for men like he needs to be tall, confident, ambitious, charming etc., while a dude can't even demand "I don't want someone that sleeps around" because a large part of the population (mostly women) will get their panties in a bunch trying to defend these low quality women from their own bad choices.

Society has a problem understanding that men also have standards, although simpler and fewer, but exactly that's why we have no problem disqualifying women instantly based on them. "Not a slut" was the baseline de facto standard in all of human history and in all cultures, because if you married a slut then you couldn't even know that the kids were yours, which is the biggest L a man can ever take. And now people expect that such a fundamental biological aversion will disappear overnight? It's not going to happen, just like women won't suddenly start liking short, broke and lazy dudes.

Instead of forcing men to like sluts, which will never work, you efforts are much better put to use telling women to not be willing sexual objects for random f*ckboys and instead carefully choose guys that value them and will actually stick around.
Leonhart93Oct 12, 2023 6:14 AM
Oct 12, 2023 6:21 AM
Offline
May 2015
1
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.
Oct 12, 2023 6:49 AM

Offline
Aug 2017
6988
I just find it funny that everyone's arguing so much when it's likely that a significant portion of people here likely hasn't talked to a woman in a week and hasn't had a girlfriend in at least 3 years if ever


My biggest regret: Reading all 200+ chapters of Kanojo, Okarishimasu
Oct 12, 2023 6:59 AM

Offline
Aug 2017
6988
Reply to OutlawVinegar
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.
@OutlawVinegar I think it's Higehiro all over again


My biggest regret: Reading all 200+ chapters of Kanojo, Okarishimasu
Oct 13, 2023 4:22 PM
Offline
Dec 2021
187
Reply to Mitsurae
Leonhart93 said:
@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.

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.
@Mitsurae

It's just a handful of virgin incels complaining, lmao. Like 2 or 3 guys posting in every thread.
Oct 13, 2023 10:38 PM
Offline
Sep 2023
74
such a stupid topic. what to expect from used men should be the real question.
Oct 13, 2023 11:50 PM
Offline
Oct 2023
65
Reply to nonsenseone1
such a stupid topic. what to expect from used men should be the real question.
@nonsenseone1

What would you define as a "used man?" A man with a high body count? Women shouldn't expect anything from him besides casual sex...what's your point?
Oct 14, 2023 2:46 AM
Lead Admin
Faerie Queen

Offline
Aug 2007
6273
Thread locked.

For more information please see this post.
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Pages (3) « 1 2 [3]

More topics from this board

Poll: » Keikenzumi na Kimi to, Keiken Zero na Ore ga, Otsukiai suru Hanashi. Episode 7 Discussion ( 1 2 )

Stark700 - Nov 17, 2023

88 by HyperlinkBlocked »»
Yesterday, 12:05 PM

» This anime destroy the stereotypes about popular girls

passtur - May 12

16 by Brandis_king »»
Yesterday, 10:00 AM

Poll: » Keikenzumi na Kimi to, Keiken Zero na Ore ga, Otsukiai suru Hanashi. Episode 12 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 )

Stark700 - Dec 22, 2023

157 by HyperlinkBlocked »»
Yesterday, 4:15 AM

Poll: » Keikenzumi na Kimi to, Keiken Zero na Ore ga, Otsukiai suru Hanashi. Episode 1 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )

Stark700 - Oct 6, 2023

321 by Erntrna »»
May 23, 3:08 PM

Poll: » Would you %%% (spoilers)

Shizuna - Apr 9

31 by Zarutaku »»
May 12, 3:12 PM
It’s time to ditch the text file.
Keep track of your anime easily by creating your own list.
Sign Up Login