How do I accept my girlfriend's past?
I know she has done all kinds of nasty sexual things with her 3 exes. One of them is my friend and he told me in detail how he face fucked her, came on her face, came in her ass, etc.
How do I "man up" and stop viewing my girl as a tainted sexual object?
You should:
a) Punch your friend in the face
b) Break up with your gf
c) All of the above
Every girl has a kinky past but it's best if you don't have to interact with your vagina brothers.
You got with your friend's ex. You brought this on yourself.
>>17158971
This.
>How do I "man up" and stop viewing my girl as a tainted sexual object?
How is that manning up? Your gut is right more often than not.
If she is willing to try the same things with you, no need to worry. If she has 3 exes she is golden, it means she is not promiscous and willing to satisfy her partner. Keep in mind it will need some time for her to open up about eachother's fantasies. If you ever feel she isn't open about your sexual or emotional appetites, you should break up. And if you ever deny her sexual or emotional needs because of beeing an immatue cunt, you should break up. And why would you date your friend's ex ?
>>17158947
yes smack your friend in the head. he is only jelly at you because he lost her and now you have her. and he wants another crack at her
>how do i stop seeing her as a tainted sexual object?
you stop thinking about it. the more you think about it and or people bring it up: the worse its going to get.
I can kind of understand you. I had a girlfriend that had a colorful past and was a freak in bed. I knew that and it bothered me so I got over it by fucking her in the most perverted ways I could think of. I faced fucked her, fucked her in the ass (that's a huge deal where I live, most girls wouldn't even consider it), slap her around, choke her, fucked her in public places anything you can imagine. It was great.
Thing is, this made me lose respect for her. I'm not sure why, maybe it was the lack of romance too, but I grew to see her as a fuckhole, despite "loving" (or rather having a crush on) her at first. Sex, while great wasn't enough after a while as I felt I was with her just to fuck her and I arrived to the conclusion she's not the kind of girl I want to spend my life with and this is not the kind of relationship I want to have so I broke up with her.
I don't know if the same will happen to you, but I advise you to tread carefully. If it's just a relationship for fun and sex it's great to have an erm, let's say open-minded girlfriend but if you want something more... well do you really want to know that the mother of your children had a bunch of people cum in her ass and mouth?
My current girlfriend (I'd call her wife, but we never got married) is somewhat of a purist, never done anything too perverted, not with me nor with anyone else and I'm as happy as I can be with this relationship. Of course, it's not for this reason alone, but this is part of it.
This is just my person experience though. Don't let anyone tell you that feeling one way or another is wrong and makes you immature/a faggot/a cuck/whatever. Do what you think will make you happier in the end, not what other people say you should do.
>>17159004
>How is that manning up?
Because its choosing to have insight and capacity for critical thinking more elevated than a 10th grader. No adult man I knows is in a relationship with a woman he views as an object. It completely defeats the point of a relationship and makes you look like a fucking tool.
>Your gut is right more often than not.
Apart of growing up is realizing that this isn't as true as you thought it was. Children think with their gut, thats why they make stupid decisions and have stupid opinions because they don't have life experience to inform them otherwise.
If you're encouraging OP to discard his girlfriend like a used tissue based solely on the fact that she had sex with previous boyfriends then you're a jackass. Maybe she is promiscuous. We don't know that because OP never provided that information, so assuming she is is basically the equivalent to waving an /r9k/ banner above your head to signal to the rest of the troops that you're an ignorant man-boy.
>>17159038
OP can be as adult and rational as he wants but in the end the thought of his friend coming in his girl's ass will eat him up inside and it won't end well.
>>17159054
>OP can be as adult and rational as he wants but in the end the thought of his friend coming in his girl's ass will eat him up inside and it won't end well.
The post you're quoting wasn't meant as a response to OP but more the general ignorance of this >>17159004 gentleman.
In all reality I don't expect OP to accept something he isn't ready to accept. I used to be exactly like him when I was a kid and it took me years of love and loss to finally become secure in my masculinity and stop letting angry mobs of disenfranchised men decide my values for me.
If he can't handle it he should go date a virgin. I told him that in my first post. I'm not shaming him for feeling a certain way, just giving him words for the future and encouraging him to keep an open mind. He asked how to stop feeling like his girlfriend was an object and I answered his question.
>>17159038
>>17159070
hear hear, well said anons
It will fail. You think it won't, but it will, eventually. She's a "free spirit" (read: ho) deep down inside and you won't be able to be completely rid of the insecurity. Enjoy it while it lasts.
You can't op.
But everyone here is a leftist cuckold and they will tell you that it doesn't really matter even though you know it does and even they, in their hearts, know it too.
If it truly bothers you, find someone better. There are pure girls out there, you just have to look in the right places.
>>17159038
>children think with their gut
>adults suppress it with feminism
>yay progress
>>17159094
>she is not a virgin waifu
=
>she is a ho
Your delusions amaze me.
>>17159098
>But everyone here is a leftist cuckold
>There are pure girls out there
>>17159100
>>17159098
I feel like there's just one person replying to all the messages (not just talking about these two) that how much of a hive mind /r9k/ is.
>>17159104
>I know she has done all kinds of nasty sexual things
You tell me. One thing is not being a virgin and the other is trivialising sex as a mere pastime; that sounds like the second.
>>17159110
She's not having one night stands, she's literally just having sex with her boyfriends, only a cuck would put so much thought into his girlfriend past relationships. His friend is an ass but OP is being ridiculous.
>>17159100
>adults suppress it with feminism
Believing that women are people and not objects isn't feminism propaganda, its commonly accepted knowledge to anyone with a functioning brainstem older than 12. Its ok though, if you wanna use "hey feminism sucks" as justification for all of your childish behavior then I applaud you. Good luck, nigga.
>>17159122
Object: noun, a material thing that can be seen and touched
>new oxford anerican dictionary
All people are objects.
>>17158947
you realize your friend lied right
>>17159145
Yeah no way she gave her boyfriend a bj and let him do anal.
That never happens. Sex is gross.
if having previous sexual partners is OK, why dont people like used dildos and fleshlights?
>>17158947
I could only see that this would be a problem if you yourself have not been with other women, and if you haven't just be honest that you would have fucked other girls too if you had the chance.
>>17159161
Right? If I can't get a virgin man he doesn't deserve me, other men are dirty used sex toys. Also, I don't want a /r9k/ virgin as those types are broken, I want a pure virgin.
>>17158947
christ you're a fucking retarded faggot.
This thread comes up at least 3 times a day.
Live with it or don't. Either way you're a retard.
>>17159030
you're a child with a virgin/whore complex. please never give advice again.
>>17159161
bodies clean themselves. those don't.
>>17159207
No, he just can't help it. Women that sleep around lose their value. They are no longer special because they gave away their specialness to someone else.
This is biological. It goes much deeper than your marxism and your dialectics of oppressor and oppressed will ever go.
>>17159221
Humans aren't special, little snowflake.
>>17159228
That's his point when you think about it.
>biological
>>17159236
>They are no longer special
No, that's not when he meant at all, he's an idiot that needs to change reality to fit his view on life, pure delusion.
>>17159207
No, I'm not. I'm an adult who knows, understand and accepts his desires and preferences. Liking pure girls is natural for males. At its core, this preference probably sterns from insecurity, but you know what? Insecurity has its role.
A girl who had fewer partners and is less experience will enjoy and value the relationship more. She will also find more meaning in a relationship and in sex too, so she will value her partner higher. Yes, this is generalizing, but it's just how things work. People value things they never had/had less of higher than those who had a lot of them.
You, on the other hand are trying to shame me for liking unexperienced girls. What does that say about you? Are you a whore who wants to believe that only the immature, undesirable men would judge you for it? Or are you a man dating an ex-whore who desperately clings to the illusion that it doesn't bother you and that you're a mature person because of that?
Either way, piss off asshole, you're not going to shame me into liking sluts.
>>17159030
>hope against hope that you get to act out all your favorite porn fantasies with a girl IRL
>lose respect for her when she lets you
male logic strikes again
>>17159244
Women are born with inherent value. All men desire a woman and their social role is always the chooser, not the other way around.
That does not mean that there is not a hierarchy of value within and between women and that women can't lessen their social value by their own actions.
That's what I mean by special. Living in society is playing a social game, you are always comparing yourself to your neighbours. This is also biological.
>>17159252
see
>>17159259
you're pathetic lol
>>17159259
I didn't really hope to do that when I started the relationship, it's just what it got to. That's the reason why I started to lose respect for her, now that I think about it, she didn't really satisfy me emotionally.
But yeah, this is how things work. If she is a means for me to satisfy my fetishes I will see her as a means to satisfy my fetishes. The fact that I saw her as nothing more was not only based on that fact, it had more to do with our different personalities than anything. Bottom line is that all she offered me was a fuckhole so I only saw her as a fuckhole. Would she have offered me something else besides that I would've seen her as more than a fuckhole.
>>17159252
So you were a virgin she gave a chance? You're just as bad if not worst than your perception of her.
Guys like virgins because
>spred sed
It's an animalistic desire, caring about such a thing just means you cave to the desires of heathens, and are less intelligent than an average person in that sense.
Plus, as a non virgin you're just used goods (in the woods of an /r9k/ poster from earlier today), you can't expect her to want someone like you. How do you like it when someone uses your logic on you, hypocrite? Let me guess,
>males are different than females!!!
Kek. I won't bother with you if you're that deluded.
>>17159272
Nobody said you can't have standards. In fact, you would probably be valued for it. Because, you know, you aren't a slut in that case.
>>17159267
>Women are born with inherent value.
Rofl, wow. What a sad, backward, parochial view of the world you have. You're too stupid to appreciate the circular vapidness of your argument, so I won't even bother trying to deconstruct it. Just kill yourself, I'm not sure what business you think you have being on an advice forum.
>>17159267
>I can't fight muh animal instickntz guise ;__;
See you in ten minutes when you're pretending that men are somehow more intellectual and less animalistic than women.
>>17159271
>that backpedaling
Somehow, I think if there was an actual personality conflict instead of something you cobbled together to save face, you would have brought that up first instead of diving into an asinine essay about how it's wrong for women to be kinky.
>>17159280
If your standards are above what you are (I.e. Used goods) you aren't likely to get what you want, you can't complain when you don't.
>>17159294
Nobody was complaining about that.
But I guess you need a strawman because you're out of arguments?
>>17159291
>see you when...
Another strawman!
What a surprise.
>>17159272
It's funny how off your assumptions are. No, I was not a virgin, we both liked each other at that point, mainly because we didn't knew too much about each other.
>spred sed
have you not understood what I wrote? I'll try to make it clearer. Girls with less experience will appreciate their partners more, so they will be happier with their relationship, they will be more excited, they will be more loyal.
>Plus, as a non virgin you're just used goods (in the woods of an /r9k/ poster from earlier today), you can't expect her to want someone like you. How do you like it when someone uses your logic on you, hypocrite?
I don't care about it. My girlfriend seems fine with the used ol' me and that's what matters to me.
>males are different than females!!!
They actually are. Be it biologically or because of social constructions, we are different. Men want different things than women. I won't debate this, I'm just saying this is how things are. You are welcome to disagree.
>>17159291
how exactly am I backpedaling? I never claimed that the purpose of the relationship was to satisfy my fetishes.
Jesus fuck, the brainwashing SJW bullshit in this thread is off the charts.
Liking "virings" as in inexperienced women is natural for men. They did it for as long as we can remember. Why the hell do you think so many cultures and religions disapprove of sex before marriage? Why the hell do you think rich men used to pay fortunes to deflower girls when they could get whores infinitely cheaper in the "golden age" of prostitution? Why the hell do you think inexperienced people will have happier relationships?
If you actually believe only a minority of men like inexperienced girls you are delusional. If you believe only insecure, childish men like inexperienced girls you are delusional. If you believe that the past sexual life of a person has no influence on its future relationships you are a moron. I want Tumblr to go back to Tumblr.
>>17159139
>All people are objects.
I understand you're being obtuse as a goof but I'm addressing dudes that legitimately view women as currency.
>>17158966
Underrated post
>>17159360
Your post is off the charts with logical fallacies. You're not making any sense because you're arguing against points that you've boiled down to a convenient consistency instead of the points actually brought up in this thread.
>Liking "virings" as in inexperienced women is natural for men. They did it for as long as we can remember. Why the hell do you think so many cultures and religions disapprove of sex before marriage?
Because ancient forms of celibacy were based mostly on optimum conditions for procreation.
The need for preserving "pure" women to procreate with is no longer a survival imperative so what you're doing right now is using the age old "appeal to nature" logical fallacy to argue that because something has happened for a long time that its just or valid.
No one ever said a "minority of men like inexperienced girls". You said that. No one said "ONLY insecure, childish men like inexperienced girls". You said that.
Debating goes a lot easier when you debate against the actual words people say instead of your own inability to read and analyze basic english sentences.
>>17159433
>The need for preserving "pure" women to procreate with is no longer a survival imperative
Tell that to the guys that got cucked and then lost their homes. That never fucking happens, right?
>>17159221
>Specialness
If you think the only thing that makes a girl special is how little times she's had sex, I don't think you can have a healthy relationship with a girl. You'd ignore her personality, and only focus on her being a hole because 'byolojie'. Stop using 'byolojie' as an excuse and a way to be an asshole, then complain about how girls don't like you. There's more to life and society than just instincts.
>>17159436
>Tell that to the guys that got cucked and then lost their homes. That never fucking happens, right?
Firstly, "cuckolding" is when a man gets sexual pleasure from watching another man have sex with his wife. Calling people "cucks" is a 4chan buzzword used to perpetuate a briefly entertaining meme. Memes aren't real life, kid, so lets talk like adults for a moment.
Secondly, I'm not sure what coveting virgins has to do with losing your house but despite your poorly worded and confusing response it holds no bearing on what I said. Preserving pure women is no longer a survival imperative. Pay attention to those words now because your response tells me you weren't reading carefully enough.
Survival. Imperative. Google those two words if you have to.
>>17158947
Did she have sex with animals or prostitute herself?
Does she have children or stds?
No?
Why do you care then? As long as she isn't like one of my old exes who actually was fun in bed with every other guy she dated, but wanted to be a conservative housewife (i.e. only missionary. no oral or anal), enjoy the time you spend with her.
>>17159457
I remember when 4chan could take a joke. Yes, I'm mad. Go to reddit or something.
If it bothers you leave her
That's it
>One of them is my friend and he told me in detail how he face fucked her, came on her face, came in her ass, etc.
Doesnt sound like a very good friend m8
I could probably deal with the sexual history well enough, but dating people my friends have been with is a bit too much imo even if they had more tact than him.
>>17159488
>I remember when 4chan could take a joke.
wtf are you talking about. 4chan IS a joke.
>>17159281
women have a vagina and a womb that gives them value. why do you think it is always the women and the children first when the boat is sinking?
>>17158971
I feel like we can just end the thread with this post. Nothing else really needs to be said.
>>17158971
Fucking this OP, your girlfriend is a confirmed badass in bed. You can either accept this for how great it is or obsess over purity like a /pol/ack who yells cuck at everyone.
>>17158966
This too. What, did you think it wouldn't come up?
>>17159360
>Liking "virings" as in inexperienced women is natural for men.
It's expected in our society, the status quo does not automatically mean something is "natural".
>Why the hell do you think so many cultures and religions disapprove of sex before marriage? Why the hell do you think rich men used to pay fortunes to deflower girls when they could get whores infinitely cheaper in the "golden age" of prostitution?
People disapproved of it because protection and birth control didn't exist. I suppose you're going to say next "Dude everyone in the past used leeches, why the fuck don't you just man up and use it to cure the plague you have?". This is pretty fucking stupid.
>Why the hell do you think inexperienced people will have happier relationships?
[citation needed]
>If you actually believe only a minority of men like inexperienced girls you are delusional. If you believe only insecure, childish men like inexperienced girls you are delusional.
Refer to my status quo point.
>If you believe that the past sexual life of a person has no influence on its future relationships you are a moron.
[citation needed]
>Wahhh go back to Tumblr
Fucking hell, not everyone on tumblr is a living breathing strawman of a progressive, and even if they were, so what? You want a safe space or something?
>starts post crying about "muh SJW's"
Into the trash it goes
>>17159595
>What, did you think it wouldn't come up?
I'm going to go on a limb and guess he didnt expect people to go into detail about how they fucked his gf though.
I think most people can at least agree his friend lacks any sense of tact.
>>17159612
fair enough.
Good God wow this thread is cancer.
Women are objects. A valuable object, one that you can love and be intimate with, as well as one you can build a life and family off of, but still an object none the less. Sure, maturity goes a long way in helping to mask the primal urges every one has of seeing their mate as a means to an end, but ultimately, those primal urges will never go away. OP can fall heads over heels for the chick and see the sun rise in her eyes and hear angels sing when she speaks and she will *still* be the *object* that his friend fucked and had his way with.
A pre-owned car is a used car, you can give it a new paint job and clean it real nice but it's still a used car. It might run great, have no problems at all, and after some work it might even be better than it was when it was new, and that's all great. But it will never, ever, not be a used car. You know who settles for used cars? People who can't afford new ones.
And if you think you're such a manly man that you don't think you have this underlying instinct than you really need to hop off your high horse. To OP, give it a shot and feel yourself out and see if the Pros outweigh the Cons, but don't be like the idiots in the thread and just pretend the Cons don't exist.
>>17159627
If you want to have sex with her... don't make an issue of it...
If you want to not catch something and keep paying upkeep for her it leave her and find another...
ie. you get what you pay for... hahahaha
>>17158947
lol at all these posts on here about this
>my gf is a cumdumpster slut, how do I cope with the fact that she is settling for me after having fucked everybody else?
>>17158971
Advice gets it 100% right.
I've never understood the purity guys. What a bunch of fuckin idiots. You want a "pure" chick then expect terrible sex and immaturity.
As long as she is loyal now, who gives a shit what a girl did before?
Guys that think this way are fuckin crazy to me.
>>17159653
>As long as she is loyal now, who gives a shit what a girl did before?
The problem is this isnt purely in the past, when his friend is rubbing it in his face.
It's not really her fault, but I can hardly blame the OP for feeling somewhat insecure.
>>17159630 wew lad that was quite the well informed counter-argument, extra points for creativity what with it being in an image and all, didn't expect that on an image board.
>>17159657
You're right, I should respond with logic and reason(tm) after all.
Sorry, I just don't take edgy red-pilled euphoric idiots seriously. It's like arguing with flat-earthers, it's too much damn work throwing reality at a brick wall that firmly entrenched.
>>17158961
This.
Also, unless She has an std or something, you should never ask or think about your partner's sexual past.
>>17158947
I'm someone with a high number, who was dumped because of my sexual past after 7 months with someone. I wish I knew this was an issue before, but they just sprung it on me out of the blue one day as something that had been bothering them since the beginning, and that they couldn't take any longer.
I wish they'd left earlier. I became truly invested, and they didn't. You won't likely take my advice, but I personally think you owe your partner your honest assessment of your relationship, and an honest assessment of your hang ups. I'd prefer to have known.
>>17159655
> friend
well not much of a friend if he is bringing it up.
There's this thing called tact.
One of my friends is married to a girl that another friend of ours banged once.
He never brings it up. And there are no problems.
And I have banged girls that are now wives. I would never bring it up under any circumstances around the husband.
So if thats the case, the OP's issues is not the girl in question, it's OP's choice of friends.
>>17159663
You're damning OP to a failed relationship by trying change his hardwired mentality. It's easy to say a girl isn't used when you're not the one dating your friend's former fucktoy. Not recognizing this for what it is will just sweep the issue under the rug until it resurfaces worse down the road.
>>17159653
>Guys that think this way are fuckin crazy to me.
You're a girl aren't you? Either way, it's the way OP feels and we need to advise him accordingly. Don't lead him astray by projecting your (bullshit) ethics onto him.
>>17159672
Of course you should. The same way that you'd want to know if your partner was a criminal.
There's a reason OP feels the way he does, and it's because she's already done all these sexual things with people, so how should he feel that his partner has already let other men have her way with her?
Also, I never hear about guys complaining that the woman they're with not having enough experience. Guys don't care about that shit. Plus, if she's new to all of it, you can teach her and share it with her, rather than think about how she's already done it with God knows how many other people.
>>17159433
>men liked virgins because they ensured optimum conditions for procreation
So what you're saying is that procreating with "pure" women is better. Nice one lad, couldn't have said it better myself.
And yeah, you're a fucking retard for thinking attraction is rational. Even if there was no need for us to be attracted to pure girls anymore we'd still do it, we can change it based on what's needed.
>No one ever said a "minority of men like inexperienced girls". You said that. No one said "ONLY insecure, childish men like inexperienced girls". You said that.
Yes, I said that. I never said someone else said this. I didn't even bring any argument on this. I simply said that if you believe these things you're delusional. You're the one strawmaning here.
>>17159609
>status quo
You do realize the status que is there for a reason, right moron? What do you think, some people decided how society works and did it randomly? No, you brain-dead whore, it is formed based on our desires, needs, ideas and preferences.
>protection and birth control didn't exist
And it had nothing to do with protection, it had everything to do with purity. No fucking teaching in any of those cultures or religions says "don't be a slut because you may get aids and be a teenage mom", all of them say it's inherently wrong because it degrades you as a human being. Because that's the way most men would see it at that time.
>[citation needed]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440.html
http://before-i-do.org/
>Fucking hell, not everyone on tumblr is a living breathing strawman of a progressive, and even if they were, so what? You want a safe space or something?
Oh wow you actually do come from Tumblr. Fuck off already. No, I don't want a safe space, I want this board not to be filled up with shit from top to bottom because of you, mouthbreathers.
>Into the trash it goes
Nice meme you fucking monkey, did you learn that from 9gag?
>>17158947
You don't. What a slut. Both of you.
>>17159025
>he is only jelly at you because he lost her and now you have her.
This so much
>friend is such an asshole for telling you how he fucked that shit
Have any of you considered that he might have told him all of that before OP and miss open mindness were together?
>>17159303
>that rhethorical figure to dismiss uncomfortable facts
>>17159360
>Liking "virings" as in inexperienced women is natural for me
Its not. Quit your /r9k/ propaganda, it stays wrong regardless of how often you repeat it. In general society it doesn't matter at all how many sexual partners someone had. (Unless its REALLY off the charts, and that's really rare)
You spastics try to create a causation between sexual partners and infidelity that actually doesn't matter at all. I had virgins cheat on me and "promiscious" women (as you would see them because they had 3-9 partners) who didn't. Its not about the amount of past partners, its about being able to tell what people are like. That helps. Not your bitter robotshit.
>>17158947
Do even worse things to her, like tying her up and sodomizing her ass with wax, then snap a photo, send it to your friend with the caption "Git Gud".
>>17160478
>again proving /r9k/ cannot into statistics
>what is correlation and causation
Oh boy...
>>17160507
I posted >>17158966
And actually I wondered which way it happened.
Though doesn't change my opinion.
>>17159684
>fucktoy
>if I have sex with a girl I like it's an intimate act of love and pleasure and if she doesn't like it she's a frigid prude
>if other guys have sex with her because they like her it's degeneracy that taints her and devalues her into a fucktoy, and if she enjoys that shit she's a gross slut
>>17159221
She had 3 partners, not 53. If she's not 16 or something, it's pretty reasonable.
>>17159221
>their specialness
Right, so that's not in their kind heart, their insightful mind, their hopes and dreams, their soul - but in their hymen, something every single woman is born with?
Girls sure miss out on a lot by being deemed damaged goods by guys with priorities like this.
>>17158947
Do all those things and worse
>>17160513
Yes, personal experience, great argument.
> In general society it doesn't matter at all how many sexual partners someone had.
That couldn't be further from the truth. Only in "progressive" western countries society doesn't care. Where I live a girl in her mid twenties who had more than 10 relationships would be instantly branded as slut. This also happens in pretty much all of Asia, eastern europe, some parts of South America and some parts of Africa.
It's not about infidelity ( see >>17159252 and>>17160478), as long as she didn't cheat on her many partners I don't expect her to cheat on me either. I do, however expect her to be less happy in the relationship, to appreciate me less and I do expect the relationship to have a lower chance of success.
>>17160520
Oh wow, that post is so ironic.
Have you actually read the study you moron? It explains WHY people with fewer relationships are happier and it shows proof.
Yes, correlation by itself does not prove causation, but when you can find a link between the 2 variables then it most certainly does imply causation. This is the principle most every economic studies are based upon. Also, for you to say that correlation does not imply causation you must find the reason why the 2 variables are related, because there is a reason.
For instance if you took all people in UK and measured their shoe size and determine their reading ability you will find that these 2 variables are correlated (higher shoe size = higher reading ability), but there's no causation to speak of, bigger shoe sizes doesn't make you read better. Where is this situation coming from? Children have smaller shoe sizes.
Similarly, when you find a correlation between any 2 variables you need to find the reasons for it. You can't simply say "It's definitely causation" or "It can't be causation", this only proves ignorance. You need to explain why it is or it is not causation. And you proved your ignorance by using a quip you don't even understand.
>>17160551
you should do that anyway
>>17160553
Okay. So as a different anon reading the link.
>“For example, people who tend to avoid commitment in general may have more sexual partners and be less happy when they settle down. It’s not the fact that they have more sexual partners that leads them to be less happy, it’s the fact that they don’t really like commitment. I would be very surprised if having multiple sexual partners before marriage, independent of any other factor, has a direct causal influence.”
Basically, the correlation is not saying that number of sex partners itself is the causation.
In fact, next line in that link
>In other words, correlation should never be confused with causation.
>>17160553
I've had zero partners in real life but in my head I've been with countless fictional men and I intend to stay that way. Does that count?
>>17160563
I completely agree. It is only logical that people who are restless, thrill seeking, easily bored, adventurous, seeking out new experiences etc both end up with more partners and are less fit for long term commitment. But that's because it does not suit their personality and not because their partnercount itself ruined them as a wife.
Same for being a virgin when you marry. In this day and age that's rare in the western world and it is likely that many of those included in the study are religious. And someone who is strongly religious in general has a different outlook on life, more "passive" in the sense that they trust God to arrange things a certain way, and for them to cope with what's given to them to work with. But the virginity is a result of that and not the cause.
>>17160573
I also forgot but, given that guys experience more peer pressure to sleep around for social approval, and have less negative consequences socially from becoming known as a manslut, it is also logical that it would "effect" them less to have slept with many partners, because it is less likely to be a result of personal priorities/character traits. It is a bit more plausible that they went with herd mentality instead of being a sincere free spirit who wants to live it up.
>>17160563
Fuck, maybe I should've read that article before posting it. Didn't expect anyone to actually read it. Shitposting is a hard business.
>>17160570
Nah, 2d and your imagination are superior to 3d, they don't make you icky. Stick to your fantasies, anon, they're better than 3d pigmen anyways.
>>17158947
>nasty sexual things
>cumshot
how is that a nasty thing? I do it often with my gf and also with some of my previous partners, there is nothing wrong with it once you have enough intimacy.
As said before, it's not something to worry about. Having sex with her (or anyone for that matter), contrary to popular belief, is not a competition. What she had with her exes is in the past, and you shouldn't worry about it.
Btw, your friend is kind of a prick. Dating a friend's ex is tough enough as it is, without him telling you shit. Ignore him, or call him out on his shittiness. Sounds like he is trying to get an ego boost by telling you these things, and probs has some complexes.
But if you really can't shake the thoughts of competition, try replacing them with the thoughts of making your gf have the best sex ever. Figure out what she likes, do it hard. But don't do it to feel like a beast in bed. Do it because you care about your girl, and want her to feel that care through her body.
Hang in there op, she chose to go with you, not back to her exes.
