Why does the prospect of a woman having previous sexual partners bother us so much?
>>29866540
Jealous
>inb4 muh pair-bonding
Doesn't bother me by itself. But I'm worried I won't measure up, and that she'll be dissatisfied and not respect me and cheat on me...
desu I want to be special to her, not just another random number in a long list of guys.
You're in denial of your hidden desire
Your fetish
Your dream
>>29866540
because previous sexual partners indicates that she is promiscuous and is more likely to cheat on you and leave you for someone else, as well as more likely to get pregnant from another guy while you are still in a relationship with her.
>>29866540
For me it's just insecurity about being compared unfavorably to past partners.
>>29866540
because most women have no natural ease or coolness about them
>oh MY GOD
>his DICK
>his LITERAL DICK
>was LITERALLY
>ORGASM
>MY ORGASM
>OH MY GOD
plus it's annoying when they say it in an immature way. like "well... i fucked this one guy... hee hee..." it's gross to think that fucking is their idea of being spontaneous. like "so you just fucked him out of nowhere? wow you're a slut."
but if she says it with some amount of conviction, it's different. like "i was friendly with a guy briefly and we had sex." it's just like "oh ok. whatever."
they make just as big a deal about sex as men do. i wish they would stop fucking lying. "omg grow up boiz"
I'm bitter over the fact that they've been wanted their whole lives, while the entire process of trying to reach sex for me is an uphill battle where I have to argue, lie, and convince people who dislike me that I'm worth a small fraction of their time and effort.
saw that movie yesterday for the first time,literally could not stop watching
>>29866540
fear of this, mainly. I don't want her to know what she's missing
>>29866673
>>29866596
But what if she isn't promiscuous and has only had 1-2 partners for, lets say, ~2 years each? No one night stands or anything of the sort.
Are you still concerned that she will cheat on you or would that be alright?
>>29866762
And I literally watched that episode a few hours ago
>well, that was an antique...
>>29866747
This.
I'll confess, it's not just insecurity that I have. I have some resentment too. The whole situation is being painful. I try not to let it grow out of control (like happens with so many on r9k...).
>>29866540
I actually dont care if a woman has partners before me or had sex before me.
I just care HOW she did it.
I cant get along with the gross type of girl who has over 5 partners, most of which come from bars, clubs, and or parties.
Those women are always the same type of gross vapid whore or some mentally ill insecure loser-girl.
Otherwise, 4 or 5 steady boyfriends shes fucked before me doesnt bother me.
>>29866673
That's a load of horse shit. And if you actually believe that then you live in a delusional anime filled world.
>>29866827
Having just 1 sexual partner already means that she had sex with someone and moved on, so you could be just one more person to add to her list of sex partners.
So yes, you should still be somewhat concerned.
>>29866540
Because a woman who only sleeps with men while ib relationships proves a girl cares about relationships, while a slut who casually rides the carousel is shallow vapid and worthless for more than the long term. Thise women dont change despite their claim. theyll always be shallow vapid skanks who arent trustworthy or worthwhile.
>>29866540
Guys with little to no experience worry that they might not measure up to her previous partners. Guys with more experience know that the more relationships a woman has had, the less willing she will be to put effort into maintaining one.
>>29866950
>That's a load of horse shit.
No. That's terror.
>>29866943
>4 or 5 boyfriends
>steady
Unless she's 50 years old then there's nothing "steady" about that. Just as bad as a bar/club slut.
>>29866950
OP didn't say how many sexual partners, so assuming she had many, it would mean she is promiscuous because she fucks a lot with different people and probably wouldn't care about you so much, if someone else comes along.
the pregnant part is a bit drastic, but possible.
>>29866540
It's not that woman have sex partners. Some autists on here don't like that but it's not my problem.
My issue was how easy it is for women to get laid, how good of men the average 5/10 can get easily, and how they don't appreciate it.
"Oh I had a lot of sex when I was young, but I'm older now and mature. I want a real relationship with someone that can treat me right."
FUCK THAT. Regretting having a ton of sex is like being a fat fuck that regrets eating tubs of ice-cream. No one made you jump on dicks, don't try and get pity for having no self-control.
Women could learn the same game every hot guy learns and bang 10/10's for the rest of their lives. They're playing the dating world on easy mode and they can't even appreciate it.
>>29866950
Studies have shown that divorce rates rise as precious sexual partners rise. The more previous partners a woman has had, the less likely she is to have a stable marriage.
Source in the top right.
>>29867053
This. They had their share of fucked up sexual shit with those 4 or 5 boyfriends. So by the time they get to you, it's nothing new or special.
>>29866762
It really is the perfect robot movie.
>>29867042
Terror built into the roastie.
more sexual partners -> higher chance of std's which is highly unattractive. don't want to stick my dick in some cess pool.
but every guy has a number that is too much. it may be 10, 100, 1000 or even higher. at some point it will gross a person out.
I say to people that number does not matter so when a woman asks she prob tells the truth to me so I can gauge her personality. if they ask me about sluts, i just say sluts arnt high partner count, but girls who do one nights stands and dont ask the guy to wear a condom
>>29866566
>inb4 "muh building block of civilization"
Fucking idiot. Pair bonding is the most basic human activity
>>29867058
>so assuming she had many
And that's on one hand. On the other she could have had at least 3 relationships, been loyal but the guy was a shithead. Just because she has had sex once or twice doesn't mean she had twelve loads on her face at all times. Which is what a lot of people on /r9k/ tend to actually believe.
>Then she shouldn't have dated him
Most of them will pretend to be nice just to get her then slowly change back into a shithead.
But you want to know how to avoid all of this wondering if she is a whore or not? Just be her friend for a while and don't speed shit into a relationship. Just get to fucking know her first it is that simple. And that goes for both genders.
>>29866540
because it represents risk. plain and simple, it's an instinctive realization of the low likelihood that we will be the father of her offspring.
and obviously it's a risk to our own health because promiscuous women carry life-long diseases like herpes and HPV (that aren't prevented by condoms)
Here's a question along similar lines:
>Why does the prospect of a sharing blood transfusions with multiple strangers bother us so much?
When you have sex with a woman, your bodies are literally joining in the most intimate way possible. You're not just sharing tastes, odours, basic external bacteria - sex involves transmission of bodily fluids and often small amounts of blood.
If you have sex with a woman who's had sex with another male, you are LITERALLY uniting your body to that male just as much as to the woman, only slightly removed in time.
The ones of us who've retained a value for chastity (and have retained our own) also often recognise that sexuality is empty physical pleasure outside of the context of a loving relationship - WITHIN a lifelong, committed, exclusive relationship - sexual pleasure has an amazing place. Anything else is idolatry.
>>29867100
See the last part in my other post >>29867231
Play it smart. Don't rush into a relationship ESPECIALLY a marriage. The trial point to even consider someone for marriage should be about 5+ years.
You're setting yourself up for a world of failure if you do. I do know that these days it is harder to find a loyal one compared to the 40's and 50's, but you just have to play it smart. I can't emphasize that enough. Use your god damn judgment.
>>29867266
>The ones of us who've retained a value for chastity (and have retained our own) also often recognise that sexuality is empty physical pleasure outside of the context of a loving relationship
How would you have any way of knowing whether or not this is true if you've never had sex in either context? You're just imagining the way you'd like the world to work.
If you've experienced both kinds of sex and say that sex within a relationship is better, that's one thing. Uf you'd only ever had sex within your "lifelong, committed, exclusive relationship" then you'd still have no basis for making this claim, but you'd have more of a basis than you would saying it as someone who's never had sex of any kind.
The only way you'll ever have a healthy, long lasting relationship is when you stop putting sex and women on a fucking pedestal. It is not some magical experience. It is literally one of the most common activities performed by the collective human race. Get over it.
In evolutionary terms if a women has multiple partners there is less chance the kid would be yours, adult males who like virgin females were able to breed more than cucks till recent times.
>>29867550
Wow, your post is really astounding in what it reveals about you.
You're genuinely under the impression I was saying that sex within a committed, lifelong relationship is somehow more "physically gratifying" or "physically pleasurable". Just think about what that says about you, that you see pleasure as the end-all of everything.
I said that sexuality is empty physical pleasure outside of the context of a loving relationship because the loving relationship itself is what matters, not the pleasure. Pleasure passes away to nothing, love is a significantly higher thing. Having sex with a complete stranger could in theory be signifcantly more physically pleasurable - I don't know and I don't care, I'm willing to take it as a possibility... but it's EMPTY, as empty as eating a good burger which you forget the next week.
>>29866540
Simple, I'll end up thinking about her fucking past partners. This will make me angry, which in turn will make me a terrible boyfriend. I'm willing to save myself until marriage, I honestly am not able to cope with loving a girl who's been with other men and that isn't going to change.
>>29867550
>Get over it.
Ahh, the rallying cry of the vapid whore.
Also another stereotypical appeal to accomplishment.
Actually roadtie (or roastie wannabe) its perfectly possible to know that casual sex without connection is worthless without having to do it. Its actually quite implicitly obvious to most whether they will like it or not.
This thread is autistic as all fuck DESU robots. It's because fucking around makes her a slut. And sluts are plentiful. Why would you want something you can find anywhere?
Inb4 autist, aspie, etc
>>29867550
>Green Eggs and Ham argument
He can draw conclusions from the observation of others, and from hearing of their experiences. He also has access to a wealth of data and psychological studies with which he can compare his thoughts. Without actually having sex he could learn an extraordinary amount about it.
Really, it's not clever to pretend people lack insight learning, even if you found their post offensive.
>>29866540
Nothing is worst then women potentially having previous black lovers in her life.
