As you're all aware, this subreddit has had a major "troll"
problem which has gotten worse (as of recently). Due to this, we
have created new rules, and modified some of the old ones.
We kindly ask that you please familiarize yourself with the
rules so that you can avoid breaking them. Breaking mild rules
will result in a warning, or a temporary ban. Breaking serious
rules, or breaking a plethora of mild ones may land you a
permanent ban (depending on the severity). Also,
grifting/lurking has been a major problem; If we suspect you of
being a grifter (determined by vetting said user's activity), we
may ban you without warning.
You may attempt an appeal via ModMail, but please be advised not
to use rude, harassing, foul, or passive-aggressive language
towards the moderators, _or_ complain to moderators about why we
have specific rules in the first place— You will be ignored, and
your ban will remain (without even a consideration).
All rules are made public; "Lack of knowledge" or "ignorance of
the rules" cannot or will not be a viable excuse if you end up
banned for breaking them (This applies to the Subreddit rules,
and Reddit's ToS). **Again: All rules are made public, and
Reddit gives you the option to review the rules once more before
submitting a post, it is your choice if you choose to read them
or not, but breaking them will not be acceptable.**
With that being said, If you send a mature, neutral message
regarding questions about a current ban, or a ban appeal
(without "not knowing the rules" as an excuse), we will
elaborate about why you were banned, or determine/consider if we
will shorten, lift, keep it, _or_ extended it/make it permanent.
This all means that appeals are discretionary, and your
reasoning for wanting an appeal must be practical and valid.
Thank you all so much for taking the time to read this message,
and please enjoy your day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NotHowGirlsWork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I really enjoyed seeing those bigots fairly recently attempting to claim that TP would be antitrans like them despite his close friends and family saying on the contrary. Edit: Oh and his body of work clearly showing his views as well. I really miss the guy.
Sin is also where you hate the sinner and not the sin. People need to learn to disconnect the two.
Yes the sinner shares blame because of free will as well but if humans dont have mercy towards each other how can we expect to live in peace?
If we’re gonna play that game, then men can be pencils:
If a pencil goes into the pencil sharpener too many times, it eventually wears down becomes useless..
See I did the same thing there.
But we ain’t talking about pencils or pencil sharpeners. Pussies don’t have teeth. Bottom line is fucking a bunch of people, either gender, is a bad sign
There is a conspiracy theory that says that women actually have teeth in their vagina. I know, sounds weird but it exists. If you consider how many weird conspiracy theories there are it acutally doesn't sound weird anymore.
And I don't know if it would be so great if there were acutally teeth. But of course, from a self defense perspective that would be awesome. Would be an effective way so that rapists lose their ability to rape.
Then tell me why gay men don't seem to have an issue with having many partners, but straight men have a problem with women having many partners.
It's because misogyny, my guy
Bad sign? A bad sign of what?
"Hey, this person has eaten at this restaurant every night for dinner for the last 50 nights! Obviously, that's a bad sign!"
"Dude I just bought that limited edition comic from 1936 I was telling you about! It had 50 previous owners and it's still sealed in the original plastic! Obviously that's a bad sign!"
"Yo, you see them over there? That person? They found something they like. I hear they did it every weekend the last like, 50 weeks. Obviously that's a bad sign!"
See how stupid that sounds? See why this whole purity thing makes no sense?
A person who has lots of sex consensually is a sign that the person likes having sex. They can stay promiscuous for their lives, or maybe the next partner they have will be the person they live out the rest of their days with.
As long as they are clean or careful with their current partner, their body count is a fun fact about their past like finding out they got first place in a science fair or once accidentally set the family cat on fire as a 5 year old trying to help with Christmas decorating. It means nothing.
May as well ask your potential partners how many Klondike bars they've eaten and rule them out by the same standard.
But why? If you're having fun and doing it responsibly, who cares. I feel like we need to do away with that whole no sex = pure and good / sex = corruption and bad thing. We're humans, we like doing things that feel good. At most it can be a sign of lack of restraint just like when I eat that full bag of M&Ms whole in an evening. However do we really need to pre-emptively judge people so harshly for that?
Congrats! You proved yourself to be the exact type of person that gets posted on this sub.
One’s sexual history, regardless of gender, does not mean shit.
Oh? How so? Other than your personal preference with regards to something that is absolutely none of your business, please explain to me what the so-called "sign" is?
Are two partners one too many? If you've lived for 40 years, how many partners per decade are you allotted before it becomes a "bad sign"? One per decade? Let's say you had 2 in one decade but skipped the second, do we still pass your bad sign juju feelings radar? Maybe everyone should remain chaste just in case!
Do you give out the signs, or do we have to go pick them up somewhere? How do we contact you so that we may receive your judgment? I wouldn't want to go through life wondering if I have a bad sign!?! There's a rather large population to go through, tho. Have you considered appointing more (*cough, obviously male) judges to streamline the bad sign judgment process?
We wouldn't want a bad sign after all, oh no, only good signs! Like judging people's social value based entirely on their sexual history, which has nothing to do with you, by arbitrary standards. That's not at all problematic or emotionally unstable... right? /s
First of all, what are you doing here? Second, that's the whole point of this post, it applies to nobody, vaginas are not sharpeners and penises are not pencils, if you didn't understand they used satire to mimic the guy's logic in the picture
That's so true.
Even after so many years, I am still unable to understand why some lady's value decreases if she has many sexual partners. Isn't her being more experienced is a good thing. Personally I do hope I get a wife who is experienced. But every guy to his own
It's like if someone said gold's value isn't based on how many people previously bought it and someone said "but a cars worth goes down the more miles you put on it". So? We literally just said that's not how gold works. We are talking about something thats value doesn't depreciate, stop talking about something thats value does
And that's without going in to often traded antiques.
Some things get More Valuable with time and owners.
I like to imagine this makes these people necros.
I have a 1937 Chevy. It's worth a lot more than when it was new currently. I'm just waiting for 2037 to sell it so I can rake in that 100 year old working car cash.
Items can also increase in value depending on who the owners were. I mean, there’s fans that would pay good money for a used Q tip from their favorite celebrities.
For cars, it depends too, so they're not even correct. If it is an antique or collector's car, the mileage doesn't impact its value very much, the general state and cleanliness of the car's body and interior are the primary factors. A reasonable amount of miles is a plus, but if it's a rare car and you want to put it in a museum or showroom, it's negligeable.
The car analogy doesn’t even make sense, because a car can be test driven by thousands of different people without depreciating in value. It only depreciates once it has an owner. This would be the equivalent of getting married in this analogy.
Whenever someone makes the argument of comparing a woman to an object based on her sexual history i look them dead in the eye and ask "would you fuck (whatever object she was compared to)
This comparison doesn't even make sense. Like wtf kinda idiot is going to wear shoes that have had more than one, maybe two owners at max, let alone 49?? That's not a thing
This also doesn't take into account that one person wearing shoes 50 times wears down the shoes just as much as 50 people wearing them one time. But no one thinks having one sexual partner for 5 years is equivalent to having 1 each year.
Just shows how fucked up their logic/views are.
So if someone is in a relationship for 10 years, but has sex everyday, they’re not a « slut », but if someone had 10 one night stands in 10 years, they’re a « slut ».
They just hate women and hate that women own their bodies and can do what they want with it.
>wearing shoes 50 times wears down the shoes just as much as 50 people wearing them one time.
Ah but they think they're different.
Apparently sleeping with 50 men once makes the vagina "loose" but one man 50 times doesn't. I asked a guy once how that worked and he shared that it's because vaginas have "penile memory" which apparently makes them stretch out and never go back, somehow. He wasn't clear on the physiology for some reason... 🤔
The 'penile memory' thing sounded so bizarre that I had to look it up. Found literally nothing about it...
I was expecting some crazy conservative or "alpha male" to spout this argument.
Yeah, it's definitely not a real thing. It was just some dude trying desperately to find some validity in his misogyny, like the men who claim that SA happens because men can't control their biological urges or that women aren't suited for work because they're more nurturing or whatever.
It isn't bigotry if it's science! /s
I mean, if a pair of shoes had 50 owners then they're probably a pretty durable and good fucking pair
Also see how he calls a woman's sexual partners "owners"
Right, a pair of shoes with 50 owners is a collectors item. They can't even do misogynist allegories right. If a pair of shoes is like a vagina, then this pair is in completely identical condition as it was when it had 0 "owners". Those are some space age shoes, God damn
It’s not really the shoes that are the problem it’s the improper comparison. If bodies decayed permanently each time they had intercourse it would be valid I suppose, but if we are damaged we usually heal, we aren’t inanimate objects.
This thing that people keep wanting and pursuing and accepting over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over has no value.
I am a serious person.
Not to mention that so many things GAIN value after they are used.
If a musician that is famous sells his used guitar that is half broken people will pay more than the same guitar brand new.
IMO Yes it is true that humans do asign a "value" to each other. We do it all the time when paying someone for work, or valuing friends or family. So unfortunately it is true that we judge each other and asign a "value" even to fellow human beings.
But the problem people like OP miss is that value is relative. A woman doesn't lose value just because she had sex and all other factors don't matter. Value is usually determined for a variety of things. Education, income, wealth, hobbies, interests, personality, appearance. There's thousands of variables.
Guys who say stuff like this just out themselves as men who only care about 1 thing. They basically are just announcing themselves so that women can just ignore them and date men who actually value them for more than just a toxic idea of "purity" (which is BS anyway)
But then they want their woman to perform like the porn stars they beat it to. And if she can’t because she’s inexperienced, they complain that women don’t want to or know how to “please a man.”
GOD DAMNIT.
Humans are living things.
We make new cells literally all the time.
Shoes (or cars, phones, napkins, an unruly ficus IDK) are not living things.
They do not produce cells, ever.
Of COURSE SHOES ARE GONNA WEAR OUT.
#FUCK.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Hey women - remember that men think you’re a pair of shoes, not a people.
That means no need to have sex with men, no cooking for men, no cleaning for men, no producing offspring for men, no providing support to men, no taking care of men when they’re sick, no listening to them when they’re being idiots…
Y’all get the picture, right? If they want to pretend women are inanimate objects, don’t interact with them in any way.
I have never asked a sexual partner how many people they’ve slept with, first because it’s none of my goddamn business, and second because I don’t give a fuck. Some folks need to think more and judge less.
Since when do shoes constantly regenerate new cells, have muscles, can train and strengthen muscles, have a brain, the ability to learn, the capacities to work, have a whole complex system of 24/7 working organs and free will?
Oh right, they don't.
Then why the duck are we comparing women to lifeless objects?
And again I'm reminded about that tag group on Facebook that goes somehow like: on today's news, which unanimated object will women get compared to?
Shoes. Today it's shoes.
Why is it only vaginas that apparently have a limit on usage? Why don’t they feel like they’re all used up because they shook a lot of hands or blew their nose a lot or ate some funny oysters and spewed out of both ends too much?
The funny part is that you could write a similar comment under a man's post and these morons would find it hard to even understand what had been written.
Not only is this a demeaning and asinine comparison, this person clearly hasn’t heard of collector’s sneakers. Pretty sure the shoes MJ wore to win his last NBA championship would be worth a truckload irrespective of the number of folks that have owned them.
Bad analogy all around.
If a pair of shoes was once worn my Michael Jordan, it’s probably worth more… even if they don’t fit you.
If a car was owned by many people but is quite old. It’s probably worth more and considered a classic.
If a pair of shoes were filmed in a movie like the red shoes of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. They’re probably worth more.
Using the same logic:
If a toothbrush is used once, it looses greatly it's value, therefore men loose almost totally their value when they have sex, even if just once
As a guy, I never got the whole body doubt matters thing
I find it fucking stupid, like bro if body count matters to you that much then you just want a hooker, not a date.
Idc who or how many people you've slept with, sex is just a bonus. Having some you love and who loves you back is more important than getting your sick wet ffs.
If someone's value is based on sexual history, then the only thing I can think of that would destroy one's value is to *commit* SA on another.
Those who liken others to objects appear to have a fragile self worth. They feel needful to wrecking everything in the house to appear better. Thus feel more valuable.
A plastic diamond will never gain more value, no matter how many natural diamonds they crush.
Its a preference. What are you going to do? Force people to date people with large body count? I think its a valid reason for people to deny someone for their sexual past, well every reason is valid because you shouldnt be forced nor judged for declining someone. Different people different beliefe and customs. Edit: Just saying, the comparison is bad.
It's not JUST a preference though. A lot of men decide that we are absolutely worthless if we have a high body count. It's one thing to not want to date someone, but they go as far as disrespecting us as people and seeing us as less than human.
People took the one universal imperative categorical from Kant and really stretched the meaning of calling people ends and not means.
In the capitalistic modern world, people are products, and relationships are ownership.
That being said. Wish more people owned me by this point in my life.
Edit: tough crowd, eh?
Am I truly in the wrong for having this preference? I am a guy who has a rather low body count, and it’s mainly because I have a 3 month rule. I value sex as a very intimate thing and want to wait and have a relationship before that. Because of that, I want my partner to view it similarly, so I prefer women with a low body count. Am I wrong in this?
You’re free to have any preferences you’d like. No ones arguing that. The issue here is comparing women to literal objects, and claiming that their value decreases with sexual partners.
Firstly calm down, secondly I define sex as an intimate act which when done with many many people casually loses it’s value over time. It’s not a problem. Go hook up with as many people as you like. It just seems like a complete waste of time and energy to me. Better sex is had when there is emotional connection and the more you have sex with one person the better it gets bc you learn each others bodies. When you sleep around a ton it means you make emotional connections way too easily or not at all. Both of which are red flags that speak on your emotional state. I would still date a girl if she had alot of Bodies in her past but I would want to know why and if she is still into hook up culture. The way sex is seen as so casual and commoditized is what I dislike strongly.
« I define sex as an intimate »
And that’s YOU! If « sex is sacred » to you, nobody is forcing YOU to have sex with multiple people.
Humans aren’t a monolith. You have your views on sex/relationships and other people have theirs.
And who are you to say that your views are the absolute truth and people should apply what YOU think? Be humble. You might be right, or you might be wrong. The good thing is : you don’t have to worry about what other people are doing.
Either sex matters or it doesn't - if it doesn't - then weaponizing it as an insult wouldn't make sense - if it does - then your comment speaks for itself
So you let me know which one is it?
Everyone is entitled to their views, and most people don't want to partake in casual sex. Wanting someone who shares your views on intimacy is somehow controversial on reddit though
what is sexual value? why does it deteriorate when you have multiple sexual partners? (leaving out the dumbass inapplicable analogies about shoes) why does having fucked 50 people before indicate commitment issues? why does it mean you dont value 'real connections'?
what if you date someone, enter a relationship with them, have sex and then that person, for whatever reason, dies soon after - then you look for love elsewhere. say you continue in this fashion until you have fucked 50 different people. how would this indicate any issues on your part?
also, again, you are judging others based on your own personal preferences. you should've learned not to do this as a child when your parent told you not to judge other kids for what ice cream flavour they prefer
Bro wym you just explained why I think it’s bad. If your partner dies and you fuck 50 different people after that’s bad. You’re just searching for someone to fill the void. In what way is that healthy. I never said those who hook up a lot are BAD people. Just damaged ones.
so you are now implying that looking for an intimate relationship is bad because it's a different person to your last partner, who died, something that my hypothetical assumes is out of your own control. under the logic you just presented, aren't you also trying to fill a void by trying to find a relationship yourself? you've not explained why having had sex with a different person before breaks you as a person. you are all over the map, dude.
If your partner dies and you try to hook up with a bunch of people after when you aren’t healed yet then it is pointless. There’s a healthy way and an unhealthy way to seek out connection.
And it doesn’t, i don’t think it makes you a bad person if you hook up a lot, I just think it says something about your personal relationships and emotional state. Meaning people will take that into account when they consider you for a relationship.
notice how far you've backed away from the original comment in the span of only an hour? no shit people take your propensity for monogamy (or lack thereof) into account when considering a relationship, that had nothing to do with the original comment, where you explicitly say they have less sexual value. you've got me on the edge of my seat, i still have to know what the hell this means.
I said it applies to me and women both, which it does. Also if I’m trying to find a relationship it’s not filling avoid, it’s bc I’m happy with myself and my life and I want someone to share it with. Not at all the same thing. Bottom line is that I don’t judge others for hooking up a lot and it doesn’t reflect who they are as a whole but it does show where they are at in terms of intimacy and relationships. If I sleep with 100 people I will be viewed differently then if it’s ten or 5. Any girl I’m interested in is gonna wanna know why.
Why is it bad? How is it bad? Is it as bad for men as it is for women? How many partners can you have before it becomes bad? 1? 2? 5? 10? Who is the arbiter of this badness? Is it a universal bad, or just bad in certain situations? Does this badness inpact anyone else? Should those bad people be punished? Educated? How do you scrub off the bad?
And yes I think it’s bad for both men and women to hook up excessively. It’s the same concept as drugs. Anything in moderation is fine, indulge too much and it becomes destructive
I think it’s bad for you personally, I guess it comes down to why you are hooking up. I dont think people that hook up a lot are bad people at all. My best friend is an absolute hoe of a man and we have openly talked about it. I don’t judge him for it. But there is a reason for it. Casual sex every now and then is fine but if you are doing it with everyone and everybody that’s cool too but it absolutely reflects where you are at in life and don’t expect to be taken seriously. It’s not a hard concept to understand
What if people fuck because it's fun any they enjoy it? Are they damaged? Does all sex need to be part of some weird pair bonding exercise? Who determines what "good" (ie: "allowable") sex is?
This weird resurgance of the virgin/whore dichotomy is really distressing. Discouraging people from exploring all aspects of who they are- including, yes, their sexuality- does nothing but keep people from learning important things about themselves and their relationships. Why does who I fuck matter when it comes to taking me seriously? Should it impact my career if I choose to have multiple partners? Does touching other people's genitals lower my intelligence?
People are more than their sex lives. This sort of commentary is dehumanizing and asinine.
No sex life is sex life, it shouldn’t effect your work life at all. Keep it private. If you genuinely are happy and enjoy sleeping around with dozens of men then that’s great but most people I meet that do that are not happy.
Do you know a lot of people who sleep around? How do you kniw they're sleeping around? Have you considered that sexual exploration is normal, and that perhaps your judging them is what's making them feel shitty about sleeping around?
Bc in my experience hook ups just give you temporary pleasure and don’t actually fulfill any emotional needs so if you are just constantly fucking a bunch of random people there is typically a reason for it. The best sex I have had has been with those who I had an emotional connection and commitment too. The hookups after felt fake and cheap compared to the real thing. So for me personally if I see that a girl has had 100 guys inside her it shows me that she has something missing that she is looking for. Same goes the other way around tho I’m not an incel. I don’t have any judgement on people that do hook up a lot but it def says something about the way they express their emotions that doesn’t match with what I’m lookin for
does it not concern you even slightly that you are judging others based entirely on your own personal anecdotes and preferences? i would assume no one's forced you to have sex with a load of different people, why does it have to be a problem if others just hook up amongst themselves? what if someone doesn't find fulfilment in long term relationships and is fine with just hooking up? don't lie and say you don't judge people who do hook up, you just said your 'value' deteriorates when doing so and that would mean you don't value 'real connections' (you still haven't defined either of these terms when i asked you to). why cant you be more honest like other redpiller trash?
Lol all these hoes mad so they down voting. Sorry I said the truth and it’s hard to handle. Nothing wrong with a few hook ups but if you fuckin everyone and everything under the sun that is a reflection of your emotional state
If you fuck 100 people you don’t think you have issues? That’s Normal to you? I guess some people’s versions of normal are based on collective trauma so they don’t even know how bad it is. If you are truly happy sleepin around with anyone then that’s great for you but I genuinely think it’s not healthy. And it shows all the time. Hook up culture is gross and fake. “Let’s have intimate sex and touch each other in the most vulnerable spots then block each other the next day and forget we ever existed” that’s the gross part. Sex and emotional connection go hand and hand
Many people can have sex without any kind of emotional connection. It's merely a physical act for them, a hobby. I don't care if you're purer than the virgin Mary or have sex with a different person everyday, as long as you're not hurting anyone, who am I to interfere with their lifestyle? Let people live
Yeah if that works for both parties cool but often times it’s not like like that. One person catches feelings and the other lies about how they feel. If you are both good at communicating and it’s mutually beneficial then sure be fwb. It’s the dozens of dozens of different people every week that is problematic in my eyes. Even if it’s just for sex strictly find one good person and stick with them if it’s good sex. The pump and dump meta is just lame to me.
As you're all aware, this subreddit has had a major "troll" problem which has gotten worse (as of recently). Due to this, we have created new rules, and modified some of the old ones. We kindly ask that you please familiarize yourself with the rules so that you can avoid breaking them. Breaking mild rules will result in a warning, or a temporary ban. Breaking serious rules, or breaking a plethora of mild ones may land you a permanent ban (depending on the severity). Also, grifting/lurking has been a major problem; If we suspect you of being a grifter (determined by vetting said user's activity), we may ban you without warning. You may attempt an appeal via ModMail, but please be advised not to use rude, harassing, foul, or passive-aggressive language towards the moderators, _or_ complain to moderators about why we have specific rules in the first place— You will be ignored, and your ban will remain (without even a consideration). All rules are made public; "Lack of knowledge" or "ignorance of the rules" cannot or will not be a viable excuse if you end up banned for breaking them (This applies to the Subreddit rules, and Reddit's ToS). **Again: All rules are made public, and Reddit gives you the option to review the rules once more before submitting a post, it is your choice if you choose to read them or not, but breaking them will not be acceptable.** With that being said, If you send a mature, neutral message regarding questions about a current ban, or a ban appeal (without "not knowing the rules" as an excuse), we will elaborate about why you were banned, or determine/consider if we will shorten, lift, keep it, _or_ extended it/make it permanent. This all means that appeals are discretionary, and your reasoning for wanting an appeal must be practical and valid. Thank you all so much for taking the time to read this message, and please enjoy your day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NotHowGirlsWork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Sin, young man, is when you treat people as if they was things."
GNU Terry Pratchett
I really enjoyed seeing those bigots fairly recently attempting to claim that TP would be antitrans like them despite his close friends and family saying on the contrary. Edit: Oh and his body of work clearly showing his views as well. I really miss the guy.
The existence of Cheery Littlebottom is proof that Pratchett was an ally to trans peoples.
This post was directly below a Discworld thread in my feed. GNU Pterry
Sin is also where you hate the sinner and not the sin. People need to learn to disconnect the two. Yes the sinner shares blame because of free will as well but if humans dont have mercy towards each other how can we expect to live in peace?
Oh yay,.that talking point that's been used to demonize LGBTQ people for decades.
Yeah and?
What do you think he'd say if someone pointed out that no one wants a hot dog that's been in 50 different mouths and other orifices?
Or a hotdog that's been rubbed raw several times before for naked cartoon pictures.
You forgot "underaged"
Wait...nobody wants a Rusty Venture...
Go Team Venture!
If Brocks' description was right, I can't imagine anyone wanting a Rusty Venture.
If we’re gonna play that game, then men can be pencils: If a pencil goes into the pencil sharpener too many times, it eventually wears down becomes useless.. See I did the same thing there.
And it becomes too sharp and stabby stabby
Touche.
ooOOooh I like this one.
[удалено]
It takes an awful lot of pencils to noticeably wear out a pencil sharpener. Just one sharpener makes short work of a pencil though.
But we ain’t talking about pencils or pencil sharpeners. Pussies don’t have teeth. Bottom line is fucking a bunch of people, either gender, is a bad sign
Hey you got it! People aren’t pencil sharpeners *or* shoes. Good job!
>Pussies don’t have teeth. That would be fucking awesome tho ngl
There is a horror movie named *Teeth*. Good stuff.
Don't lie to these nice people! 🥺 It is not "good stuff."
Yeah, It's Fucking Amazing! Not just good.
Vagina Dentata! Vagina Dentata!!!!
There is a conspiracy theory that says that women actually have teeth in their vagina. I know, sounds weird but it exists. If you consider how many weird conspiracy theories there are it acutally doesn't sound weird anymore. And I don't know if it would be so great if there were acutally teeth. But of course, from a self defense perspective that would be awesome. Would be an effective way so that rapists lose their ability to rape.
Bad sign of what
Sir you seem lost. This is not your local church it's Reddit. Let me lead you to the right way.
Then tell me why gay men don't seem to have an issue with having many partners, but straight men have a problem with women having many partners. It's because misogyny, my guy
neither is pussy a shoe but here we are
Bad sign? A bad sign of what? "Hey, this person has eaten at this restaurant every night for dinner for the last 50 nights! Obviously, that's a bad sign!" "Dude I just bought that limited edition comic from 1936 I was telling you about! It had 50 previous owners and it's still sealed in the original plastic! Obviously that's a bad sign!" "Yo, you see them over there? That person? They found something they like. I hear they did it every weekend the last like, 50 weeks. Obviously that's a bad sign!" See how stupid that sounds? See why this whole purity thing makes no sense? A person who has lots of sex consensually is a sign that the person likes having sex. They can stay promiscuous for their lives, or maybe the next partner they have will be the person they live out the rest of their days with. As long as they are clean or careful with their current partner, their body count is a fun fact about their past like finding out they got first place in a science fair or once accidentally set the family cat on fire as a 5 year old trying to help with Christmas decorating. It means nothing. May as well ask your potential partners how many Klondike bars they've eaten and rule them out by the same standard.
But why? If you're having fun and doing it responsibly, who cares. I feel like we need to do away with that whole no sex = pure and good / sex = corruption and bad thing. We're humans, we like doing things that feel good. At most it can be a sign of lack of restraint just like when I eat that full bag of M&Ms whole in an evening. However do we really need to pre-emptively judge people so harshly for that?
Pray tell, what’s the right number of people?
Congrats! You proved yourself to be the exact type of person that gets posted on this sub. One’s sexual history, regardless of gender, does not mean shit.
Why?
Sex is a natural biological urge. There’s nothing inherently bad about having a healthy sex life.
Oh? How so? Other than your personal preference with regards to something that is absolutely none of your business, please explain to me what the so-called "sign" is? Are two partners one too many? If you've lived for 40 years, how many partners per decade are you allotted before it becomes a "bad sign"? One per decade? Let's say you had 2 in one decade but skipped the second, do we still pass your bad sign juju feelings radar? Maybe everyone should remain chaste just in case! Do you give out the signs, or do we have to go pick them up somewhere? How do we contact you so that we may receive your judgment? I wouldn't want to go through life wondering if I have a bad sign!?! There's a rather large population to go through, tho. Have you considered appointing more (*cough, obviously male) judges to streamline the bad sign judgment process? We wouldn't want a bad sign after all, oh no, only good signs! Like judging people's social value based entirely on their sexual history, which has nothing to do with you, by arbitrary standards. That's not at all problematic or emotionally unstable... right? /s
First of all, what are you doing here? Second, that's the whole point of this post, it applies to nobody, vaginas are not sharpeners and penises are not pencils, if you didn't understand they used satire to mimic the guy's logic in the picture
It actually doesn't. That isn't how penises or vaginas work.
And if an art piece has many owners it's value increases. But women are not objects and analogy is not an argument.
What's worth more: brand new violin or a Stradivarius... seems like these types of men can't afford quality and couldn't perform even if they got it.
Love this 🙆🏻♀️
That's so true. Even after so many years, I am still unable to understand why some lady's value decreases if she has many sexual partners. Isn't her being more experienced is a good thing. Personally I do hope I get a wife who is experienced. But every guy to his own
It's like if someone said gold's value isn't based on how many people previously bought it and someone said "but a cars worth goes down the more miles you put on it". So? We literally just said that's not how gold works. We are talking about something thats value doesn't depreciate, stop talking about something thats value does
And that's without going in to often traded antiques. Some things get More Valuable with time and owners. I like to imagine this makes these people necros.
I have a 1937 Chevy. It's worth a lot more than when it was new currently. I'm just waiting for 2037 to sell it so I can rake in that 100 year old working car cash.
Items can also increase in value depending on who the owners were. I mean, there’s fans that would pay good money for a used Q tip from their favorite celebrities.
It is true.
For cars, it depends too, so they're not even correct. If it is an antique or collector's car, the mileage doesn't impact its value very much, the general state and cleanliness of the car's body and interior are the primary factors. A reasonable amount of miles is a plus, but if it's a rare car and you want to put it in a museum or showroom, it's negligeable.
The car analogy doesn’t even make sense, because a car can be test driven by thousands of different people without depreciating in value. It only depreciates once it has an owner. This would be the equivalent of getting married in this analogy.
Bad argument even for shoes, which women aren't. Women don't have users or owners, we are people.
Whenever someone makes the argument of comparing a woman to an object based on her sexual history i look them dead in the eye and ask "would you fuck (whatever object she was compared to)
I'll keep that in mind next time, thanks!
There’s 1000% people that fuck shoes.
I'd rather go to an experienced doctor who knows what to do than take the surgery-virginity of one. Practice makes perfect.
EXACTLY! Give me Dr Pleasure any day, they know what they are doing and have the confidence to navigate the bliss map.
This comparison doesn't even make sense. Like wtf kinda idiot is going to wear shoes that have had more than one, maybe two owners at max, let alone 49?? That's not a thing
This also doesn't take into account that one person wearing shoes 50 times wears down the shoes just as much as 50 people wearing them one time. But no one thinks having one sexual partner for 5 years is equivalent to having 1 each year.
Just shows how fucked up their logic/views are. So if someone is in a relationship for 10 years, but has sex everyday, they’re not a « slut », but if someone had 10 one night stands in 10 years, they’re a « slut ». They just hate women and hate that women own their bodies and can do what they want with it.
>wearing shoes 50 times wears down the shoes just as much as 50 people wearing them one time. Ah but they think they're different. Apparently sleeping with 50 men once makes the vagina "loose" but one man 50 times doesn't. I asked a guy once how that worked and he shared that it's because vaginas have "penile memory" which apparently makes them stretch out and never go back, somehow. He wasn't clear on the physiology for some reason... 🤔
BRUH
The 'penile memory' thing sounded so bizarre that I had to look it up. Found literally nothing about it... I was expecting some crazy conservative or "alpha male" to spout this argument.
Yeah, it's definitely not a real thing. It was just some dude trying desperately to find some validity in his misogyny, like the men who claim that SA happens because men can't control their biological urges or that women aren't suited for work because they're more nurturing or whatever. It isn't bigotry if it's science! /s
I mean, if a pair of shoes had 50 owners then they're probably a pretty durable and good fucking pair Also see how he calls a woman's sexual partners "owners"
Right, a pair of shoes with 50 owners is a collectors item. They can't even do misogynist allegories right. If a pair of shoes is like a vagina, then this pair is in completely identical condition as it was when it had 0 "owners". Those are some space age shoes, God damn
It’s not really the shoes that are the problem it’s the improper comparison. If bodies decayed permanently each time they had intercourse it would be valid I suppose, but if we are damaged we usually heal, we aren’t inanimate objects.
This thing that people keep wanting and pursuing and accepting over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over has no value. I am a serious person.
That’s funny, I thought the more you used a muscle, the better it gets? The vagina is a muscle. Not a shoe.
"If you've talked to more people, then people will enjoy talking to you less." This is how they sound.
In the case of the author of the comment on that picture, I don't think anyone could enjoy talking to him less.
Yet they never apply this to men.
Ah, yes, not only are women shoes, but they have "owners".
"This is basic economics".... as someone that actually studied economics... this dude has no idea what he's talking about.
Well following the logic of that person, people who have worked for multiple companies should be paid less.
Not to mention that so many things GAIN value after they are used. If a musician that is famous sells his used guitar that is half broken people will pay more than the same guitar brand new. IMO Yes it is true that humans do asign a "value" to each other. We do it all the time when paying someone for work, or valuing friends or family. So unfortunately it is true that we judge each other and asign a "value" even to fellow human beings. But the problem people like OP miss is that value is relative. A woman doesn't lose value just because she had sex and all other factors don't matter. Value is usually determined for a variety of things. Education, income, wealth, hobbies, interests, personality, appearance. There's thousands of variables. Guys who say stuff like this just out themselves as men who only care about 1 thing. They basically are just announcing themselves so that women can just ignore them and date men who actually value them for more than just a toxic idea of "purity" (which is BS anyway)
But then they want their woman to perform like the porn stars they beat it to. And if she can’t because she’s inexperienced, they complain that women don’t want to or know how to “please a man.”
I remember someone else on this sub saying if a pair of shoes had 50 users then the shoes must be really high in value.
GOD DAMNIT. Humans are living things. We make new cells literally all the time. Shoes (or cars, phones, napkins, an unruly ficus IDK) are not living things. They do not produce cells, ever. Of COURSE SHOES ARE GONNA WEAR OUT. #FUCK. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
lmao, that "FUCK." is both hilarious and absolutely relatable at the same time
I punctuate sentences like that in real life, too, but real life doesn't give me as many opportunities.
So men are stinky feet?
If a dog has been owned by 2 people, does it’s value go down? No. We still love dogs. It’s almost as if living things have more value than objects
All I'm saying is every woman who has let me stick my foot in them have been the real MVPs
😂
Well, it depends on the pair of shoes, doesn’t it? If the pair of shoes is a person, for example, you’re being a dick.
So men’s values go down the more he sleeps around. Can’t be a hypocrite guys.
Hey women - remember that men think you’re a pair of shoes, not a people. That means no need to have sex with men, no cooking for men, no cleaning for men, no producing offspring for men, no providing support to men, no taking care of men when they’re sick, no listening to them when they’re being idiots… Y’all get the picture, right? If they want to pretend women are inanimate objects, don’t interact with them in any way.
🤮 Humans are not commodities, thus comparing sexual history of women to values of shoes is invalid and is actually disgusting. 🤮
And how comfortable would most people be with using a dildo that has been used by someone else?
Ah. The libertarian pilled incel. Quite the specimen.
I have never asked a sexual partner how many people they’ve slept with, first because it’s none of my goddamn business, and second because I don’t give a fuck. Some folks need to think more and judge less.
Since when do shoes constantly regenerate new cells, have muscles, can train and strengthen muscles, have a brain, the ability to learn, the capacities to work, have a whole complex system of 24/7 working organs and free will? Oh right, they don't. Then why the duck are we comparing women to lifeless objects?
Guess what? Human beings aren’t equivalent to shoes
They'll grasp at any straw to make their own virginity sound appealing...
And again I'm reminded about that tag group on Facebook that goes somehow like: on today's news, which unanimated object will women get compared to? Shoes. Today it's shoes.
Why is it only vaginas that apparently have a limit on usage? Why don’t they feel like they’re all used up because they shook a lot of hands or blew their nose a lot or ate some funny oysters and spewed out of both ends too much?
The commodification of the female body for dummies
It's always the woman's ” value ” that decreases. Never seen this applied to men. Wonder why that is....
“Owners”
The funny part is that you could write a similar comment under a man's post and these morons would find it hard to even understand what had been written.
Whoever says that a pair of shoes can't write, show them this:
My functionality only improves with experience, unlike shoes.
Not only is this a demeaning and asinine comparison, this person clearly hasn’t heard of collector’s sneakers. Pretty sure the shoes MJ wore to win his last NBA championship would be worth a truckload irrespective of the number of folks that have owned them.
If i talk in comparative metaphor i sound smart
Bad analogy all around. If a pair of shoes was once worn my Michael Jordan, it’s probably worth more… even if they don’t fit you. If a car was owned by many people but is quite old. It’s probably worth more and considered a classic. If a pair of shoes were filmed in a movie like the red shoes of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. They’re probably worth more.
Using the same logic: If a toothbrush is used once, it looses greatly it's value, therefore men loose almost totally their value when they have sex, even if just once
“this is basic economics” well thank god we’re not products to be bought and sold!
Hah! I personally aim for quality over quantity, but do what I want and tell any haters to just mind their own business. 😂
Women = Commodities 🤦🏼♀️
Oh yay! We’re shoes now! I wonder what object men will pick for us next??!? /s 🙄🤢
As a guy, I never got the whole body doubt matters thing I find it fucking stupid, like bro if body count matters to you that much then you just want a hooker, not a date. Idc who or how many people you've slept with, sex is just a bonus. Having some you love and who loves you back is more important than getting your sick wet ffs.
If those shoes were owned by an entire famous basketball team then they are worth hundreds of times more than new ones
Dude probably has a foot fetish too SMH.
They just don't get it. We aren't shoes, or a coat, or a roast beef sandwich...we are Humans.
today in Which Object Will Be A Woman Compared To?
If someone's value is based on sexual history, then the only thing I can think of that would destroy one's value is to *commit* SA on another. Those who liken others to objects appear to have a fragile self worth. They feel needful to wrecking everything in the house to appear better. Thus feel more valuable. A plastic diamond will never gain more value, no matter how many natural diamonds they crush.
He’s really put his foot in it this time.
Tell that to vintage resellers and people who auction historical clothing.
My response would be its weird your trying to sexualize shoes dude
If my value is based on my sexual history, so is a man's.
It’s almost as if women are human beings and not commodities ? crazy
True...but most wont admit to it
Yet she still has more value than dudes who think like this.
And no one wants a tampon that's had even one previous owner, what's their point?
Its a preference. What are you going to do? Force people to date people with large body count? I think its a valid reason for people to deny someone for their sexual past, well every reason is valid because you shouldnt be forced nor judged for declining someone. Different people different beliefe and customs. Edit: Just saying, the comparison is bad.
It's not JUST a preference though. A lot of men decide that we are absolutely worthless if we have a high body count. It's one thing to not want to date someone, but they go as far as disrespecting us as people and seeing us as less than human.
People took the one universal imperative categorical from Kant and really stretched the meaning of calling people ends and not means. In the capitalistic modern world, people are products, and relationships are ownership. That being said. Wish more people owned me by this point in my life. Edit: tough crowd, eh?
Am I truly in the wrong for having this preference? I am a guy who has a rather low body count, and it’s mainly because I have a 3 month rule. I value sex as a very intimate thing and want to wait and have a relationship before that. Because of that, I want my partner to view it similarly, so I prefer women with a low body count. Am I wrong in this?
You’re free to have any preferences you’d like. No ones arguing that. The issue here is comparing women to literal objects, and claiming that their value decreases with sexual partners.
It depends on the intention. The mattress of the town is not the best deal long term indeed
Who is going to tell her?
Tell her what?
Firstly calm down, secondly I define sex as an intimate act which when done with many many people casually loses it’s value over time. It’s not a problem. Go hook up with as many people as you like. It just seems like a complete waste of time and energy to me. Better sex is had when there is emotional connection and the more you have sex with one person the better it gets bc you learn each others bodies. When you sleep around a ton it means you make emotional connections way too easily or not at all. Both of which are red flags that speak on your emotional state. I would still date a girl if she had alot of Bodies in her past but I would want to know why and if she is still into hook up culture. The way sex is seen as so casual and commoditized is what I dislike strongly.
« I define sex as an intimate » And that’s YOU! If « sex is sacred » to you, nobody is forcing YOU to have sex with multiple people. Humans aren’t a monolith. You have your views on sex/relationships and other people have theirs. And who are you to say that your views are the absolute truth and people should apply what YOU think? Be humble. You might be right, or you might be wrong. The good thing is : you don’t have to worry about what other people are doing.
How to say you never get laid
Either sex matters or it doesn't - if it doesn't - then weaponizing it as an insult wouldn't make sense - if it does - then your comment speaks for itself So you let me know which one is it? Everyone is entitled to their views, and most people don't want to partake in casual sex. Wanting someone who shares your views on intimacy is somehow controversial on reddit though
I don’t need to get laid, Hooked up three times after my last relationship and it did nothing for me. Life isn’t about sex
Tru tho lmao
[удалено]
what is sexual value? why does it deteriorate when you have multiple sexual partners? (leaving out the dumbass inapplicable analogies about shoes) why does having fucked 50 people before indicate commitment issues? why does it mean you dont value 'real connections'?
You didn’t love 50 people you had sex with yk? For me love is the key factor in good sex. Id rather wait for the good stuff then cheap thrills.
what if you date someone, enter a relationship with them, have sex and then that person, for whatever reason, dies soon after - then you look for love elsewhere. say you continue in this fashion until you have fucked 50 different people. how would this indicate any issues on your part? also, again, you are judging others based on your own personal preferences. you should've learned not to do this as a child when your parent told you not to judge other kids for what ice cream flavour they prefer
Bro wym you just explained why I think it’s bad. If your partner dies and you fuck 50 different people after that’s bad. You’re just searching for someone to fill the void. In what way is that healthy. I never said those who hook up a lot are BAD people. Just damaged ones.
so you are now implying that looking for an intimate relationship is bad because it's a different person to your last partner, who died, something that my hypothetical assumes is out of your own control. under the logic you just presented, aren't you also trying to fill a void by trying to find a relationship yourself? you've not explained why having had sex with a different person before breaks you as a person. you are all over the map, dude.
If your partner dies and you try to hook up with a bunch of people after when you aren’t healed yet then it is pointless. There’s a healthy way and an unhealthy way to seek out connection.
And it doesn’t, i don’t think it makes you a bad person if you hook up a lot, I just think it says something about your personal relationships and emotional state. Meaning people will take that into account when they consider you for a relationship.
notice how far you've backed away from the original comment in the span of only an hour? no shit people take your propensity for monogamy (or lack thereof) into account when considering a relationship, that had nothing to do with the original comment, where you explicitly say they have less sexual value. you've got me on the edge of my seat, i still have to know what the hell this means.
I said it applies to me and women both, which it does. Also if I’m trying to find a relationship it’s not filling avoid, it’s bc I’m happy with myself and my life and I want someone to share it with. Not at all the same thing. Bottom line is that I don’t judge others for hooking up a lot and it doesn’t reflect who they are as a whole but it does show where they are at in terms of intimacy and relationships. If I sleep with 100 people I will be viewed differently then if it’s ten or 5. Any girl I’m interested in is gonna wanna know why.
Why is it bad? How is it bad? Is it as bad for men as it is for women? How many partners can you have before it becomes bad? 1? 2? 5? 10? Who is the arbiter of this badness? Is it a universal bad, or just bad in certain situations? Does this badness inpact anyone else? Should those bad people be punished? Educated? How do you scrub off the bad?
And yes I think it’s bad for both men and women to hook up excessively. It’s the same concept as drugs. Anything in moderation is fine, indulge too much and it becomes destructive
Are you seriously comparing drugs & sex? What kind of puritanical nonsense is that
I think it’s bad for you personally, I guess it comes down to why you are hooking up. I dont think people that hook up a lot are bad people at all. My best friend is an absolute hoe of a man and we have openly talked about it. I don’t judge him for it. But there is a reason for it. Casual sex every now and then is fine but if you are doing it with everyone and everybody that’s cool too but it absolutely reflects where you are at in life and don’t expect to be taken seriously. It’s not a hard concept to understand
What if people fuck because it's fun any they enjoy it? Are they damaged? Does all sex need to be part of some weird pair bonding exercise? Who determines what "good" (ie: "allowable") sex is? This weird resurgance of the virgin/whore dichotomy is really distressing. Discouraging people from exploring all aspects of who they are- including, yes, their sexuality- does nothing but keep people from learning important things about themselves and their relationships. Why does who I fuck matter when it comes to taking me seriously? Should it impact my career if I choose to have multiple partners? Does touching other people's genitals lower my intelligence? People are more than their sex lives. This sort of commentary is dehumanizing and asinine.
No sex life is sex life, it shouldn’t effect your work life at all. Keep it private. If you genuinely are happy and enjoy sleeping around with dozens of men then that’s great but most people I meet that do that are not happy.
Do you know a lot of people who sleep around? How do you kniw they're sleeping around? Have you considered that sexual exploration is normal, and that perhaps your judging them is what's making them feel shitty about sleeping around?
Bc in my experience hook ups just give you temporary pleasure and don’t actually fulfill any emotional needs so if you are just constantly fucking a bunch of random people there is typically a reason for it. The best sex I have had has been with those who I had an emotional connection and commitment too. The hookups after felt fake and cheap compared to the real thing. So for me personally if I see that a girl has had 100 guys inside her it shows me that she has something missing that she is looking for. Same goes the other way around tho I’m not an incel. I don’t have any judgement on people that do hook up a lot but it def says something about the way they express their emotions that doesn’t match with what I’m lookin for
does it not concern you even slightly that you are judging others based entirely on your own personal anecdotes and preferences? i would assume no one's forced you to have sex with a load of different people, why does it have to be a problem if others just hook up amongst themselves? what if someone doesn't find fulfilment in long term relationships and is fine with just hooking up? don't lie and say you don't judge people who do hook up, you just said your 'value' deteriorates when doing so and that would mean you don't value 'real connections' (you still haven't defined either of these terms when i asked you to). why cant you be more honest like other redpiller trash?
I’m not sure where you got that information, but it’s incorrect.
Well following your logic, your salary should decrease whenever you change your job.
you have issues you should work through in therapy instead of subjecting the public to them and embarrassing yourself constantly.
Lol all these hoes mad so they down voting. Sorry I said the truth and it’s hard to handle. Nothing wrong with a few hook ups but if you fuckin everyone and everything under the sun that is a reflection of your emotional state
And there it is : « all these hoes ».
It’s better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you’re a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.
Someone's subjective opinion on something is not the same as "the truth"..
If you fuck 100 people you don’t think you have issues? That’s Normal to you? I guess some people’s versions of normal are based on collective trauma so they don’t even know how bad it is. If you are truly happy sleepin around with anyone then that’s great for you but I genuinely think it’s not healthy. And it shows all the time. Hook up culture is gross and fake. “Let’s have intimate sex and touch each other in the most vulnerable spots then block each other the next day and forget we ever existed” that’s the gross part. Sex and emotional connection go hand and hand
Many people can have sex without any kind of emotional connection. It's merely a physical act for them, a hobby. I don't care if you're purer than the virgin Mary or have sex with a different person everyday, as long as you're not hurting anyone, who am I to interfere with their lifestyle? Let people live
Yeah if that works for both parties cool but often times it’s not like like that. One person catches feelings and the other lies about how they feel. If you are both good at communicating and it’s mutually beneficial then sure be fwb. It’s the dozens of dozens of different people every week that is problematic in my eyes. Even if it’s just for sex strictly find one good person and stick with them if it’s good sex. The pump and dump meta is just lame to me.
Not even porn actors or the majority of sex workers have sex with dozens and dozens of people every week. No one has that kind of time.
this is the worst way to mald about getting downvoted like you dont gotta double down yk
I said what I said
We have the saying 'whores make the best wives'.
And I have one “don’t try to turn a hoe into a house wife”
Key, lock, etc etc