Memes aside

No, just to other sluts

I would not prefer a virgin. I like women who are good at sex and there's no way I'm risking marrying someone terrible at fucking.

outline what the actual trp standpoint is

Proven facts: Condoms aren't even 90% effective at preventing STDs. Even "harmless" STDs can increase your risk of cancer among other illnesses. Condom manufacturers, when they list the condom failure rates, are not accounting for STDs, just pregnancies. Condoms are a hoax for sluts and hedonists - it is no wonder the Bible warned us of the dangers of sexual degeneracy!

If you came into a woman, even on a lucky day of her ovary cycle, the pregnancy rate would be around 30% (and again, assuming this is a lucky day, and that you are a average man, instead of a numale). Of course a listed 1% condom failure rate is more like 18% to 50% if you're taking into account STDs and not just the chance for pregnancy.

Pregnancy and STD rates are not the same thing. Don't fall for the condom meme. /r/TRP is one of the few semi-decent subreddits (even if there are too many fedora-tippers for my liking). Sad that more people aren't aware of these types of things that the Bible even warns us of!

reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/4y3vrb/time_travel_partner_count_doesnt_matter_vs/

>predicting that fedoras and fucked up degenerates will reply to me in anger. It always happens, but I know there will be some people who appreciate this.

>It doesn't matter
It DOES matter.

I appreciate it brother. Semen retention leads to great powers, one might even call them wizardly...

>getting married

OP here. Yap, that post triggered me. That's why I'm here asking all these questions.

Women who only ever had 1 partner or 2 are usually heavily influenced by social stigma and familiy, which in turn also dictates her behavior in marriage. Women who slept with more men (I'm talking about the medium range here, not full slut status) are showing the true marriage stability index.

To that, add the fact that that data doesn't account for recent marriages which are set on a different group of values. 40 or 50 years ago, women who slept with more men were different from women nowadays who do the same thing. I believe women nowadays can have a certain number of partners and still end up in a stable and healthy marriage.

Of one thing I am certain: forcing people to marry and to "stabilize" their marriage is a sure recipe for an even bigger failure.

What do you mean forcing people to marry?

Educate yourself

reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/

of course i've read the shit on TRP, but you don't want me make my interpretations.

you obviously wanna push a specific angle of trp

i have read it, i've gone through the posts of extreme bitterness and virginity, and I've also seen some ok but extremely basic and self-evident posts.

so tell me exactly what you're trying to say it is.

When I say "forcing" I mean the constant pressure from family and society to get a husband, get a house and have some kids before they are even ready. Each individual should decide on his own what to do with his life. I believe a good amount of failed marriages stem from rash decision making, of which maybe more than half result from all those pressures I mentioned. This can have even worse results when children are involved.

The practice of family building and healthy stable marriages should not be abolished by any means, but the constant pressure to perform by society should be stopped at once. An individual has a right to get to know other people and himself before making such a big decision. Having more than 4 or 5 partners in your life does not make you ineligible for marriage. More than 10... arguable. Keep in mind I'm pulling stats out of my ass, but the basis of argument is still true.

>I mean the constant pressure from family and society to get a husband, get a house and have some kids before they are even ready.

30-35 years old is a hard cutoff for healthy babies, and most women want kids eventually, so it's not bad advice

Quite the opposite. I came here with questions and not with answers. I'm asking Veeky Forums the most sexual board on Veeky Forums whats their take on relationships. All my previous relationships were had with virgins and now I'm 23 and I'm facing a new reality: am I going to end up with someone who had a few dicks inside of her?

>Get a virgin
>Train them to be good at sex

I never understood the ''virgins are bad at sex'' meme. You have the chance to mold them to your dick.
Will the first few times be pretty awful? Yeah, they will. But if shes going to be a life partner it's worth the extra effort.

I only want someone good at fucking when they're just a fuck buddy or one night stand.

answer: yes

unless you marry at 15.

or unless you don't marry.

hope this cleared it up

It's ok to know your limits and to plan ahead, but it's not ok to marry someone just because your bio clock is ticking. I understand it must be a great pressure by itself, but the future generations will suffer if you base this generation on broken parents.

I see it all the time in my country and it's not even one of the worse. Here all people think about is getting a job, a car, a house and marry their bf/gf of 10 years so they can start a family. Some of those marriages end up alright, some of them end up completely shit because they had no change to know themselves beforehand. I have witnessed the dysfunction in those couples, mainly from generations from the 70's all the way to the 90's. It all comes from societal pressure. It's "what you're supposed to do". It's fucking retarded.

Yes. And it really doesn't matter at all.

This. Stop being such retards. Your dick as been inside other vaginas as well. Get over your macho animal instincts, this is the real world.

Yes. And it matters a lot.
All the women in that age group are on the brink of being used up cumwrags looking to settle down because they're all worn out.

Look for someone 18-20. Little bit less dicks in them and wont tie you down right away.

> Your dick as been inside other vaginas as well.

in most cases they haven't tho, that's where the intense insecurity comes from.

>that's where the intense insecurity comes from

Even I have felt this insecurity, but it's nonsensical as fuck. You just have to get over it.

yeah? ive literally never thought about it other than when i'm on Veeky Forums because very 3rd thread is this topic.

The best part about being a man is that you can keep dating teenage virgins pretty much indefinitely as look as you stay relatively attractive, three of the most virginal girls in my class in high school are now married to men aged 40-50

Yes and let me explain.

A girl can sleep with a couple of guys and it is still ok because everyone experiments and emotions can drive them to think their current partner is the one they will be with forever and it makes sex ok. It isn't the 1800s anymore and people don't wait for marriage since divorce is so common.

If she has to think about how many, and I would say if her number is >5 then she is not one you want to be with. This is entering into the deliberate fucking just to fuck range and means she has poor self control. Guys suffer the same problem and if you're numbers are that high you're just going for kill count. This will not be attractive to most women either. (I'm at 13 and I have to hide it to get a date)

Sometimes a person will realize they fucked up and change like I did, but that change doesn't always stick and you end up with someone who might just fuck someone because they are really horny.

>Tl;Dr yes you should go for low count because high count=no self control.

A key that unlocks lots of locks is an awesome key, a lock that gets opened by lots of keys is a shitty lock. Men and women are different, get over it

If low count is in the range 5 to 10, I think I agree with you. People have phases they go through in life, but if a person starts fucking around and doesn't realize it doesn't make up for their unhappiness, it's time to drop it.

Go back to 9gag with your meme analogies.

>girls aren't attracted to men that have slept with lots of women
You literally know nothing about female psychology

uhh yeah within reason sure.

a woman with impaired coping mechanisms who needs to have sex with different people to relieve stress has a problem.

a woman who has 1 boyfriend every 12 months isn't.

what kind of autismo needs to take shit from either

1. pure virgin
2. cockslurping cunt fuckhole of every guy in the country.

Prove me wrong faggot

The problem is that your analogy assumes men having sex is a good thing and women having sex is a bad thing.
>what is begging the question?

I concede that my number is a bit low, so that might be more appropriate. I would still say no more than 5 though. I would still date that person but I would really need to trust her first. Around where I live it's either 10 so that is really the explanation. Bible belt is a nasty place.

A bitch must either be really dumb or really mentally unstable if her relationships only last 12 months

i unironically don't understand your point.

have you had a relationship before?

12 months is about twice as long as I'd say the average long term relationship for a 20 year old to have is.

That because a man can have sex wit has many women as he wants and never get pregnant retard, a woman having multiple sex partners just shows that she's utterly terrible at picking a good partner

No you. Of course they want you to look like you can get women. They want you to act like you get women, but when you're about to actually make that leap to sex and she nervously asks how many women you've been with and the answer is 13 it makes them nervous because you're a manwhore who isn't a millionaire or something so you obviously just like to fuck. It makes them second guess everything because you could have STDs or something, you might just be a huge asshole, or have no self control and will cheat on her.

>Whores participate in those studies too mate.

>just because something is average makes it good
Not that it matter but I've been in the same relationship for over a decade now

... ok?

Women are not locks and men are not keys.

You're really naive of you think any girl other than 14 year old virgins would be intimidated by a guy having had sex with 13 girls, assuming he's in his early twenties that would imply that's hes only had sex with less than two women per year since losing his virginity, actual manwhores are usually almost in triple digits by the time they finish university

Good argument

It was a simple argument and it dropped yours to the ground.

A man is not a key to open vaginas. A man fucks women because of biological instinct and pleasure. Later, to procreate.

A woman is not a "lock" that needs to belong to one "key" only. There are absolutely zero reasons for this to be the case.

You are saying "a woman is like a lock" but you are not saying why. If your reasoning is "because if she gets fucked a lot she's a slut" you should kill yourself.

Keep convincing yourself of that mate. It's ok that you don't know. Obviously you're talking about fucking sluts if you even ironically believe what you just said. A good, relationship material girl is not going to want someone who has fucked 100+ chicks. That wasn't op's question. He asked should you marry at a low kill count and the answer is yes but don't go for virgins specifically because it's unrealistic but a low count represents self control and self respect for both men and women.

You have still failed to demonstrate that men having sex is objectively good and women having sex is objectively bad.

Like with most things in life, it just varies from person to person. Being on Veeky Forums generalizations are pretty common, but obviously there is something to it.

Maturity and intelligence are huge factors in finding a decent girl, usually you will find these attributes in women with a lower partner count. Not to say you won't find it in a women with (assuming their young 18-25) 5+ partners. It's just harder and riskier. Modern feminism would have people believe hypergamy is fine, and maybe it is for some people, but either have fun having sex, or look to settle down with a compatible partner, but you can't have both. You just fucking can't.

Just don't date a girl that believes in "having fun when I'm young and settling with a nice guy". Because they're just straight up damaged goods. Also, if a girl has EVER cheated before on former boyfriends, get out of there asap. Actions speak volumes about people and I'm pretty cynical and just don't think people change.

>a man has sex with 1000 female virgins. Who is the father of the resulting children?
He is the father.

>a woman has sex with 1000 male virgins. Who is the father of he resulting children?
Literally anyone could be the father

Men aren't going to waste literally millions of dollars raising a kid unless they're 100% sure that they're the father, especially in countries like France where paternity tests are actually illegal

As if stable marriage correlates with happy marriage
As if stable marriage correlates with personal happiness

>a woman has sex with 1000 male virgins. Who is the mother of the resulting children?
She is the mother.

>a man has sex with 1000 female virgins. Who is the mother of he resulting children?
Literally anyone could be the mother.

Male reproduction success is all about quantity whereas female reproductive success is all about quality, a man can create a child in only a few minutes and can therefore pass his genes on literally thousands of times whereas it takes a woman 12 months to make a child so she is therefore limited to only about 10 oppurtunities to pass on her genes during her lifetime, men having sex with multiple women is therefore good whereas women having sex with multiple men is bad as it hinders her ability to acquire a high quality father for her children

As a general rule, yes, the less partners she has, the more capable she is of forming a strong attachment. Strangely a large notch count doesn't seem to affect men the same way it affects women.

That said, your mileage may vary, there is no such thing as "The One", and every slut was a virgin once. It's a useful barometer, just don't get autistic about it.

>Male reproduction success is all about quantity whereas female reproductive success is all about quality

Who dictates what "success" is?

genes

Are you retarded? With the exception of mix-up in maternity wards literally every woman in history has known exactly which children she was the mother of, by contrast (with the exception of men who've deflowered virgins and then prevented them from interacting with other men until they were impregnated) no man in history has ever known exactly which children he was the father of. Funfact: the custom of going on a "honeymoon" after marriage is actually a remnant of the practice of kidnapping your bride and then hiding somewhere with her until she was pregnant with your child

This, marrying a non-virgin is always a terrible idea but marrying a virgin doesn't automatically guarantee that you'll never get cucked or divorced

not an answer. explain

Veeky Forums btfo

>over 20 year old survey...

Only a biology textbook can help you now but I'm feeling nice.

DNA's prime directive is to continue existing. It continues existing by sexual reproduction. It h as a better chance of existing if only the strongest traits multiply (free of defects, with any edge to give it an advantage). Females in nearly every species on the planet make sure to mate with males that can display their genes are the best. Males of nearly every species try to fuck as many females as possible. The result is many litters of the best genes while the defects are weeded out.

source: millions of years of life

name me a happy marriage which is unstable

Good point m8, women have sure evolved into a completely different species from the women of 1995. The study is irrelevant.

Actually, yeah. It is.
Virgins have a far far lower chance of being unfaithful and initiating divorce.

Did you fail biology class in high school? The reproductive success of an organism is defined as how much that organism can successfully pass on it's genetic material to the next generation, since women are limited to only passing on their genes 10-15 times(and usually much less) it's imperative that each of their children survive to adulthood to once again pass on their genes, this is accomplished by ensuring that they have the highest quality father possible that both possesses high quality genes while also having sufficient resources to protect and provide for the children, aforementioned high quality men are not going to waste vast amount of resources of women and their children unless they are confident that they are the father of aforementioned children

not gonna read this train wreck of a thread but i wouldnt care the girl i currently like has had sex with a bunch of people sex is natural and every has the urge and the only people who dont give in are fucking crazy ass weird religious people and i would never wife one of those fucking broken people
and autists but they dont count beause they want to have sex and just cant

Sex stopped being only about procreation many years ago. We are not animals driven by instinct alone anymore.

I'd be curious to see the study done today. I think the stigmas on sex, divorce, and cheating have change quite a bit since then.

[spoiler]it's better not marrying at all[/spoiler]

You can rationalize if you want, but it is obvious instinct to distrust promiscuous women. Even if those same women assure you that you can trust them.

>implying the increase in divorce rates over the last 20 years has absolutely nothing to do with the increase in female promiscuity during the same time period

>Thetes bith scientific data and human experience and observaton that will answer your question. Reddits trp site is a good start. You can also close your ey3s and hope. That seems to be quite popularnnowadays

Yes, you seem to be an ideal specimen of competency and articulation to champion these ideals, I must give your clear and strikingly pithy comments extra weight as I muse upon interpersonal relations.

You fucking retard

The study has little to do with cultural influences (which have changed little since 1995). It measures objective standards of happiness with the variable of promiscuity. The results would be largely the same because it is a biological phenomenon.

Perhaps if the study was done in the 50's I would agree with you.

I wouldn't care either but statically a women with a shit-ton of history is more likely to file for divorce

her having lots of history is a red-flag she will cheat/break-up, a risk i'm not willing to take

>Sex stopped being only about procreation many years ago
The birth control pill is from what, 1960?
How long before that have humans had sex for breeding purposes alongside enjoyment?

You really think 50 or so years wipes out several hundred years of evolution?
You shouldnt have kids, ever

You sure that yo understand the text in my post, user?

>You really think 50 or so years wipes out several hundred years of evolution?

Are you retarded? Are you seriously saying people who have sex for pleasure are directly responding to the instinct of procreation?

Feel free to call bullshit since I don't have sources but I've read a study that actually showed that millennial are having sex with slightly fewer partners over their lifetime versus the previous generation(5 versus 7) however the average age of defloration had decreased by roughly a year(15.5 versus 16.5) you might be able to find info on Google if you're interested

Yet it still hasn't changed that much.

>2016
>marriage
memes aside, you can marry a virgin bride but the environment she lives in and the terms of your marriage allow her to do whatever she pleases. your wife owns you, and she knows it. why do you think women make such a huge deal out of it?

I'm not calling bullshit, just curious

>Are you seriously saying people who have sex for pleasure are directly responding to the instinct of procreation?
Not the guy you're responding to but are you seriously so retarded that you don't know that sex makes babies? The instinct of procreation is the reason we have sex, why else would we risk catching so many diseases by sticking our junk together?

Not him, but yes. We are attracted to the same traits even if we don't consciously realize an in spite of the fact that we aren't having children.

Fun fact: it's the males the ones having less sex in general.

Another study showed astonishingly high levels of both male and female virginity at elite universities like Stanford and Ivy Leagues(something like 25% of men and 35% of women) although I think those results might be distorted by all the Asians and Indians that attend those schools

Only insecure men worry about women who enjoy sex/have had lots of partners.

>Lock and key analogy.

Sure is PUA in here.
Literally every rational adult over the age of 25 laughs at the "virgins only" mentality.

We are animals you donkey, we do react on instict to lots of things and up until recently sex and procreation went hand in hand

I dont give a shit about peoples sexual history or whatever is going on here but claiming sex is purely about pleasure and completly separated from procreational instinct is purely wrong.

Anecdotal evidence:
Many guys (myself included) enjoy nutting inside a girl awhole fucking lot and ive had gfs say getting creamed in is a great feeling and one who even had an impregnation fetisch

Im not gonna turn this into a flame fest but they arent as separated as you make em out to be
Now carry on bashing marriage or women or whatever it is you do in this thread

Biological urges give the push to have sex, but the result of those urges cannot be translated to evolutionary effects because there are condoms and pills. It doesn't matter if you have sex with someone with shit genetics because you have chosen that partner purely for pleasure purposes.

Furthermore, humans are insanely more complex in terms of partner choice versus animals, you can't even compare. Animals choose partners that are strong or give good displays of feather dancing... Humans have an enormous array of qualities they consider, many of which are subjective form person to person.

You are forcing evolutionary standards on something that has nothing to do with it.

"Man up and marry those whores!" the thread.

Say it's Friday night.

Your average guy wants to fuck someone; his gf, a random girl, his own hand.

Your average girl is not going to fuck some stranger on the street or the first guy that asks at a club. She's going to fuck the best she think she can get, and a lot of men are going to go home empty handed.

youtube.com/watch?v=FB1oMfs8nWY

I love these threads because both sides of the argument come with autism.

Not going to bother to read this thread

If you can marry a virgin or a low dick count then great. If not no one gives a fuck, it's 2016 and almost every hot girl now a days is catching some dick before marriage.

Don't listen to Veeky Forums or autists on other boards. You can have your 4/10 waifu who is a virgin bc she has had social anxiety all her life and low interest from other males. I'll gladly take the 8.5/10 rocket who got piped a few times when she was younger.

When you take your wife out, no one knows or even gives a fuck how many dicks she's seen, all that matters is how good she looks and if you can tolerate her at home.

She has the power of choice (most, but not all of the time) because men are different biologically. They just want to nut and standards come second. A woman is able to control herself better.

This is not new, but as I said in the above post, the basis for the choice is not directly related to evolutionary standards of animals.

Well, if you are desperate enough and can only score with plane janes and fatties, of course you will have to circumvent your preferences and sex whatever fall in your lap. But given the chance you will try to have sex with the sexiest woman you can, even if it is just for pleasure.

That we have a lot of criteria for choosing a partner doesn't change that we want to have that criteria fullfiled, be it dancing with feathers or being a nice sensitive guy that treats you like a queen.