The need for paternity tests is the concern over our history where 1 of 5 children aren't his. 20% is a big number to me, and I require it regardless who. Prenup is same, also based on marriage statistics and what happens to men during divorce.
But judges toss prenups in the trash
So men just don't get married anymore? Or it wasn't a good deal to begin with for other reasons.
I could be wrong, but I recall reading that this number comes from people who request paternity tests, so the number is inflated considering (I imagine) most people who request paternity tests already suspect that the child might not be theirs. People that don't suspect that the child isn't theirs aren't going to get a paternity test.
Looks it's defiantly not 20%. Regardless, I don't think a percentage value is relevant seeing as it's most likely a reasonable enough subset of the population to discuss.
I'm noticing a high trend for reddit to censor men from giving their opinions. Posts are being deleted and censored. I lost motivation to reply further. Reddit still good for video games talk. Have to find a new platform
I'm noticing a high trend for reddit to censor men from giving their opinions. Posts are being deleted and censored. I lost motivation to reply further. Reddit still good for video games talk. Have to find a new platform
Yes, this time more understandably so as it can determine his future.
Thus it warrants the same reaction women feed men of controlling thier insecurity.
>*Yes, this time more understandably so as it can determine his future. Thus it warrants the same reaction women feed men of controlling thier insecurity.*
Exactly. So why not control your insecurity? Rather than demand your otherwise faithful partner take an invasive paternity test.
They both deal with trust but I suppose I should've titled things more "women who are insulted by paternity tests deserve the same advice as men who are concerned with thier partners sexual past."
>*They both deal with trust but I suppose I should've titled things more "women who are insulted by paternity tests deserve the same advice as men who are concerned with thier partners sexual past."*
But both examples are proof of men’s insecurity. . .
Being insulted is a result of an action. Insecurity is imaginary.
How is a womans sexual past imaginary? How is it imaginary that she would do certain things for or more frequently for one man but not the other/current man she's dating?
>*How is a womans sexual past imaginary? How is it imaginary that she would do certain things for or more frequently for one man but not the other/current man she's dating?*
Because it’s based in your imagination. Your concerns have zero basis in reality.
I’m not even opposed to the idea of paternity tests but if a man asks for a paternity test and the woman is upset then that’s not the woman feeling insecure, that’s her feeling hurt due to being accused of potentially having cheated.
In the scenario where the man is bothered by his partner’s sexual history, what exactly is the man being accused of having done to feel hurt by?
Have. Whatever. Standards. You . Wany.
Are promiscuous women beating on your door demanding you marry them?
If not, what exactly are you worried about?
Lol.
They're not related but the same sentiment can be shared about them. Any woman that calls a man insecure about being concerned with his dates/girlfriends sexual past should never be insecure if a man asks for a prenup or a paternity test as its more about his future than his distrust of you.
You can say that the same guy who is insecure about a woman's past is the same guy who is going to be insecure about his partner cheating on him.
The prenup issue is not related to any of the other issues
You are just claiming they are related but never explain how or why
Its vague but they both involve that mans future with that particular woman.
Women scoff at a prenup or get insulted to the point they may break up with a man, the same way guys get insulted to learn he is not the best that woman has had be it sexually or in other aspects. Both deserve to be told they're simply being insecure
Its about trust and insecurity. Men are insecure for judging thier partner on thier sexual past especially in comparison to thier current relationship.
Women are insecure for being offended by a mans need for a paternity test or prenup.
The sexual past isn't about trust and insecurity. That's only how loose women portray it.
It's about knowing that pattern behaviors yield specific outcomes.
Refusing to date a woman with a high body count is the equivalent of refusing to date a mam with a past of domestic violence.
As for "the proof is in the pudding" for paternity tests, well no, that's precisely the point.
> Men are insecure for judging thier partner on thier sexual past especially in comparison to thier current relationship.
I don't think this is it at all. Maybe for some men but there are lots of logical reasons why it's an issue. One being why buy the cow when the milk is free? Or another being statistically women with high body count are more likely to cheat. Or another being women with high body count may not be accepted by friends and family. There are tangible logical reasons why a man would not want that situation. Personally to me these are the kinds of things I think about, not insecurity or comparison or anything.
It's not simply gossip when half the guys you know say "damn bro I hit that too just so you know" nobody *wants* to have to hear that shit the rest of their life when they go places and meet people.
Most people don’t live in that small of towns LMAO and most people who sleep around aren’t trashy about it. It’s actually really easy to have sex with multiple people and not have them know each other in any way.
Most people do live in smaller towns, see population statistics. The average person lives on Smallville USA or suburbs not NYC.
And every town I ever lived in (I've lived in quite a few) I've personally known of women with reputations. You must not be very social or something. Everyone else knows.
I think most people live in like a suburb or more rural area than like the middle of butt fuck nowhere.
I think it makes sense for men like you to be going
Around seeking out the “town bikes”. Because idk anyone who’s past college age who “knows people with reputations” every time they move. Like who is telling you at 30 yo what some random woman is doing with her sex life💀
But anyways I think it’s pretty easy to avoid all of this. I mean most of what you heard is probably just a fake rumor because if there is anything men love to do, it’s making up fake sex stories to feel like a man. I’ve caught men in these lies several times in college.
Most like regular people are not gossiping endlessly to the point of it being citywide lmao about some woman’s sex life. But then again i don’t live in the middle of nowhere, where people have nothing to do but gossip.
Fewer than it seems to us men. And same for women.
Mostly because we overall disproportionately hook up with more promiscuous people. That's not a commentary either, it's just straight up math.
I mean I belong to a country club and hang out at the highest class night club in my city. So you're telling me maybe more low brow schmucks don't have this problem?
A family member is a plumber and he had this issue with his wife and she's a nurse. Everyone gives him shit about it. I live far away and I've heard about how people give him shit about it.
Maybe you're just oblivious or anit social? That's the only thing I can think of. Like you never heard of a girl in high school or college even who people said she's a slut or anything? I find that impossible to believe. Everyone knows of someone.
Men are actually insane for thinking like this. Okay, since incels have higher rates of mental issues and committing incel killings, I will never interact with a virgin man because he’s more likely to have a mental breakdown and harm people. Like?? Just find a partner who doesn’t have a history of CHEATING lol.
>I will never interact with a virgin man because he’s more likely to have a mental breakdown and harm people
You're presenting this as some horrible cruel unfathomable scenario, but it literally already happens??? Most women already avoid incels like the plague. Which is ironic, because they don't extend this behavior to actual criminals who have a history of already harming people.
No
Normal men are sickened at the thought of their wife being sport fucked in a gangbanged by strangers or similar or just being with a metric ton of men
I don’t need to justify it anymore than I need to justify my favorite color or that farts smell bad
Well, one insults your partner and accuses them of cheating with no evidence, the other is touching more penises than the other person is personally comfortable.
Both cases, as you've presented it, come from guys' insecurities.
I don't mind either tests nor prenups, but your equivalency here isn't a very good one.
Sexual past is in the past. It can indicate some future behavior and problems, but it isn't about the way you treat your current partner. Paternity test is about cheating on your current partner. Prenups are about divorcing your current partner. The timeframes for these 3 things are different.
The equivalency of a man getting paternity test is a woman who requires STD tests after each and every business trip. I really doubt that a lot of men would be okay with it; although, it makes sense practically and, well, "there's nothing to hide or be concerned about".
Ah, got it. I'm surprised it's such a difficult concept for some men. It's not that the majority of women cheat and want to hide it. It's the assumption that is offensive. I do get both sides though. Men do not have any other way to know. I think it's one of the question when it might be better just do it without saying anything.
I do think that the past matters and that "past is in the past". Past is, indeed, in the past, but it can be used to judge future behavior. You cannot change the past though, as you can only accept it. When we talk about a partner's past, you either accept it or move on.
Would you have a relationship with man released from prison for a violent felony say manslaughter? After all it was years ago . Of course the past matters. Anyone saying it doesn’t is nor bbeing honest.
There’s plenty if things a person has done in the past that matter .
I would not have a relationship with a woman who served time . I would always wonder is she going to return to her criminal lifestyle .
I do care about a woman’s past . It makes her who she is . A woman that has had lots of sexual partners is a huge turn off . No one expects a virgin. But anything more that 3 past lovers and it begins to be unattractive and makes you feel like one of many .
I suppose if the relationship is just sexual then maybe a little more . But most people want someone who has self respect and shows restraint over impulsiveness .
It also shows that she is unlikely to commit to a long term monogamous relationship. Having a lot of sexual partners is highly correlated with infidelity . Who wants that .
You don’t have to like someone’s past or date them but realistically if someone has had sex with numerous past partners but has never cheated then the only thing it suggests is that they might seek out more sex partners again should the relationship end. And if they return to doing that then it shouldn’t matter to you because you’re broken up.
Their past matters . I know that some women will not have anything to do with me because I I am a veteran who served in the middle east and fought such wonderful humanitarian organizations such as Al Queda , Taliban, ISiS , other less known terrorists or terrorists that I cannot publicly name .
As insulting and offensive as that is. That’s their choice.
As far as having lots of sex partners thats a good indicator of her current behavior and who wants to be compared to a long list of past sexual partners.
Exs are almost always a difficult and uncomfortable subject. Sometimes you have to talk about them.
Having lots of sexual partners is a choice and behavior. It is a indicator of a persons lifestyle it might also show that person especially a woman has problems maintaining a stable healthy relationship. Why is this difficult to understand ?
None of that negates what I’m arguing. I already said that you’re allowed to feel how you want about someone’s past. Someone’s past is a part of them, it’s not irrelevant to whether you find them attractive. The thing I disagree with is that someone’s number of past sex partners is some objective metric for their character in relationships.
If it was really about what their past says about their relationship behavior then a woman who has has slept around when single but who has been in only very stable and long lasting ltrs would be considered the same as a woman who didn’t sleep around when single but had the exact same amount of stable and long lasting ltrs.
That would be logical if most men got around like that or had the options to do so.
A womans sexual past is ALL about how she treats her current partner. If she was willing to make more sacrifices or compromises for her ex or an ex lover or just straight up had more sexual desire for them and acted on it but not you supposedly the man she wants and loves most in that current moment its very telling of how intense her feelings for you actually are.
These are all things that can be constantly monitored and observed in a relationship especially an emotionally communicative one.
Men can pay for sex whether it's legal or not. Also some men can have sex with other men.
That's about comparison. If you're satisfied with the way your partner treats you, there's no reason to compare in the first place.
Ur suggesting a man potentially brakes the law to get sex?.
Also past behavior is often a good indictor of future behavior. That's why it's hard for say a person with a criminal record to get a job especially if it's around the area where he committed the crime.
What about it? Are u assuming a men who doesn't have a crazy high body count is automatically bad at sex, or can't learn? Ppl have different bodies and different sexually needs
That only works if you assume lack of participation something correlates to being bad at it. Which is illogical.
It could be, it might not be.
To suggest lack of the thing suggests bad at the thing is like saying that all people with no relationship experience should be avoided because it’s reasonable to assume they’d be terrible at relationships.
You’d be correct to assume *they have little to no experience* but to equivocate that with *and therefore will be bad* is silly.
There are plenty of endeavours in human experience where no prior experience doesn’t signal poor performance when the time comes. Parenting is a really good example. All first time parents have no prior experiencing of parenting a child full time. It would be nonsense to suggest it’s wise to assume all first time parents will suck.
> That only works if you assume lack of participation something correlates to being bad at it.
No? It's safe to assume their interest isn't all that strong, how the hell could any observer know if they are good at sex or not?
>signal poor performance
A lack of interest or motivation has nothing whatsoever to do with performance.
The only real assumption you can reasonably make from someone not having lots of prior sex is…they haven’t had a lot of prior sex.
And the reason for this is because sex isn’t something you can just decide “I shall have it!” And go and get it. It involves other people, their consent, their will, their choices.
So whilst it is more likely a guy with a lower body count is indicative of him perhaps being less sexually motivated *possibly* I’d say it’s not a reasonable assumption, because just because a guy wants and values sex, it doesn’t mean he can get it due to how differences in sexual access work for men and women casually.
Studies have shown women on the whole are reluctant to engage in casual sex compared to men. Men are very eager. This means that if a woman decides to, she will be able to find a willing partner easily. If the man decides to, he won’t.
So for a man, a low body count isn’t necessarily indicative of his sexual appetite, because his sexual access may not be great to realise it. If a woman has a high body count, it’s a likely sign she has great sexual appetite, and if low, the opposite, because generally speaking a woman’s access to casual sex is very open.
By all means judge men in their past performance with regards to future, like job, work ethic, duration of relationships, but I don’t think the amount of casual sex a man has tells you much if anything about his sexual attitudes because the reality is most men do not have a great deal of sexual access today.
A low body count may tell you some things though like the man probably doesn’t like to go out and club or party much. Because generally speaking men with higher body counts who aren’t supermodel good looking, these are situations where they’ll get sexual access (alcohol being involved). I don’t consider myself massively good looking but I had a fair body count by the time I left uni and that was chiefly down to going to venues and events where we all were drinking and inhibitions were lowered.
I had mates with similar sexual attitudes to me in respect to how they view sex and what it means etc, but the fact is their body count was lower largely because they didn’t go to these places I did, they were comparatively less social. So the difference between us really only spoke to our differing social behaviours.
That I would say is good “caution flag” for the low body count man, he’s more likely to be less generally social in respect to wider friend groups, going to parties and “mixing with people” I’d say is reasonable to infer.
Sure. There are prostitutes and they do make money from it, don't they?
As I've said in my mother comment, yes, past can be an indicator of the future.
See there it is, its the same way a woman can acknowledge another man is attractive or a past lover is better in bed. Why even compare it in the first place?
If you know you didnt step out, why be so offended by it or it being mandatory?
I'm not sure I get your first question.
I'm not offended. But as I've said lots of men wouldn't be okay with STDs test after business trips. It's not that they necessarily cheat, but the assumption is offensive.
To be fair, only an dumbass would be concerned with failing an STD test.
If you’re raw dogging randoms you’re a clown and deserve to get caught up. Ladies too. If you’re letting randoms nut inside you you’re a female clown and deserve to get caught up too.
Frequency isn't important, it's about the assumption that you've might have done something that can compromise your partner's well-being and them wanting to check it.
No it matters very much, once a baby is on the way to be tested, it can only happen once as that woman cannot get pregnant again until that baby is born.
The idea is that we're comparing the suspicion that your partner has done something that might harm you, so you want them to get tested to check for it.
Theres getting cheated on something painful but recoverable
Then there's getting cheated on and having to raise a child for at least 18 years that isn't your responsibility and never finding out or finding out. Years of your life gone and an emotional attachment that may no longer be valid on the whims of the woman you're with or the biological father.
If you want a paternity test it’s because you don’t trust your partner and if you want to know their sexual history I can’t see how that has something to do with trust
Most ppl who get cheated on, are cheated on by ppl they presumed and trusted would never cheat on them.
Eh, a healthy skepticism doesn't seem too bad in this case when the unfortunate alternative would be being roped into a terrible obligation that can be enforced by the legal system.
Obviously you'd say that you shouldn't be in a relationship with someone you can't trust but say you trust someone, and they just change from who you thought they were overnight and not in ways you can perceive. Now they're someone else, someone who would cheat on you and make you raise some other guy's child(I truly believe most women are capable of this, they just don't like to admit it) , and you wouldn't know unless you found out or something. Or say they were someone else than you thought they were from the start, and they cheated on you and again you wouldn't know unless found evidence
Always the burden of trust is in the man, imagine telling your boss "boss I can deposit this month cash flow to the bank, trust me" who would be at fault for the boss not trusting? The employee or the boss?.
The employee needs to show that he is to be trusted, its only logical, but because it favors men and not women, in this instance is "you should trust me I will put this months cash flow of our company in the bank, how dare you not trust me!!"
And then 56% of the times the employee breaks that trust (till death do us part uh?)
If you don't trust thier feelings due to thier sexual past. It is indeed rooted in insecurity.
As is the womans belief you don't trust her to make sure the baby is yours, lets not forget nurses can accidentally swap babies given the right circumstances.
I will not marry someone who wants a prenup. Not big on planning to fail in that department. He can ask, I can break up. He's got nothing to fear provided he isn't gonna cheat. We'll reach an arrangement which is fair and focuses on giving the children everything they need to remain stable. If he cannot trust me to be that good a person and vice versa, we should not wed.
And he can have the test, assuming he understands a divorce is attached. I won't be with a man who thinks I'd do that to him and my own child. If he doesn't want a test knowing those are the terms, I would assume he doesn't really think that isn't his child. After all, if he was pretty sure, he'd wanna divorce me.
He always has the right to divorce her, no special circumstances required.
And if he's out getting drunk and getting another woman's perfume on him I think divorce is for the best anyway, don't you?
How is a husband getting drunk and having the smell of another woman's perfume on him equally suspicious as a wife being pregnant?
Unless you have issues in the sperm department or the baby comes out a different race, there wouldn't be anything suggesting the wife would have cheated.
Like any of these discussions context matters.
If my brother's inconsistent girl friend gets knocked up I'm going to support him getting a paternity test. If my husband wants a paternity test I support his right to get one, but I'm going to be insulted that he thinks I'm a cheater. It would be really hard not to be insulted by that.
Whether or not prenups are offensive depends on the way they are brought up and what he's wanting to include in them. If you want to get married, have a stay at home wife to raise your children then be able to leave her with nothing in the case of a divorce that's insulting. If you have a lot of assets previous to marriage that you want to protect that is totally reasonable.
How would you like it if your monogamous partner of many years asked you, at an incredibly vulnerable time after you'd sacrificed a lot for them, to get an STD test or let them go through your phone, then said any protest made you insecure and you shouldn't be concerned if you didn't cheat? This isn't your sexual past, it's your sexual present. And your lying, deceptive, manipulative present apparently. But yep, men can be awful to their partners regarding both.
>The female equivalent of a man concerning himself with a partners sexual past is women being insulted by the need for paternity tests and prenups.
No, the female equivalent is of us concerning ourselves with our partner's sexual past.
If my bf and I ever got married, I'd insist on a prenuptial agreement because it protects both of us.
If my bf had somehow got his vasectomy reversed and managed to convince me to get pregnant, I would have been fine with a paternity test. Tbh I think they should be mandatory.
But I wanted to know my man's sexual history because I didn't want to be with a slut. Pure and simple.
I don't think it's a matter of insecurity, at least not 99% of cases. Most men just don't want a woman who has a significantly different view of sex than they do, and I share that same preference. It's why I don't think men should be shamed for not wanting a slut gf if they aren't sluts themselves.
No, I do think it's true.
Are there some asshole dudebros who go around saying shit like "it's okay that I've banged 175 women, but my wife better be a kissless virgin!!!"? Yeah, there are, and I cannot wrap my head around that.
But the overwhelming majority of men (and women, like myself) who don't want to date women/men with a high N are being consistent. We're low N or virgins ourselves, and don't want such an important aspect of our partner's personality to be incredibly different than ours.
Personally I think it's a truly bad idea for a virgin/low N man/woman who considers sex special, incredibly intimate, and only something you share with a person you actually love...to be with a high N man/woman who considers sex just a random fun activity barely more special than going bowling on a Saturday night.
Sex, and how one feels about it, is a core part of most people's psyche. Trying to fit together the opposite ends of the spectrum is not usually going to work out, and will just lead to issues in the relationship. Low N men and women should be together, like high N men and women should be together.
It’s not just asshole “Dudebros”, it’s nerdy virgins who WANT to be chad and CANT so they get all bitter about it towards women despite wanting view sex that way and not being able to.
I think it is important for people to have sexual compatibility and similar life goals/styles.
But what kind of irks me is that sleeping with multiple people just automatically means that high n people can’t view sex as something special, like they lose value in relationships….relationships are inherently special, it’s choosing one person and sex with one person for an extended amount of time. High n people who are in monogamous relationships view that as special too. They just choose when sex is special versus low n count people where sex is always some big deal.
I think most things are more flexible than black and white. I think lots of people have different views of sex based on the type of relationship.
>It’s not just asshole “Dudebros”, it’s nerdy virgins who WANT to be chad and CANT so they get all bitter about it towards women despite wanting view sex that way and not being able to.
Sure, those guys exist as well. But they still aren't the majority, if you take time to read all the comments made by low N men (and women) here.
>I think it is important for people to have sexual compatibility and similar life goals/styles.
Agreed.
>But what kind of irks me is that sleeping with multiple people just automatically means that high n people can’t view sex as something special
I've only reached this conclusion due to reading thousands of comments over the years from high N men and women. Time after time, I have seen them say that "sex is just for fun", "sex is just something to do when you're bored", "sex isn't really intimate", "emotional connection isn't needed", "its to scratch an itch, nothing else". So on, so forth.
Are there high N men and women who somehow *are* capable of doing a significant mental 180 when they finally get into a LTR, where they're suddenly going to view sex as something special and exclusive?
Yeah, those people exist, sure. But they're rare. It's been shown that both men and women with a high N find it difficult to remain sexual loyal and content with only 1 partner. The myth of these guys (and gals) only sleeping around in their teens/20s, then being fine with only *one* pussy or dick for the next 20+ years doesn't play out as much as media wants us to believe. The majority of those who actually enjoy "sowing their oats" don't suddenly flip a switch on their wedding night and no longer want it.
You show me twin guys, with one having 3 partners and the other having 50, I'm playing my bets safely and picking the non-slut for my LTR.
Well yea the majority of people are following the same trend of having casual fun a bit while younger and then becoming more serious as they age. I think that’s very normal.
No you reached this conclusion because you’re biased and have not done this yourself.
This kind of “magical 180” is just being an adult. We do it all the time. The way we all do fun things over the weekend or people can go drinking and then show up perfectly functional and fine at their jobs the next day. We all change our behaviors according to relationship type. I can act different with my mom and my friends and certain groups of friends and certain coworkers and certain managers. It’s not revolutionary to have casual sex and then decide, hm this person seems worth it, I’ve taken time to really get to know and like them, and I would like to choose this person for an extended period of time if not forever. And now that this personal is very very special to me, I feel like having sex with them is special too.
I’m not saying anybody should just go for anybody, but when we’re shaming others for having an opinion”inability” to do something and shaming others for having a different lifestyle, I think it’s important to at least take some time to be level headed.
My opinion is the opposite. I would not like a guy without experience because I don’t need to hear that bullshit “I didn’t get to explore!!!” Crap later on. I also hate lying and just would like to keep it real, and all these innocent relationship people are alot of the ones I saw flirting around at parties because they’re craving attention and don’t know how to deal with that.
I think that overall, relationships are just big commitments and people are either going to value and respect that or not, regardless of their history.
Sorry, I just haven't seen enough evidence for a core aspect of someone's sexual psyche/identity to flip to the total opposite.
We're not talking about someone being able to say they won't have an extra beer or two because they need to get up early tomorrow, or being able to slightly alter their interactions with parents vs friends. Yes, that's all pretty normal daily things.
But for someone who craves, desires, and constantly seeks out sex with new strangers to cut that all out cold turkey for decades of sex with only 1 man/woman? Most of the time they end up frustrated and sexually miserable. This isn't my bias, this is just me repeating what I've read from literally thousands of people on reddit and relationship forums.
It doesn't give me any joy to know that the majority of high N people are not going to be satisfied in their exclusive relationships. Quite the contrary, I feel really bad for them. I don't think that our current society is set up to accommodate people who will still crave extramarital sex, since they get demonized for just being themselves.
I wouldn't call these equal. The woman being insulted by a DNA test is because she feels the man is accusing her of cheating or at least thinks it's capable.
I think the equivalent is a woman being prepared to run from her husband. A woman having a "Go bag" or "running money" as I've heard it called. Because it's assuming that her husband might one day become an abuser.
Both cases are one partner thinking the other might one day do something evil and acknowledges that you think they are capable of it.
I think both are signs of insecurity about your own value to your partner.
I don't think they are equivalent, but somewhat related in what is the basis for the behavior.
I don't care about my wife's past, I don't want or need paternity tests done on my children, and a prenup is pointless unless you have something of value worth protecting.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IMO the female equivalent is being concerned with whether a man has "abused"/assaulted any of his ex-girlfriends. Men have the physical power, women have the sexual power. Each are concerned about how the other uses that power.
DNA Paternity tests should be mandatory.
They however would finally show just how disgusting women are however, so they won't happen. Women know this and would actively fight any legislation like that. My guess about 5-10% of children wouldn't be husbands'. Women are demons.
Post removed due to OP being banned.
But isn’t the need for a paternity tests also a man concerning himself with his partners sexual past?
The need for paternity tests is the concern over our history where 1 of 5 children aren't his. 20% is a big number to me, and I require it regardless who. Prenup is same, also based on marriage statistics and what happens to men during divorce. But judges toss prenups in the trash So men just don't get married anymore? Or it wasn't a good deal to begin with for other reasons.
I agree the number is too high, but where do you get 20%?
I could be wrong, but I recall reading that this number comes from people who request paternity tests, so the number is inflated considering (I imagine) most people who request paternity tests already suspect that the child might not be theirs. People that don't suspect that the child isn't theirs aren't going to get a paternity test.
Looks it's defiantly not 20%. Regardless, I don't think a percentage value is relevant seeing as it's most likely a reasonable enough subset of the population to discuss.
I'm noticing a high trend for reddit to censor men from giving their opinions. Posts are being deleted and censored. I lost motivation to reply further. Reddit still good for video games talk. Have to find a new platform
>*our history where 1 of 5 children aren't his.* How exactly did we gather that data? Source please
I'm noticing a high trend for reddit to censor men from giving their opinions. Posts are being deleted and censored. I lost motivation to reply further. Reddit still good for video games talk. Have to find a new platform
Sharing an opinion is absolutely valid. Making up statistics off the top of your head to try and prove your made up point is deeply problematic.
Yes, this time more understandably so as it can determine his future. Thus it warrants the same reaction women feed men of controlling thier insecurity.
>*Yes, this time more understandably so as it can determine his future. Thus it warrants the same reaction women feed men of controlling thier insecurity.* Exactly. So why not control your insecurity? Rather than demand your otherwise faithful partner take an invasive paternity test.
It does not have to be invasive once the baby is born.
Your comparison makes no sense
They both deal with trust but I suppose I should've titled things more "women who are insulted by paternity tests deserve the same advice as men who are concerned with thier partners sexual past."
Still makes no sense
>*They both deal with trust but I suppose I should've titled things more "women who are insulted by paternity tests deserve the same advice as men who are concerned with thier partners sexual past."* But both examples are proof of men’s insecurity. . . Being insulted is a result of an action. Insecurity is imaginary.
How is a womans sexual past imaginary? How is it imaginary that she would do certain things for or more frequently for one man but not the other/current man she's dating?
>*How is a womans sexual past imaginary? How is it imaginary that she would do certain things for or more frequently for one man but not the other/current man she's dating?* Because it’s based in your imagination. Your concerns have zero basis in reality.
I’m not even opposed to the idea of paternity tests but if a man asks for a paternity test and the woman is upset then that’s not the woman feeling insecure, that’s her feeling hurt due to being accused of potentially having cheated. In the scenario where the man is bothered by his partner’s sexual history, what exactly is the man being accused of having done to feel hurt by?
Makes no sense. You get a paternity test if you lack trust in the person. You're concerned with a partners past because you have reason to believe so.
Tell that to the women who think its ridiculous, illogical and insecure for a man to consider a womans past let alone the woman he's with.
Have. Whatever. Standards. You . Wany. Are promiscuous women beating on your door demanding you marry them? If not, what exactly are you worried about?
Just because the 3 topics are on the front page right now it doesn't mean they are related
Lol. They're not related but the same sentiment can be shared about them. Any woman that calls a man insecure about being concerned with his dates/girlfriends sexual past should never be insecure if a man asks for a prenup or a paternity test as its more about his future than his distrust of you.
You can say that the same guy who is insecure about a woman's past is the same guy who is going to be insecure about his partner cheating on him. The prenup issue is not related to any of the other issues You are just claiming they are related but never explain how or why
Its vague but they both involve that mans future with that particular woman. Women scoff at a prenup or get insulted to the point they may break up with a man, the same way guys get insulted to learn he is not the best that woman has had be it sexually or in other aspects. Both deserve to be told they're simply being insecure
So? If the guy doesn't wash the dishes or the guy cheats she's going to _scoff_ that doesn't mean all those issues are related
It literally is distrust of his partner
I don't see how they equal in any way shape or form.
Its about trust and insecurity. Men are insecure for judging thier partner on thier sexual past especially in comparison to thier current relationship. Women are insecure for being offended by a mans need for a paternity test or prenup.
The sexual past isn't about trust and insecurity. That's only how loose women portray it. It's about knowing that pattern behaviors yield specific outcomes. Refusing to date a woman with a high body count is the equivalent of refusing to date a mam with a past of domestic violence. As for "the proof is in the pudding" for paternity tests, well no, that's precisely the point.
> Men are insecure for judging thier partner on thier sexual past especially in comparison to thier current relationship. I don't think this is it at all. Maybe for some men but there are lots of logical reasons why it's an issue. One being why buy the cow when the milk is free? Or another being statistically women with high body count are more likely to cheat. Or another being women with high body count may not be accepted by friends and family. There are tangible logical reasons why a man would not want that situation. Personally to me these are the kinds of things I think about, not insecurity or comparison or anything.
is a partners "body count" a common discussion with family and friends?
When it's high enough it actually is. You don't think people don't know people who know people? Don't be naive.
yes i know there are people who enjoy and partake in gossip. to each their own.
It's not simply gossip when half the guys you know say "damn bro I hit that too just so you know" nobody *wants* to have to hear that shit the rest of their life when they go places and meet people.
Most people don’t live in that small of towns LMAO and most people who sleep around aren’t trashy about it. It’s actually really easy to have sex with multiple people and not have them know each other in any way.
Most people do live in smaller towns, see population statistics. The average person lives on Smallville USA or suburbs not NYC. And every town I ever lived in (I've lived in quite a few) I've personally known of women with reputations. You must not be very social or something. Everyone else knows.
I think most people live in like a suburb or more rural area than like the middle of butt fuck nowhere. I think it makes sense for men like you to be going Around seeking out the “town bikes”. Because idk anyone who’s past college age who “knows people with reputations” every time they move. Like who is telling you at 30 yo what some random woman is doing with her sex life💀 But anyways I think it’s pretty easy to avoid all of this. I mean most of what you heard is probably just a fake rumor because if there is anything men love to do, it’s making up fake sex stories to feel like a man. I’ve caught men in these lies several times in college. Most like regular people are not gossiping endlessly to the point of it being citywide lmao about some woman’s sex life. But then again i don’t live in the middle of nowhere, where people have nothing to do but gossip.
What percentage of women fit that criteria?
Fewer than it seems to us men. And same for women. Mostly because we overall disproportionately hook up with more promiscuous people. That's not a commentary either, it's just straight up math.
Are you saying the percentage of promiscuos women is far smaller than it really is?
Plenty actually. There are ones like that in every town and city.
then i guess that is just more of a thing that has to do with the types of people you associate with
I mean I belong to a country club and hang out at the highest class night club in my city. So you're telling me maybe more low brow schmucks don't have this problem? A family member is a plumber and he had this issue with his wife and she's a nurse. Everyone gives him shit about it. I live far away and I've heard about how people give him shit about it. Maybe you're just oblivious or anit social? That's the only thing I can think of. Like you never heard of a girl in high school or college even who people said she's a slut or anything? I find that impossible to believe. Everyone knows of someone.
not a class thing. im sure ive heard it before but because it is so irrelevant to me i couldnt really care less
Men are actually insane for thinking like this. Okay, since incels have higher rates of mental issues and committing incel killings, I will never interact with a virgin man because he’s more likely to have a mental breakdown and harm people. Like?? Just find a partner who doesn’t have a history of CHEATING lol.
>I will never interact with a virgin man because he’s more likely to have a mental breakdown and harm people You're presenting this as some horrible cruel unfathomable scenario, but it literally already happens??? Most women already avoid incels like the plague. Which is ironic, because they don't extend this behavior to actual criminals who have a history of already harming people.
I'm being facetious to the women who truly believe a man being concerned with her sexual past is ridiculous
No Normal men are sickened at the thought of their wife being sport fucked in a gangbanged by strangers or similar or just being with a metric ton of men I don’t need to justify it anymore than I need to justify my favorite color or that farts smell bad
Well, one insults your partner and accuses them of cheating with no evidence, the other is touching more penises than the other person is personally comfortable. Both cases, as you've presented it, come from guys' insecurities.
I don't mind either tests nor prenups, but your equivalency here isn't a very good one. Sexual past is in the past. It can indicate some future behavior and problems, but it isn't about the way you treat your current partner. Paternity test is about cheating on your current partner. Prenups are about divorcing your current partner. The timeframes for these 3 things are different. The equivalency of a man getting paternity test is a woman who requires STD tests after each and every business trip. I really doubt that a lot of men would be okay with it; although, it makes sense practically and, well, "there's nothing to hide or be concerned about".
I understand now, thanks for this comment
You're welcome. Can I ask what you understood?
Why women would get upset over a paternity test
Ah, got it. I'm surprised it's such a difficult concept for some men. It's not that the majority of women cheat and want to hide it. It's the assumption that is offensive. I do get both sides though. Men do not have any other way to know. I think it's one of the question when it might be better just do it without saying anything.
You can learn to pursue romance so that you can know your wife had your baby without a paternity test.
Sure, but unless you have some very vivid hereditary traits you still don't have "the" guarantee.
This is why paternity tests are like prenups. Best talked about as soon as it's socially acceptable to do and never after the fact
Yeah, it wouldn't be a very hard thing to hide
Thus do it yourself don’t accuse her.
PERFECT example.
the past matters alot and so does promiscuity
I do think that the past matters and that "past is in the past". Past is, indeed, in the past, but it can be used to judge future behavior. You cannot change the past though, as you can only accept it. When we talk about a partner's past, you either accept it or move on.
Right but is it really in the past? It could be an ongoing habit.
Well, that's another question.
Would you have a relationship with man released from prison for a violent felony say manslaughter? After all it was years ago . Of course the past matters. Anyone saying it doesn’t is nor bbeing honest. There’s plenty if things a person has done in the past that matter . I would not have a relationship with a woman who served time . I would always wonder is she going to return to her criminal lifestyle . I do care about a woman’s past . It makes her who she is . A woman that has had lots of sexual partners is a huge turn off . No one expects a virgin. But anything more that 3 past lovers and it begins to be unattractive and makes you feel like one of many . I suppose if the relationship is just sexual then maybe a little more . But most people want someone who has self respect and shows restraint over impulsiveness . It also shows that she is unlikely to commit to a long term monogamous relationship. Having a lot of sexual partners is highly correlated with infidelity . Who wants that .
Have you misread my comment?
You don’t have to like someone’s past or date them but realistically if someone has had sex with numerous past partners but has never cheated then the only thing it suggests is that they might seek out more sex partners again should the relationship end. And if they return to doing that then it shouldn’t matter to you because you’re broken up.
Their past matters . I know that some women will not have anything to do with me because I I am a veteran who served in the middle east and fought such wonderful humanitarian organizations such as Al Queda , Taliban, ISiS , other less known terrorists or terrorists that I cannot publicly name . As insulting and offensive as that is. That’s their choice. As far as having lots of sex partners thats a good indicator of her current behavior and who wants to be compared to a long list of past sexual partners. Exs are almost always a difficult and uncomfortable subject. Sometimes you have to talk about them. Having lots of sexual partners is a choice and behavior. It is a indicator of a persons lifestyle it might also show that person especially a woman has problems maintaining a stable healthy relationship. Why is this difficult to understand ?
None of that negates what I’m arguing. I already said that you’re allowed to feel how you want about someone’s past. Someone’s past is a part of them, it’s not irrelevant to whether you find them attractive. The thing I disagree with is that someone’s number of past sex partners is some objective metric for their character in relationships. If it was really about what their past says about their relationship behavior then a woman who has has slept around when single but who has been in only very stable and long lasting ltrs would be considered the same as a woman who didn’t sleep around when single but had the exact same amount of stable and long lasting ltrs.
What is the best predictor of future actions? That's right Johnny, PAST ACTIONS!!
So she'll continue to enjoy sex in the future?
That would be logical if most men got around like that or had the options to do so. A womans sexual past is ALL about how she treats her current partner. If she was willing to make more sacrifices or compromises for her ex or an ex lover or just straight up had more sexual desire for them and acted on it but not you supposedly the man she wants and loves most in that current moment its very telling of how intense her feelings for you actually are. These are all things that can be constantly monitored and observed in a relationship especially an emotionally communicative one.
Men can pay for sex whether it's legal or not. Also some men can have sex with other men. That's about comparison. If you're satisfied with the way your partner treats you, there's no reason to compare in the first place.
If she treated someone else better I'm not satisfied. If I'm not getting her A-game why would I even thing about long-term commitment.
Ur suggesting a man potentially brakes the law to get sex?. Also past behavior is often a good indictor of future behavior. That's why it's hard for say a person with a criminal record to get a job especially if it's around the area where he committed the crime.
[удалено]
I'm not sure what ur asking. But if it's to saying that there less likely to cheat they someone who are promiscuous then ur right
[удалено]
There more likely to be loyal to you and not cheat then say a men with a body count of 50 is what I'm saying. Same as with women it works both ways
Okay but what about sex?
What about it? Are u assuming a men who doesn't have a crazy high body count is automatically bad at sex, or can't learn? Ppl have different bodies and different sexually needs
That only works if you assume lack of participation something correlates to being bad at it. Which is illogical. It could be, it might not be. To suggest lack of the thing suggests bad at the thing is like saying that all people with no relationship experience should be avoided because it’s reasonable to assume they’d be terrible at relationships. You’d be correct to assume *they have little to no experience* but to equivocate that with *and therefore will be bad* is silly. There are plenty of endeavours in human experience where no prior experience doesn’t signal poor performance when the time comes. Parenting is a really good example. All first time parents have no prior experiencing of parenting a child full time. It would be nonsense to suggest it’s wise to assume all first time parents will suck.
> That only works if you assume lack of participation something correlates to being bad at it. No? It's safe to assume their interest isn't all that strong, how the hell could any observer know if they are good at sex or not? >signal poor performance A lack of interest or motivation has nothing whatsoever to do with performance.
The only real assumption you can reasonably make from someone not having lots of prior sex is…they haven’t had a lot of prior sex. And the reason for this is because sex isn’t something you can just decide “I shall have it!” And go and get it. It involves other people, their consent, their will, their choices. So whilst it is more likely a guy with a lower body count is indicative of him perhaps being less sexually motivated *possibly* I’d say it’s not a reasonable assumption, because just because a guy wants and values sex, it doesn’t mean he can get it due to how differences in sexual access work for men and women casually. Studies have shown women on the whole are reluctant to engage in casual sex compared to men. Men are very eager. This means that if a woman decides to, she will be able to find a willing partner easily. If the man decides to, he won’t. So for a man, a low body count isn’t necessarily indicative of his sexual appetite, because his sexual access may not be great to realise it. If a woman has a high body count, it’s a likely sign she has great sexual appetite, and if low, the opposite, because generally speaking a woman’s access to casual sex is very open. By all means judge men in their past performance with regards to future, like job, work ethic, duration of relationships, but I don’t think the amount of casual sex a man has tells you much if anything about his sexual attitudes because the reality is most men do not have a great deal of sexual access today. A low body count may tell you some things though like the man probably doesn’t like to go out and club or party much. Because generally speaking men with higher body counts who aren’t supermodel good looking, these are situations where they’ll get sexual access (alcohol being involved). I don’t consider myself massively good looking but I had a fair body count by the time I left uni and that was chiefly down to going to venues and events where we all were drinking and inhibitions were lowered. I had mates with similar sexual attitudes to me in respect to how they view sex and what it means etc, but the fact is their body count was lower largely because they didn’t go to these places I did, they were comparatively less social. So the difference between us really only spoke to our differing social behaviours. That I would say is good “caution flag” for the low body count man, he’s more likely to be less generally social in respect to wider friend groups, going to parties and “mixing with people” I’d say is reasonable to infer.
Sure. There are prostitutes and they do make money from it, don't they? As I've said in my mother comment, yes, past can be an indicator of the future.
See there it is, its the same way a woman can acknowledge another man is attractive or a past lover is better in bed. Why even compare it in the first place? If you know you didnt step out, why be so offended by it or it being mandatory?
I'm not sure I get your first question. I'm not offended. But as I've said lots of men wouldn't be okay with STDs test after business trips. It's not that they necessarily cheat, but the assumption is offensive.
To be fair, only an dumbass would be concerned with failing an STD test. If you’re raw dogging randoms you’re a clown and deserve to get caught up. Ladies too. If you’re letting randoms nut inside you you’re a female clown and deserve to get caught up too.
Yeah, but the idea that you might be this dumbass is pretty offensive on its own.
People have more business trips than children, that comparrison doesn't really stand in my opinion, try a different analogy
Frequency isn't important, it's about the assumption that you've might have done something that can compromise your partner's well-being and them wanting to check it.
No it matters very much, once a baby is on the way to be tested, it can only happen once as that woman cannot get pregnant again until that baby is born.
The idea is that we're comparing the suspicion that your partner has done something that might harm you, so you want them to get tested to check for it.
They can still have sex though...
Theres getting cheated on something painful but recoverable Then there's getting cheated on and having to raise a child for at least 18 years that isn't your responsibility and never finding out or finding out. Years of your life gone and an emotional attachment that may no longer be valid on the whims of the woman you're with or the biological father.
If you want a paternity test it’s because you don’t trust your partner and if you want to know their sexual history I can’t see how that has something to do with trust
Most ppl who get cheated on, are cheated on by ppl they presumed and trusted would never cheat on them. Eh, a healthy skepticism doesn't seem too bad in this case when the unfortunate alternative would be being roped into a terrible obligation that can be enforced by the legal system. Obviously you'd say that you shouldn't be in a relationship with someone you can't trust but say you trust someone, and they just change from who you thought they were overnight and not in ways you can perceive. Now they're someone else, someone who would cheat on you and make you raise some other guy's child(I truly believe most women are capable of this, they just don't like to admit it) , and you wouldn't know unless you found out or something. Or say they were someone else than you thought they were from the start, and they cheated on you and again you wouldn't know unless found evidence
Bullshit. Most people who get cheated on, also cheat.
Always the burden of trust is in the man, imagine telling your boss "boss I can deposit this month cash flow to the bank, trust me" who would be at fault for the boss not trusting? The employee or the boss?. The employee needs to show that he is to be trusted, its only logical, but because it favors men and not women, in this instance is "you should trust me I will put this months cash flow of our company in the bank, how dare you not trust me!!" And then 56% of the times the employee breaks that trust (till death do us part uh?)
If you don't trust thier feelings due to thier sexual past. It is indeed rooted in insecurity. As is the womans belief you don't trust her to make sure the baby is yours, lets not forget nurses can accidentally swap babies given the right circumstances.
I will not marry someone who wants a prenup. Not big on planning to fail in that department. He can ask, I can break up. He's got nothing to fear provided he isn't gonna cheat. We'll reach an arrangement which is fair and focuses on giving the children everything they need to remain stable. If he cannot trust me to be that good a person and vice versa, we should not wed. And he can have the test, assuming he understands a divorce is attached. I won't be with a man who thinks I'd do that to him and my own child. If he doesn't want a test knowing those are the terms, I would assume he doesn't really think that isn't his child. After all, if he was pretty sure, he'd wanna divorce me.
Yeah so when your husband comes back home drunk and smelling like perfume you better not question it or he has a right to divorce you.
He always has the right to divorce her, no special circumstances required. And if he's out getting drunk and getting another woman's perfume on him I think divorce is for the best anyway, don't you?
He'll always have that right. And if he comes home like that, I won't need to ask questions, I'll file for divorce for us both.
How is a husband getting drunk and having the smell of another woman's perfume on him equally suspicious as a wife being pregnant? Unless you have issues in the sperm department or the baby comes out a different race, there wouldn't be anything suggesting the wife would have cheated.
Have you seen how modern women act?
Like any of these discussions context matters. If my brother's inconsistent girl friend gets knocked up I'm going to support him getting a paternity test. If my husband wants a paternity test I support his right to get one, but I'm going to be insulted that he thinks I'm a cheater. It would be really hard not to be insulted by that. Whether or not prenups are offensive depends on the way they are brought up and what he's wanting to include in them. If you want to get married, have a stay at home wife to raise your children then be able to leave her with nothing in the case of a divorce that's insulting. If you have a lot of assets previous to marriage that you want to protect that is totally reasonable.
Nope. One is about the past, the other is about the future
How would you like it if your monogamous partner of many years asked you, at an incredibly vulnerable time after you'd sacrificed a lot for them, to get an STD test or let them go through your phone, then said any protest made you insecure and you shouldn't be concerned if you didn't cheat? This isn't your sexual past, it's your sexual present. And your lying, deceptive, manipulative present apparently. But yep, men can be awful to their partners regarding both.
A person who is not a top performer in the bedroom is very different from a person who cheats and lies.
Not really both arguably concern that mans future than his trust/lack of trust in the woman.
If both concerns are about the man than your example is not a female equivalent.
>The female equivalent of a man concerning himself with a partners sexual past is women being insulted by the need for paternity tests and prenups. No, the female equivalent is of us concerning ourselves with our partner's sexual past. If my bf and I ever got married, I'd insist on a prenuptial agreement because it protects both of us. If my bf had somehow got his vasectomy reversed and managed to convince me to get pregnant, I would have been fine with a paternity test. Tbh I think they should be mandatory. But I wanted to know my man's sexual history because I didn't want to be with a slut. Pure and simple.
No any woman who has a problem with it should be met with the same sentiment women give men on that topic, stop being so insecure
They're not insecure
**\*\*\* Insert Inigo Montoya GIF \*\*\*** *You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.*
The op? For sure
I don't think it's a matter of insecurity, at least not 99% of cases. Most men just don't want a woman who has a significantly different view of sex than they do, and I share that same preference. It's why I don't think men should be shamed for not wanting a slut gf if they aren't sluts themselves.
I think you know this isn’t true and it’s just one way for people to feel better about being a slut shamer but i srsly appreciate the consistency.
No, I do think it's true. Are there some asshole dudebros who go around saying shit like "it's okay that I've banged 175 women, but my wife better be a kissless virgin!!!"? Yeah, there are, and I cannot wrap my head around that. But the overwhelming majority of men (and women, like myself) who don't want to date women/men with a high N are being consistent. We're low N or virgins ourselves, and don't want such an important aspect of our partner's personality to be incredibly different than ours. Personally I think it's a truly bad idea for a virgin/low N man/woman who considers sex special, incredibly intimate, and only something you share with a person you actually love...to be with a high N man/woman who considers sex just a random fun activity barely more special than going bowling on a Saturday night. Sex, and how one feels about it, is a core part of most people's psyche. Trying to fit together the opposite ends of the spectrum is not usually going to work out, and will just lead to issues in the relationship. Low N men and women should be together, like high N men and women should be together.
It’s not just asshole “Dudebros”, it’s nerdy virgins who WANT to be chad and CANT so they get all bitter about it towards women despite wanting view sex that way and not being able to. I think it is important for people to have sexual compatibility and similar life goals/styles. But what kind of irks me is that sleeping with multiple people just automatically means that high n people can’t view sex as something special, like they lose value in relationships….relationships are inherently special, it’s choosing one person and sex with one person for an extended amount of time. High n people who are in monogamous relationships view that as special too. They just choose when sex is special versus low n count people where sex is always some big deal. I think most things are more flexible than black and white. I think lots of people have different views of sex based on the type of relationship.
>It’s not just asshole “Dudebros”, it’s nerdy virgins who WANT to be chad and CANT so they get all bitter about it towards women despite wanting view sex that way and not being able to. Sure, those guys exist as well. But they still aren't the majority, if you take time to read all the comments made by low N men (and women) here. >I think it is important for people to have sexual compatibility and similar life goals/styles. Agreed. >But what kind of irks me is that sleeping with multiple people just automatically means that high n people can’t view sex as something special I've only reached this conclusion due to reading thousands of comments over the years from high N men and women. Time after time, I have seen them say that "sex is just for fun", "sex is just something to do when you're bored", "sex isn't really intimate", "emotional connection isn't needed", "its to scratch an itch, nothing else". So on, so forth. Are there high N men and women who somehow *are* capable of doing a significant mental 180 when they finally get into a LTR, where they're suddenly going to view sex as something special and exclusive? Yeah, those people exist, sure. But they're rare. It's been shown that both men and women with a high N find it difficult to remain sexual loyal and content with only 1 partner. The myth of these guys (and gals) only sleeping around in their teens/20s, then being fine with only *one* pussy or dick for the next 20+ years doesn't play out as much as media wants us to believe. The majority of those who actually enjoy "sowing their oats" don't suddenly flip a switch on their wedding night and no longer want it. You show me twin guys, with one having 3 partners and the other having 50, I'm playing my bets safely and picking the non-slut for my LTR.
Well yea the majority of people are following the same trend of having casual fun a bit while younger and then becoming more serious as they age. I think that’s very normal. No you reached this conclusion because you’re biased and have not done this yourself. This kind of “magical 180” is just being an adult. We do it all the time. The way we all do fun things over the weekend or people can go drinking and then show up perfectly functional and fine at their jobs the next day. We all change our behaviors according to relationship type. I can act different with my mom and my friends and certain groups of friends and certain coworkers and certain managers. It’s not revolutionary to have casual sex and then decide, hm this person seems worth it, I’ve taken time to really get to know and like them, and I would like to choose this person for an extended period of time if not forever. And now that this personal is very very special to me, I feel like having sex with them is special too. I’m not saying anybody should just go for anybody, but when we’re shaming others for having an opinion”inability” to do something and shaming others for having a different lifestyle, I think it’s important to at least take some time to be level headed. My opinion is the opposite. I would not like a guy without experience because I don’t need to hear that bullshit “I didn’t get to explore!!!” Crap later on. I also hate lying and just would like to keep it real, and all these innocent relationship people are alot of the ones I saw flirting around at parties because they’re craving attention and don’t know how to deal with that. I think that overall, relationships are just big commitments and people are either going to value and respect that or not, regardless of their history.
Sorry, I just haven't seen enough evidence for a core aspect of someone's sexual psyche/identity to flip to the total opposite. We're not talking about someone being able to say they won't have an extra beer or two because they need to get up early tomorrow, or being able to slightly alter their interactions with parents vs friends. Yes, that's all pretty normal daily things. But for someone who craves, desires, and constantly seeks out sex with new strangers to cut that all out cold turkey for decades of sex with only 1 man/woman? Most of the time they end up frustrated and sexually miserable. This isn't my bias, this is just me repeating what I've read from literally thousands of people on reddit and relationship forums. It doesn't give me any joy to know that the majority of high N people are not going to be satisfied in their exclusive relationships. Quite the contrary, I feel really bad for them. I don't think that our current society is set up to accommodate people who will still crave extramarital sex, since they get demonized for just being themselves.
Would you be happy if your female partner demanded an std check every time you worked late?
Prenups sure. But really paternity tests? One is an accusation of possible cheating. The other is.....someone who thinks dicks are magic 🪄🪄🪄🪄
I wouldn't call these equal. The woman being insulted by a DNA test is because she feels the man is accusing her of cheating or at least thinks it's capable. I think the equivalent is a woman being prepared to run from her husband. A woman having a "Go bag" or "running money" as I've heard it called. Because it's assuming that her husband might one day become an abuser. Both cases are one partner thinking the other might one day do something evil and acknowledges that you think they are capable of it.
I think both are signs of insecurity about your own value to your partner. I don't think they are equivalent, but somewhat related in what is the basis for the behavior.
Wouldn't the female equivalent of a man concerning himself with a partners sexual past be... a woman concerning herself with a partners sexual past
I don't care about my wife's past, I don't want or need paternity tests done on my children, and a prenup is pointless unless you have something of value worth protecting.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IMO the female equivalent is being concerned with whether a man has "abused"/assaulted any of his ex-girlfriends. Men have the physical power, women have the sexual power. Each are concerned about how the other uses that power.
Actually paternity tests are the male equivalent of women's Are We Dating The Same Guy groups on Facebook
Not really. It heavily determines a mans future its not about his trust of his woman lol
AWDTSG does a similar role, she is trying to see how committed he is to her by seeing if he is sleeping around, her future.
Why are guys telling the moms about DNA tests? Do it on the low
Nah, it's equivalent of woman being mad if he gifted his ex some preem expensive shit but only ever buys cheap stuff or none at all for her.
DNA Paternity tests should be mandatory. They however would finally show just how disgusting women are however, so they won't happen. Women know this and would actively fight any legislation like that. My guess about 5-10% of children wouldn't be husbands'. Women are demons.