>

It’s about you judging them. This is a question where people will not be comfortable. Maybe for too high count they have heard some “slutshaming” and for a too low count you can judge them being “not attractive enough”.
This is more private topic than hair color. Maybe even more private as the number of people you had serious relationships with. It’s more like if you asked about sexual preferences such as fetishes on a third date. It could be too fast for many people to answer it.
/u/GenocidalFlower (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

At the end of the day no one can force you to be in a relationship with someone you don't want to be, no matter the reason. That being said, I think it's fair to critique the underlying assumptions you are making about people when you state a preference such as this. Those two things are not at odds with each other.
I've had male acquaintances tell me they wouldn't want someone who's 'worn out and no longer tight' which is a) crude and sexist and b) based on an objectively false assumption about how female anatomy works, because having sex with many people has no impact on your 'tightness.' So while yes, they're entitled to only date virgins if they want to, I can still tell them that there's something wrong with the assumptions they're making and more generally how they're speaking about women as a whole. >

That is definitely an issue. People who search for virgins like it’s their screwed up fetish to take away people’s virginity. Of course, though, it’s cynical to assume that everyone with body count preferences is thinking this. (Which I know you’re not making that assumption) Personally, I don’t care if someone I’d be interested in is a virgin or not. Just as long as their body count isn’t like 80, and they brag about it like having sex is some kind of achievement. >

My point wasn't specifically about this situation, that was just an example to illustrate my actual argument: Just because you are entitled to a preference that does not mean you are free from criticism. 
You make the assumption that because you are allowed a preference, that preference is somehow untouchable. It isn't. People can critique you for it. >

!delta That is true! I posted this because I just saw a video of a woman cursing guys out who have body count preferences and then a minute later talking about how she’ll only date tall guys. >

High body count gives me reason to believe they’re more impulsive than someone who does not have a body count like that. And when someone tries to hide their body count from future mates it’s a sign they’re untrustworthy. >

What is a high body count? Like how many partners per year is too much? Assuming someone is impulsive because they like sex and want to explore different people is kind of odd, but I won't fault you for thinking that entirely. I just think there's plenty of people who had little sex and gambled their money on meme stocks and crypto. Or are impulsive in other ways. Not a lot you can get from a number alone.
Hiding something from fear of judgment is totally normal. Someone may hide the fact they make more money than most people. Some people may hide the fact they've been chronically single. There's a lot of assumptions being made based on a number nobody seems to give. And a lot of judgment made on a hypothetical that is not based on a realistic number. >

Depends on the individual psychology. Most people tho experiences mark them. Bad experiences mark them badly. Its why if u know a woman 3 divorces 3 kids. Something will be wrong about her. Could be a nice lady but something will be wrong. Things dont just happen. >

I don't understand how anyone would be fine with a person with high bodycount. If it is higher than 3, it means that the person has killed more than in a traumatic event and will likely kill another soon.
That is terrifying. And a absolute red flag. 
Edit: of course, not counting military veterans. They are fine with a high body count, considering that it is their job. >

Wtf are you talking about? >

When people use the term "body count" they're typically referring to the number of victims of a murderer. OP worded this a very odd way, and I'm still not certain I know what they're talking about. >

Number of sexual conquests is the other common meaning of the phrase "body count" >

This is the first time I've heard that. Is it more common outside the US or am I just becoming old and out of touch with slang? >

Same here! I made a comment saying I've never heard anybody talk like this before. The only body count I know about is by ice-t, other than that, it's used the way that the poster has stated, to represent a number of victims. >

It doesn’t seem strange to specifically use the words “body count” when referring to sexual partners? >

Yes. I honestly thought OP was talking about how many murders one has racked up. >

In which case, yeah, I’d probably filter by that too. >

The issue with body count preferences, from my perspective, is the following: the body count is not a personal characteristic due to the differences in human interpretation of the sexual act. Moreover, the definitive nature of the body count does not take into account the fact that people change, and their perception of relationship changes. If you become very restricted in terms of sexual relationships, but, for example, had sexually abundant teens, then the gross body count fails to differentiate this situation from somebody that has a middle life experimentation period after a single sex partner. At the same time, these situations are extremely different in terms of human traits that usually follow such behavior, to the point where unifying them under the same category (same body count) seems to completely fail the initial goal of trying to understand something about the human being you are interested in.
Preferences in relationships are intended to cluster some personal (ranging from emotional to aesthetical) traits that are important to you. Body count is a number that does not, by itself, differentiate any personal or physical traits. >

Does this mean that you wouldn’t consider it wrong to ask what their interpretation of what sex means to them is? >

Yes, absolutely. I consider this to be a very important part of building a relationship. To some, sex is just a pleasurable way to spend time together, and to others, it is a much more sacred act symbolic of sharing a deep feeling; to others, sex is directly tied to a desire of procreation. I think it can be traumatizing (both to the relationship or personally) to find out too late that your perception is different from your partner’s to an extent of compromise impossibility. >

!delta Okay, I see what you’re saying, thank you for the clarification! >

Wait why did you delta when he agreed with you tho >

Because the point is the issue isn't with body count, which can have a large array of different reasons, and may not reflect the person's current view of sex. The issue is with the way they currently view sex, which would be an actual compatibility issue. >

Is it just me or is that splitting the fuck out of hairs. I guess it sounds better to say our traits are incompatible. It sounds so dishonest to me. >

No... Because a person can have a long string of flings without being in a romantic relationship, realize that isn't what they want, reevaluate and rethink what sex means to them, and then they have the exact same values around sex as you.  The values can change, even if body count doesn't >

I don't need to taste the log i drop in the toilet to know it isn't what I want to eat, to reevaluate and what food means to me. Then again lot of people treat their stomach like a landfill anyway.
Idk maybe its elitist but I just cant justify someone claiming sentience and committing certain behaviors. I cant claim moral superiority or sentience or even personhood if I brazenly commit crimes. I didnt need to take a life to evaluate what it means to be human. All I needed was a book on cause and effect and how they link.
That's part of why I dont marry if I do it's for keeps, and it has to be someone who sees it the same way. I dont want to be like my friend who some piece of shit used him for 10 years for shelter while she went to college on his dime and got a career on his dime, then bolts first opportunity. 
Theres certain things you don't do. Convince me otherwise, otherwise get that log and see if it helps you evaluate what the taste of shit means and see who else has the same values around the taste of shit. It's a great starting point for a relationship.
I'm not trying to be mean btw this is just how I make a point. Someone mentioned earlier I sound mean I'm not trying to be.
The crux of it is something smell like shit and someone is offering something that smell like shit and saying here try this.
I didnt need to be a shitty husband to know not to be a shitty husband. Likewise I didnt need to fuck 80 people out of boredom or depression to realize i want a healthy relationship. She did? I'd say the emotional intelligence gap might be too wide. See this is based on an experience I evaluated. Apparently an emotionally intelligent woman would have left before the marriage and possibly not had a date 2 with a dude who it was always going to end in divorce. I like intelligence, and I don't like the chaos my partners lack of intelligence brings into my life. Seeing mom and dad taught me that on both ends. I'd say learning from the folly of others is good. Theres so many good examples. Maybe I'm a sapio sexual. >

How is any of this relevant to why OP changed their mind? >

I think it's ok so long as you are only holding the other person to the same standard you are. So if you have a body count of 20 and you wont date someone who has had sex with 5 people, then you're being a hypocrite. But if, say, you're a virgin and you only want to date another virgin, then I doubt many people will have issue with that. >

I agree!  Short women should only ask for short men, too!  Short women asking for tall men are just hypocrites.
ETA: Also, only successful, wealthy women should ask for a successful, rich man.  These broke girls asking for "high value men" are just hypocrites! >

I can't even tell if you're being sarcastic because un-ironically, yes. Height requirements and income requirements are also dumb. >

We can say its dumb all we want but that doesn't change the reality of people's preferences. Is it "dumb" that most men like big butts/big boobs on women? Objectively yeah, it shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things. But that doesn't make the preference any less valid or impactful on sexual behavior.
If anything, women having a preference for higher incomes in men is a lot less dumb, because she gets a much more real benefit from that than a man who has a preference for women with bigger physical assets. >


We can say its dumb all we want but that doesn't change the reality of people's preferences.

Yes, we know. The whole point is that people are still allowed critique them if they're being hypocritical or unreasonable. A fat person who's only attracted to fat people has their preference, and there's nothing wrong with telling them they're being unreasonable or hypocritical. Especially if they're berating members of the sex they're attracted to for being fat, while giving themselves a pass. Whether or not they change their preferences is irrelevant. >

You say it’s ok to have preferences about all of these things and while true it feels like you’re trying to bait and switch here. If I went out on a date with a girl and you asked how it went and I said 
“Yeah it went great she was smart and funny, good looking and we just had a great connection but, I probably won’t be seeing her again”
“Wait why?”
“She’s Jewish/ has brown eyes/ is too tall/ is vegetarian”
You’d probably respond by commenting how it seems silly to walk away from someone on the basis of a single characteristic. 
So if body count matters to you, I personally don’t get it, but it’s fine, just like I wouldn’t really get a preference on eye colour- it’s just not really something I notice- then that’s ok. But if it matters to you so much that it over rides many other amazing traits then you’re probably obsessive over it and that’s probably not healthy, any more than obsessing over any single trait would be healthy. >

Eye color isn't something you can change. 
Height isn't something you can change. 
Body count is absolutely something that someone actively chose to indulge in. >

Unless of course they have experienced lots of sexual violence and un consensual sex acts. My first sexual experiences were forms of sex abuse - do those attribute to my “body count”? >


do those attribute to my “body count”

No >

And for those who have been abused/trafficked to the point where they have lost count or feel that sex is the only way they can prove their worth or value? Example: I was abused from young age, first engaged in commercial sex at 13, lost count of partners by age of 15, didn’t realize I was trafficked until I was about 30 due to all the shame and stigma placed on me and being labeled as a child prostitute. 
Also note that these dynamics and experiences are very common, I grew up with many girls having similar experiences. >

You would probably have a lot of baggage that I wouldn't be able to be a good partner to you, so I probably wouldn't date you. >

Seeing as personally my history and trauma doesn’t usually come up during my first dates, just wondering if you would you break things off with someone you had been dating after learning about their abuse? >

You’re right 
BUT…
If you don’t hold yourself to that same standard, then be quiet.  I have a body count of 6 as a woman, if I’m talking to a guy and he says that’s too high of a number for him to date me, that’s okay. But if I ask him his body count and he says 60… that’s 10x’s the amount I have. It’s hypocritical as fuck because he doesn’t even hold himself to that kind of standard to be expecting that of someone else!
They say things like: “she’s for the streets” “she’s a hoe” “she gets around” etc.  
Then don’t hold themselves to the same standard at all, if I don’t respect myself because I’ve slept with 6 people. You for damn sure don’t respect yourself as you have slept with 60. 
People say having a high body count is the red flag, but I think the real red flag is how many of the bodies were relationships, you have a high body count because you slept around, but how many of them were failed relationships? And why were there so many of them? >

It's not the preference its the reason behind the preference. Using one of your examples, if someone preferred blondes but the reason behind that was because they believed in Aryanism would that be OK? 
For body count preferences I can't think of a reason which isn't rooted in some form of misogyny or shaming. You say in one of your comments you don't care as long as its not 80 or something, why? >

If you view sex as a way of sharing intimacy and love with someone it seems highly unlikely that you could find 80 people to do that with. 
Some people view sex almost like having a game of tennis, other people see it as something more sacred and precious. It's not misogynist to view sex as something special. >

No it's not. But you can't know all that just from a number. People change, go through phases etc. You won't know that if you just write them off based on a number. >

You also have to at some level depend on generalities or inferences to avoid dating everyone you meet for years solely to find out if they fall under the normal distribution or not. You can't "know" that a guy who is making $30K a year won't be making $100K a year in the next two years, you can't "know" that a guy who cheated on their last three girlfriends will also cheat on you, you must make a reasonable inference from the limited information you have so that you're not wasting your time. And accept the risk: you may lose someone that you would have been very compatible with. >


you must make a reasonable inference from the limited information you have so that you're not wasting your time

This is why it's called "getting to know" people. 
If you want to reject people based on one piece of information and accept the risk that you're missing out on amazing people that you hastily judged, you do you. Personally I like to know more about people before I judge them. 
Yeah you can't 100% predict anybodies future behaviour, so what? That doesn't make it fine to just dismiss them based entirely on your own assumptions. >

Isn't one of OP's points explicitly that these things shouldn't be considered out of bounds to talk about? In order to really have a discussion about how someone's feelings about casual sex have changed, you need to be having a conversation that will be pretty revealing about their number of partners.
Also, what's wrong with just not finding the idea of your partner having slept with that many people attractive? Some people find smoking so unattractive it's a deal breaker, or living with your parents, or having a large nose, or brown hair, or certain political beliefs, or being a meat eater. 
Is it okay to say "I don't wish to date you because in the past you've killed and eaten a deer and I find hunting gross" but not "the idea of you sleeping with 80 people is a huge turn off and I find you unattractive as a result"? It may come from a place of insecurity but lots of sexual proclivities come from odd places. As long as they aren't being hypocritical I just don't see what's wrong with it. You like who and what you like and promiscuity certainly seems to fall under the umbrella of 'things that may affect your attraction' to me. >


shouldn't be considered out of bounds to talk about?

I don't think they really are in the bounds of a relationship. It's pretty weird to bring up on like a first date, but through the natural progression of getting to know someone you'll probably find out anyway. 

Also, what's wrong with just not finding the idea of your partner having slept with that many people attractive? Some people find smoking so unattractive it's a deal breaker, or living with your parents, or having a large nose, or brown hair, or certain political beliefs, or being a meat eater. 

I feel like you missed my point. Why is it unattractive? What reason is there for it to be unattractive? Smoking can be unattractive because it's objectively unhealthy so that's not really a good comparison. 

80 people is a huge turn off and I find you unattractive as a result

Again why? What is rhe reason it's unattractive?

As long as they aren't being hypocritical I just don't see what's wrong with it.

If your reasoning comes from a place of misogyny and you're not examining that I think that's generally a bad thing. >

If it's going to be a deal breaker for you, ask. 
Personally it's a deal breaker for me if they ask, but that just means we aren't compatible that way and we don't need to devote more time to making it work. Also I don't know the number anyway, I didn't know I was supposed be keeping track. >

Ew >

you are making the very weird and wrong assumtion is the more numbers = the more sex they had and thus more experienced.  
im 39 now, i had in my life long periods of being single, between my 17 and late 20 i enjoyed a lot of my free life might have shared beds with i don't know 40-50 people.  
i've been in 4 long relationships and with those 4 combined i had a hell lot of more sex then all these others combined.  
people can have a low count, but screwed like rabbits with the partners they did >

It's not about how much sex someone had, it's about the number of partners. >

Its weird and i personally disapprove, but you do you man. Im not going to try and firce you to conform to my personal beliefs >


How is it that you can have preferences over almost every single thing except body count? 

There are many, many arbitrary things where some people arbitrarily say one can't have a præference in and you listed some of them. >

What if your preference is for minors? Some preferences are not socially acceptable - and right now asking a women for a body count is border line incel behavior. >

because that is sign of a mental problem, its okay to prefer bigger boobs or less body count because thats normal human sexuality, but pedophilia or necrophilia are just clear hints of issues. >

I would argue that asking for a body count is another hint of issues - it's a red flag. >

I think most people obsessed with body count are borderline incel types that are virgins or nay have had sex very few times. I did actually agree with op though. In a long term relationship it's important to be with someone of similar values. If someone has a very high body count or is promiscuous it's perfectly acceptable to want to avoid that for men or women. Imo it's hypocritical for men who are virgins to look negatively at women who are not IF those men are not virgins by choice. If they would gladly have sex is they were able to then they can't judge a potential partner who had the same mentality and was successful. >


I think most people obsessed with body count are borderline incel types that are virgins or nay have had sex very few times.

Funny how you bash people who care about body count by caring about what you perceive as their body count.
Why shouldn't the part I quoted apply to you too? Because it sure seems that you care about their body count. >

I'm not bashing people that care about body count. I'm saying it's logically inconsistent for an involuntary virgin to care about their potential partner being a virgin when they would not be a virgin themselves if they could help it. On the other end of spectrum, if my wife had been with 200 guys before me, yeah I'd probably care. It wouldn't align with my values and I would not have 200 partners even if I was able to. >

As a bi/pan woman, I don't really think about this. I'm not interested in dating at the moment, but I feel like establishing sti status is much more a priority than finding out a body count.  If they've had an abundance of safe,  consentual sex, good for them. It has nothing to do with me. >

Basically the media/society approved position is that a woman is fully entitled to her long list of demands, preferences, and things she thinks she “deserves”, but if a man has ANY preference then he is a misogynist/sexist pig. >

Can i ask why you want this view changed?   
What do you imagine would change your mind on this subject? >

Isn't this sub about challenging other people to change one's view rather than wanting it to be changed? >

This question gets asked regularly on this sub. It's perfectly reasonable to try to tailor an answer to the individual. Most points have multiple ways they can be argued. This is just the direct approach for probing for which will be most effective. >

IMO it shouldn’t be allowed on the sub. It’s a waste of space and shouldn’t be replied to... usually more of a “first!” comment, and doesn’t lead to anything deeper.
Edit: out of curiosity I sorted by “old”… it was actually the first comment lol >

Seriously as someone that is older. How does the body count question even come up if you two are enjoying each other's company. >

You certainly can have those preferences, but lemme ask you one question OP, how would you ever know? 
If you would never know, would it ever make a difference? >

a person can have a number in mind for their ideal partner; nothing morally wrong with that. what is wrong with that tho is that it's useless. it doesn't tell the person what they're hoping to measure, presumably one's virtue. to measure that you must also take into account a number of life factors, such as age, types of relationships (short term/long term), frequency of sex and over how many years. for instance, the op says: 

"People with higher body counts is often better because it means they’re more experienced"

this is definitely not true in and of itself. say the hypothetical person has had 10 sexual partners, but only had sex 10 times over the course of 10 years. does that make them more experienced than someone who's had 3 sexual partners and had sex 3000 times over the course of 3 years? what if your 'high body count' cuttoff point is 10, but the person with 10 sexual partners hasn't had sex in 10 years: does that still make them too slutty to date? this is why body count in most cases is not an effective method of measuring a person. >

I don't think there is a problem with having a preference in your partner's experience level per se.  
However, a lot of the time, these preferences are being expressed by people who are using sexist/redpill/incel language that shows an attitude towards women that belongs in the past.  
If you're relatively experienced and want someone who matches your experience level so you don't feel overwhelmed, that makes sense, if you want a virgin because you want someone 'unsullied by other men' then maybe you have a problem with how you view sex and women. >


However, a lot of the time, these preferences are being expressed by people who are using sexist/redpill/incel language that shows an attitude towards women that belongs in the past. 

Many women don't want to date guys with high body counts. This isn't only a 'man' problem. >

You can point to people who are virgins until marriage and it makes a little more sense in that context, but statistically it isn't the norm in more liberal countries where online dating, like you referenced, is popular. The people with strong religious beliefs about sex are dating within their own little bubbles where, if anything, it's probably even more rude to ask. I'd call virginity until marriage an edge case rather than a good example. 
So that leaves everyone else where the number is pretty arbitrary. Let's say you're 25 and dating people around your own age. Would it really tell you anything about the person they are today if they lost their virginity ten years ago? Maybe they've had x number of partners in the years since, but had things had worked out with their first partner until recently, then they'd only have one. It's a random chance of which point in their life they met someone to have a monogamous committed relationship with. 
I also can't think of a good time to even ask this question. If you're just beginning to get to know someone (like a third date), then it's intrusive. It's taboo to ask how many people they've slept with because it's broadly taboo to ask people you don't know well about their sex lives. Conversely, if you've gotten to know them well enough to want to pursue a relationship, what's the point in asking? I don't see a middle point where it makes sense to use "body count" as a deal breaker. Once you're far enough into the dating process to bring up sex at all, you should be able to discuss it directly instead of using the number of past partners as a proxy.
Lastly, people who ask this are often holding other people to a different standard than they hold for themselves. The topic contains a ton of gendered stereotypes about both men and women that aren't worth humoring. >

Sorry, u/paradigmx – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: 

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.  

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.  
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. >

Promiscuity may indicate many things that are worth considering. If they have a high libido and you do not you won't be compatible. In conjunction with other variables it can be an indicator of narcissism or psychopathy. If their whole attitude is that they can move onto the next one with a moment's notice then that person is not for everyone. It's unfortunate that the whole body count thing has become synonymous with misogyny as well as feminism adopting the opposite stance that there is NOTHING AT ALL about it that's relevant. Which is equally wrong. >

Just some questions to poke at this. What is a person has been sexually assaulted, in your eyes does that count? 
Also my second question is why does it matter? I'm a person who doesn't have preferences but I mean who you have been with in the past should not affect you, if anything they may be a better partner from experience in past relationships. 
Do you have an amount of body counts that you would be ok if your partner turned you down for that? If you have slept with 3 people and your partner none and they reject you is that ok in your eyes? >

I don’t think I would ask anyone about their body count, but I don’t consider it wrong. And no, hypothetically, I wouldn’t consider sexual assault a part of it at all. I do think it’s important to have a similar interpretation of sex as your partner. For instance, some people think of sex as a nice way to bond with your partner while other people consider sex as more sacred, only should be done after marriage and/or when you are ready to have a child. Body count is not a perfect indicator of what their belief is, but sometimes it can be a decent indicator. And if my partner dumped me because I had a body count of 1, let alone 3, I wouldn’t be upset. If you think of sex as very sacred, I’m not going to take that away from you. (It also depends on how long we’ve been together. If it’s like over 6 months, then why didn’t you ask me sooner if it was such a big deal to you?) Someone else mentioned a good point, as long as you’re not being hypocritical about it, it shouldn’t be a big deal to have preferences. If your body count is 20 and you turn down someone who has a body count of 5 because their body count is too high, that’s wrong. But if you’re a virgin who is looking for a virgin, there’s nothing wrong with that. >


The people who are trying to change your mind are the people with high body counts I guarantee it

Seems like a projection doesn't it? >

I didnt mind dating women with higher body counts, the problem was that there was always guys from their pasts that would try getting back into contact with them, since there were so many - or wanting to do "firsts" together, but it had already been done before with other guys; ill admit that part did take some of the magic away and i definitely would prefer a woman with a "not so high" body count, but it wouldnt deter me from seeing someone either way. >

I think body count is a half-decent proxy for attachment style. Higher body count is probably more avoidant, lower body count is healthier or more anxious depending on age. Body count of 1 at 18 is probably healthy, body count of 1 at 45 probably anxious (unless married since young).
EDIT1: likewise I feel that a body count of 10 at 18 is reasonably a red flag while a body count of 10 at 48 indicates long term partner potential, all other factors being equal. >

I would be highly surprised if there wasn't already data on attachment styles and sexual behaviors. Have you ever looked into it? If so, I would love to see the studies. >

Unfortunately I haven’t had institutional access in several years since it’s not offered to alumni, only current students.
I’d gladly pay an alumni member rate at the university library to maintain access but they don’t offer that. >

I have institutional access, but very little time. If I feel up to it and have some spare time, I will post what I find. >

Because someones sexual history has nothing to do with you. >

What makes sexual history so covert? If I want to ask about their academic or profession history, or even romantic history, most people agree there is nothing wrong with that. If I want to ask about their religious beliefs, that’s normally not a problem. But if I want to ask about their sexual history, which is often tied to religion, it’s taboo. Most people agree, including me, that there’s nothing wrong with rejecting someone based on height alone, something people can’t control. >


What makes sexual history so covert?

It's not covert, it's private. There's nothing covert about the content of my backpack either, but if someone suddenly went through it, I'll get pissed. >

I do want to clarify that I also don’t think it’s wrong for people who are asked this kind of question to not respond, or even brake up with them over it. It just seems wrong to me that there are many people that think it makes you an awful person if you are asking questions like these to understand your partner’s belief systems. >

If you want to know about someone's belief system, then ask them about their belief system. Not the number of partners they have. Number of sexual partners doesn't actually tell you anything important about the person. For starters, not all those partners may have been consensual. Also number only tells you about the person's past and not who they are now.
Imagine a person. The first relationship she has is with someone shitty and abusive. Eventually she escapes form him, but she's traumatized by the event and works through her trauma by being hypersexual for a while before settling down and healing. Now imagine the same person met someone actually decent for her first relationship. No trauma, no healing. Her values haven't changed between the two scenarios. The only thing that changed was luck in her first relationship. And yet many many men will judge her as a used up slut for having multiple sexual partners. They'll make assumptions about her value system and think that she's just naturally promiscuous and will cheat on them given half a chance.
If you want to know about a person's belief system, ask them about that. Don't make assumptions based on number of sex partners. >

How can you say it tells you "nothing" about the person? Do you truly believe that? >

Absolutely. >

I'm really curious. Is it valid, to you, to refuse dating someone based on their past political ideologies? >

Past is past. People change. I'm not going to hold what someone used to believe against them. >

There is nothing, in theory, wrong with having preferences. The real question is why these 'preferences' happen to conveniently line up with bad social stereotypes that are used to hurt and degrade women. >

That’s because the people that care about body count are usually incel types who are insecure because they have no idea how to please a woman sexually and want a girl with no experience who won’t realize that he has no idea what he’s doing and won’t judge him for his lack of sexual experience. >

How is a sexually inexperienced guy going to overcome this though, except as you say get with a sexually inexperienced girl who won’t judge him?
Also how is it wrong for a guy with little to no sexual experience to want a girl who he can experiment and develop his sexuality with, without immediately being judged for being “bad”, instead of one who will judge him left, right and center because he doesn’t immediately just “get it”? >

I don't necessarily agree with everything the person you commented said. But many incels who bring this up do have this weird fixation on purity and inexperience. If a woman judges a man who has never had sex it means that woman is a bad partner and not understanding. But a person who is less experienced can be judgmental. There's no rule that someone is more compassionate if they're less experienced. Plenty of people here are probably young and never had sex and are judgmental about a thing they never did. 
A partner's experience level with sex, whether with one partner and various acts or different partners and more vanilla acts, doesn't define their compassion or patience. A low or high number of partners, which nobody in this thread seems to define, doesn't mean someone will be more or less understanding. >


Especially since sex before marriage is often against a religious belief. I’ll admit, it’s a little strange to put “Looking for someone with x Body Count” on a bio or something, since that means you’re obsessed with sex, or a lack there of. But if it’s the third date and you’re trying to get to know their personality, it shouldn’t be taboo to ask about that part of their life 

It's not about religion, just misogyny. 
If it were about religion, someone would ask if someone is religious, what religion, if they're devout, not how many people they've slept with. 
This is just, always, about trying to shame and control women. >

If men's preferences are misogyny, are women's preferences misandry? >

Religion and waiting till marriage is a completely valid reason to prefer a Virgin.
However, I don't think we should ever judge someone for their past of they have changed. When looking for a romantic partner, we should care about who they are NOW. Some people had a troubled youth or a wild youth. If they no longer live like that and don't really talk about it, I can't see how that would ever affect your current relationship to them. >

Inherently? Probably not. But the Venn diagram of guys who get upset because a woman has had sex and guys who suck ass is pretty damn close to a perfect circle. So it is more of an indicator of bad behavior than bad behavior in and of itself. >

You're right, in that isn't anything inherently wrong with it.
But nobody has an aesthetic preference for a low body count - it's all about the "why".
In theory, there could a very legitimate reason to put something like "I don't date black people" up as a preference. It could be that must black people carry some genetic trait, that for some reason, you're deadly allergic to... but we all know that isn't why you'd write that.
That's really the same for sexual history. 
If your reason was something like "I'm a virgin, and I'd like to explore this 'sex' thing with somebody who also has no prior experience." that would probably be completely fine. But more often the underlying reason would be something like "I need to know if you're 'pure' enough for my standards, because I need to feel like I own my girlfriend" or"I'd feel like I'm competing with someone else, which my fragile ego can't handle."
If you want to see the difference, find the askreddit threads about body count. You'll see that numbers are accompanied by reason. "5, because less than that would indicate...".
However, if you find a thread about favorite food or eye color, no reason are given, because those are arbitrary preferences. They "look nice" to you. 
As soon as you say "only date girls/guys with green eyes" it has moved from "I prefer this" to "I deserve what I prefer" - making it about the underlying reason again. >

There’s a number at which you’d say “that’s a high body count” and just one fewer would be “not a high body count”. What is that number for you?
And do you realise you’d be the one pushing her past your threshold of an unacceptable number of sexual partners?
Body count is a silly thing to judge someone on, but people are daft. Feel free to limit your dating pool, but we are allowed to call you a bit thick for doing it. >

I don't think it's an off limits question. It's more about the type of men who obsess over that question.
It's one thing to think ok that's a number I'm not comfortable with and tell them the relationship isn't going to work.
It's another thing entirely when men are calling women sluts and other derogatory names for being "experienced" >

For many people their body count is a reflection of their lifestyle and not some concerted effort at promiscuity. Let's say you're a 40 year old guy who from 25-30 went on dates with 300 women (not a lot especially in a huge city). Statistically speaking, you likely would have had sex with 15 on the low side and 100 women on the high side. So if at 40 you finally meet the one and she knows you didn't spend the majority of your life with one woman then she has to accept that your body count may be high from simply super casual dating.
We all get our choices and preferences but at times there are more to people than what's on the surface and when it comes to numbers sometimes there's a lot to it. >

You can totally have that preference, you just shouldn't be alarmed when people turn you down for having it. >

Promiscuity and successful marriage are inversely proportional for both genders. I think being transparent about "body count" is a good practice, however the reality of this it that it is embarrassing to have had multiple partners and expecting transparency with a total stranger is unrealistic. I think that moving to just have people avoid body counts for both genders would end in better quality relationships for all and end with happier lives for everyone. This is also unrealistic but if you don't at least strive for something nice you can't expect something good. The term "used goods" is used for women much of the time but the reality is that both genders are used goods after even their first relationship ending in physical relations. I don't care about tightness or whatever topics people through around in a misogynistic fashion, but I do care about having the best shot at giving my future children a good role model for parenting and partnership in life.
​
I personally have no judgement toward people who are promiscuous, but I don't want to subject any kids I have to divorce and I would never want to do anything that would hurt them. Of course children is also something that you have to discus with your partner, but on the premise that I want a family I think it would be irresponsible to not give that the biggest priority. >

Y’all wanna just sleep with the whole world so bad and it’s disgusting 🤦🏿‍♂️ stop allowing so many people access to your body and portals, weirdos. Body count matters, speaks to their character. >

let them be horny