Summary: Fight fire with fire to illuminate to women the importance of low partner count to SMV. Where metaphors and scientific basis fail, use a very particular approach that at once insulates you from criticisms of gender discrimination and allows the woman to viscerally understand the basis of this idea.


I'm a longtime lurker and the recent topic concerning how women's significant others responded to their partner count prompted me to share a response that I felt appropriate.

Since time immemorial men have been concerned about the partner counts of women they might be interested in having a long-term relationship with.

What common wisdom knew for four millenia, modern attitudes have contrived to discredit. Thankfully, professionally conducted, peer-reviewed scientific studies have concluded that those people from the past (ie most all cultures of modern civilization) may just have had a point.

However, contemporary PC and pop-culture discourse has made appeals to logic and credible authority ineffective when discussing matters of sex. No matter how rational the argument, no matter how much it is supported by hard science and statistics, if it 'hurts feelings', it's not fair game for discussion.

Women and men alike may make any number of excuses for these attitudes and perspectives concerning partner count. It's of little use citing the many scientific and sociological studies that confirm the physical and psychological consequences of an elevated number of sexual partners. Those who have the attitudes and perspectives to buy into these illogical rationalizations were not ones to think carefully about the issue to begin with.

As TRP, especially this subreddit in particular, is essentially concerned with men, encounters with women who hold these views (and who may have acted accordingly) are more the issue.

As these feminist dialogues of rationalizing past behavior caters mainly to women, it is likely that women will be able to have a ready answer for any logical argument you make about this topic, since this is a topic that threatens them.

As logic is not on your side, appeal to their emotions instead with this simple question:

"If I told you I let (give a number matching her number of sexual partners here, e.g. seven) guys stick their dick in my ass would you still take me seriously as LTR material?"

Watch them recoil in disgust, and then realize the extent of their doublethink.

In all my experience, there is no study to cite, no argument to make, that encapsulates the importance of low partner count better. There is nothing that so annihilates the idea of 'the past is the past'. There is nothing that better demonstrates the irrelevance of 'I'm not that person anymore' rationalization to long-term relationships. Above all, nothing so utterly destroys the idea of men and women having equivalent sexual roles.

I would like to emphasize that there is no possible response to this question except yes or no, and the question's effectiveness owes itself entirely to this fact.

The question does not imply that either party in the discussion is homophobic. The question does not negatively address the behavior or perspectives of women at all, because the hypothetical scenario is one involving a man - you. The question does not appeal to logic, at which a woman could accuse one of so-called 'mansplaining', nor does it appeal to authority in the form of scientific studies, at which a woman could use the excuse of 'not all women are like that' or 'institutionalized sexism in the scientific community'.

Vitally important: the question allows the woman to internalize the emotions that men feel when they are faced with considering a long-term relationship with a woman who has a high partner count. That is something that they are unused to, and have no readily available rationalization for.

Conclusion: Explaining why low partner count is important to SMV requires a slightly different approach than the "lock and key" metaphor, et cetera, due to the differences in cultural upbringing between men and women.