N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD

2025-08-02T06:33:27+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Consistent_Bet_5318 · 2025-08-01T21:34:55+00:00

All this "women have it easy" discourse always end up the same way.

It ends up being about how women "suffer" and I should somehow feel bad for Brittany because she can get laid but can't have sex with a handsome man.

That's literally how it ends each time.

"You should feel bad for this rich guy. He suffers because instead of being paid biweekly, he gets paid each week".

Also my favorite part on reddit: only women are allowed to voice their problems with men. Men voicing any issie with men get them banned or see their post deleted by these SOB called mods( living off an ego trip).

Bitch_King-of_Angmar · 2025-08-01T06:53:20+00:00

anyone else just feel out of place on this thread? it's mostly virgins, n=1s and promiscuous people duking it out and doing moral theater performances all over the place. it's like democrats and Republicans. both sides arent the best but somehow they both see a completely alternative reality from each other, and are obstinately diametrically opposed for some reason.

all their theories on why xyz happens are 1000% opposite of each other. they both have an agenda and neither of them are appealing.

on one side you've got: never fuck anyone but one person for life or youre a piece of shit

on the other side you've got: just fuck 20 people sis. it literally doesnt matter. start an onlyfans. put butthole pictures online

neither of them have your best interest at heart that's all im saying

gtbreddit1 · 2025-07-27T21:02:16+00:00

PSA: If you don't want to sit in the corner and watch 20 men run a train on your wife, you're insecure!

loopyawesome · 2025-07-27T20:03:26+00:00

I HAVE AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT TO MAKE:

I AM HERE

MalePsychopath · 2025-07-27T15:31:11+00:00

Smug PPD hoe women: "Good luck trying to avoid us. We lie about our n counts! muahaha 💃"

Well…

<image>

attendquoi · 2025-07-25T17:26:42+00:00

Slutty women don't want non-slutty men. They need to stop stressing over something that will never happen.

Popeoath · 2025-07-25T02:32:22+00:00

It's wild how people don't understand why non-casual sex having men don't want to have relationships with casual sex having women.

ThatBitchA · 2025-07-22T16:00:43+00:00

If a man truly cares about previous sexual history, he's an insecure moron and women should avoid that man at all costs.

Nothing is more viscerally disgusting than an insecure man with no confidence in his sexual skills. If a man is too worried about the dick a woman has had in the past it tells me two things: 1, he's bad in bed, 2, he's extremely insecure and that insecurity would destroy any relationship.

Colt_Master · 2025-07-22T10:14:52+00:00

One theme commonly expressed along promiscuity insecurity (since it's closely related) is "sex speedrun insecurity". The main ideas are:

That if she banged a guy sooner than another guy since more or less first ever meeting him, it means she sexually likes the former more. She found it easier to "resist the temptation" with the later, she needed to "grow attraction" for the later rather than being into him from the get-go, and is also likely playing games "withholding sex" in order to get him to commit in exchange for sex.
Early sex is more commonly associated with casual sex and casual dating, and many men would prefer that kind of dating experience of hanging out and sex, rather than the idea of clinical interrogation/vetting for the purpose of selecting a "perfect" life partner. Sometimes, part of being that perfect life partner means putting effort than those men didn't have to do like being the kind of man that pays on dates, and generally higher standards, which when mixed with point 1 means that you'll likely fail to even get laid if you don't meet them. The guy she dated more casually was "getting a better deal". Generally, the idea of dating a woman who bangs casual sex partners pretty early but wants to wait with you "until you prove yourself" can feel humiliating.
Men will fuck anything, but have higher standards for commitment, meaning that by and large, women have their pick of the litter regarding casual sex, and if she chooses you for it that's more validating than if she wanted you as bf from the get go. It's even preferrable for relationships to start as casual sex that grow into commitment as both people eventually catch feelings, as that ensures you're truly sexually desired. When you mix this with point 2, it can reach the point of extreme jealousy over "Chad treatment" and feeling like dating isn't worth it unless it starts casual.

Honestly I initially symphatized with these views since I live in a culture where early sex and casual dating are pretty hegemonic and by and large if a woman isn't fucking you is because she doesn't want to. But I realized reading (seemingly mostly?) American posters, both men and women, that this was cultural solipsism of mine.

On one hand, there's plenty of arguments for waiting for sex (in serious dating) from the perspective of benefitting the woman that do not actually have anything to do with lack of sexual desire, that afaik are commonly employed in American dating. Women who have casual sex pretty early on will still employ these arguments for waiting in serious dating, and do not necessarily involve any hypocrisy or "unfairness". These arguments can extend to the point of these women being unwilling to even consider entering relationships with men they didn't hold off on sex with at all.
But not only that, there also exist "pro-male" arguments in favor of men choosing women who wait for sex in serious dating, regardless of how loose they are when not seriously dating anybody, which I've even found men expressing on this subreddit.

One of them is that many Americans are still accepting of the concept of dating multiple people at once, at least in the early stages when they still aren't particularly attached to any one in particular, and that thus it logically follows that a woman who has sex pretty early with you is likely having sex or going to have sex with the other men she's seeing at least until she starts liking you. However... There exists a demographic of men who although are accepting of women talking to multiple men at once, would prefer that they had higher standards for sex while at it, as they see waiting for sex as preferable to the emotional consequences of knowing that the girl they're seeing is currently "loose" and likely having sex with men other than him simultaneously. This especially applies to men who catch feelings easily, or who date women for whom they've already caught some degree of feelings, or are monogamous-minded and have it hard to catch feelings for someone who's not currently acting monogamously.
Many men also share some of the arguments for waiting for sex that women use. Namely, feeling like early sex gets in the way of vetting. The hormones and feelings can cause both of you to ignore red flags, etc. Many men do actually share women's sentiment in wanting to actively vet and ensuring the woman they're seeing is "perfect" for them, rather than taking a more "just let's see where it goes" approach to dating.
Many men do actually dislike the concept of relationships that initially start as hookups, in particular the aforementioned men in the previous point. If what you were having is truly casual sex, that means that she doesn't give a shit about you having sex with other women, and that she's either having or is open to have sex with other men. This is a turnoff for some men to the point where they prefer serious dating with some degree of either exclusivity or chastity earlier on, regardless of their stance on "AFBB lore". These men also have it harder to even consider becoming a couple with someone they've ever had casual sex with.
Furthermore, many women adjust their sexual conduct with this point in mind.

In summary, reasons to be insecure about how fast someone puts out are poor in the American context. It's a poor predictor of sexual desire, relationship desire, how good your relationship would be with her, and essentially basically everything, except whether your values regarding sex match. It's probably a dumb thing to be insecure for in your environment if you're reading this.

abaxeron · 2025-07-21T09:37:19+00:00

With n count discussions usually come divorce statistics to justify n count preferences in committed partners. Meanwhile, all the other factors that increase divorce likelihood are conveniently neglected. Why is that? To me, it looks like people do not care that much about optimizing partner choice for low divorce probability and rather look for a somewhat believable argument for their preference, that is actually rooted in something else than optimizing for stability.

As "values" would be a perfectly fine reason for this preference, i would think that men with religious or conservative values towards partner count, or a sociosexual restrictedness, high sexual disgust sensitivity, would just use those traits as the reason for their perference. But they don't, and rather go for divorce probability, that the completely neglect in other traits, like extravertedness.

To me, this looks like hiding the true nature of that preference, which i think is insecurity.

autistic_cool_kid · 2025-07-20T13:11:00+00:00

AI is an incredible tool for debunking misguided ideas without dying of fatigue from Brandolini's law:

``` 2. What the research says

Relationship stability:

Some studies have shown a slightly higher risk of divorce among people (men and women) who have had many prior sexual partners. But this is correlation, not necessarily causation.

More relevant factors than partner count: how well the couple communicates, emotional maturity, shared values, and mutual respect.

Attachment and satisfaction:

Early or frequent casual sex may be linked in some cases to avoidant attachment or lower relationship satisfaction—but again, this is complex and individual.

Gender bias in data interpretation:

Even when men and women report similar patterns, interpretations often focus more negatively on women.

Modern Perspective

Sexual history ≠ moral value: Having many partners doesn’t say anything definitive about someone’s ability to love, commit, or be a good spouse.

What does matter in marriage: Trust, emotional connection, communication, conflict resolution, and shared life goals.

Judging based on sexual past often reveals more about the person judging than the one being judged.

A Better Approach

Instead of asking “how many people has someone slept with?”, a more meaningful question is:

Are they emotionally available?

Are they honest?

Can they commit?

Do we support each other’s growth? ```

Minute_Criticism_844 · 2025-07-20T01:22:42+00:00

You have to have sex on the first date or you’re not interested and not worth dating. But also having an n count means you’re incapable of forming attachments and nobody will want to date you.

leosandlattes · 2025-07-19T19:36:03+00:00

Reminder that none of you will ever figure out your partner’s n-count for sure, and that agonizing about their n-count is a neurotic useless activity. Just break up and find some Amish/Mormon young woman to date instead (if you can get her).

I will never understand men who choose to continue dating women while also bitching and moaning about her n-count and whether she let her ex hit earlier than she let you hit.

Exotic_Cheetah5918 · 2025-07-19T19:30:42+00:00

There’s a weird duality to the N count discussion. When a man is complaining or distraught that no woman wants to sleep with him despite having nothing especially wrong with him, the response is generally along the lines of “very few women want to have casual sex compared to men, so you shouldn’t expect it unless you’re above average.”

Fine, but then when the topic of discussion is wanting a woman with a low N count, suddenly this is unreasonable because “most women are going to have a sexual history and slept around a bunch.”

And before you retort with the Goomba meme, I have seriously heard both of these sentiments at different times from the same individuals. Besides, if they’re mutually incompatible, then one must be true and one false, so which is it?

salphon · 2025-07-19T18:13:48+00:00

High n-count is bad, especially for women, though some studies show it affects men too. Women don't seem to care. They shame men for not having enough sex, never for having too much. Also, nobody attacks women when they prefer low n-count men... no idea why, white knights are fucking weirdos.

Stay safe, kings, and marry a low n-count woman. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10989935/

https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/xqbfyi/not_only_is_past_promiscuity_a_good_predictor_of/

AutoModerator · 2025-07-19T16:00:41+00:00

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., 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 if you have any questions or concerns.

Title	N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD
Author	AutoModerator
Upvotes	4
Comments	295
Date	July 19, 2025 4:00 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1m3zrha/n_counts_weekly_discussion_thread/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/n-counts-weekly-discussion-thread.1557567 https://theredarchive.com/post/1557567

Comments