Opinion Nobody Should Care About a Woman’s ‘Body Count’

Link (Archive)

Nobody Should Care About a Woman’s ‘Body Count’​

Ever since elon Musk’s lackeys began fiddling with the algorithms of X (formerly Twitter), I have noticed a distinct shift in the content that is pushed onto users. My “For you” tab is now a nest of tradwives, shoplifting videos, and that guy who has strong opinions on trouser creases. It is also home to the kind of old-fashioned misogyny that I once thought was on the decline.

And that’s because X, a small social network beloved by journalists, is now providing a window into a much bigger part of the internet—one that is simultaneously absurdly popular and almost invisible to outsiders. It is the interlinking Venn diagram of Twitch streamers; mixed-martial-arts, wrestling, and boxing fandoms; manosphere influencers; and video-game commentators. The way that these guys turn up on one another’s podcasts, X feeds, and livestreams—and their habit of physically fighting one another for money—makes them seem like a younger, more ripped version of the Intellectual Dark Web.

One of the obsessions of the worst parts of this group—call them the Influential Jerk Web—is “body count” discourse, in which women (always women) are shamed for the number of sexual partners they’ve had. The phrase has gained popularity so quickly that Jason Derulo has just released a song about it. Now, Derulo is okay with a high body count—“all that ass, must be good at math,” he observes—but others are not. “A lot of the world’s problems could be fixed if women walked around with their body count on their foreheads,” the professional kickboxer turned sexist influencer Andrew Tate said in one viral clip. A bit rich, you might think, coming from a self-confessed former “pimp” who is currently awaiting trial on human-trafficking and rape charges. But Tate is only one of many influencers who talk like ayatollahs while adhering to the beauty standards of Ryan Gosling in Barbie.

These men provide Gen Z and younger Millennials with a very old template for masculinity filtered through the new visual grammar and vocabulary of YouTube, Twitch, and TikTok. Take the mixed martial artist Dillon Danis, who is scheduled to fight the YouTuber turned pro wrestler Logan Paul in a boxing match in Manchester, England, on October 14. In the past five years, “influencer boxing” has become a lucrative content machine. Logan and his brother, Jake, who have more than 20 million YouTube followers each, have led the trend, alongside the British streamer JJ Olatunji, better known as KSI. Their venues are located across the world, in places such as Texas and Saudi Arabia, and the fights make thousands of dollars on pay-per-view. Influencer boxing is characterized by the kind of pre-match smacktalk familiar from professional wrestling but internetified. And that means, unfortunately, a torrent of sexually inflected misogyny.

Scroll down Danis’s X feed and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Over the past few weeks, he has relentlessly targeted Paul’s fiancée, Nina Agdal, posting photographs of her with her exes, digging out Instagram posts in which she is somewhat scantily dressed (she’s a model), claiming that he could put any prize money toward “HIV medication bills for Nina’s exes,” implying that she has dated everyone she has ever been photographed with, and calling her a “whore.”

This tsunami of slut-shaming nestles between other insults, such as mocking Paul’s failed NFT project, CryptoZoo. In return, Paul has taunted Danis about his dead father. Most fans will therefore see the cracks about Nina Agdal as professional-wrestling-style kayfabe—building up the hype for the fight so that Paul is trying to not just win the match but defend his honor. Pro wrestling is a highly choreographed sport; many fights are billed as “grudge matches,” and the Paul brothers’ internet-era innovation has been to bring its obsession with storylines to boxing. (In 2019, Logan Paul claimed at a press conference that KSI’s family didn’t love him. Four years on, the two men own the sports-drink company Prime together.)

But one person who apparently doesn’t find the posts funny is Agdal herself. On September 6, she filed for an injunction under New Jersey’s revenge-porn laws, accusing Danis of posting a “nonconsensual, sexually explicit photograph” of her, “displaying full frontal nudity, to millions of social media users in the course of a relentless, ongoing campaign of cyber harassment and bullying against her.” She was granted a temporary restraining order. Danis deleted that photo but falsely claimed that Agdal was trying to put him in jail. (She is seeking damages.) “This is actually wild,” he added in a post that, according to X, has been viewed 18 million times. Danis presented the lawsuit as his opponent’s camp trying to tank the October 14 fight, adding: “Logan Paul is a dead man walking.”

In feminist circles, Danis’s behavior would be classified as “DARVO”: deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. The sympathetic character in his version of the story is himself, a man threatened with jail for engaging merely in some lighthearted badinage—shh, don’t mention that it was at the expense of a woman who never asked to be involved with this circus. When Agdal understandably complained about becoming the focus of his fans’ aggression, Danis called upon 2020’s favorite misogynist trope: “Nina Agdal will be called Karen Agdal till further notice.”

I can’t be the only one who thought we had left overt, unapologetic sexism like this behind. What is most striking about Danis’s feed is how masculine his world seems—life is a competition between men, and women are just the prizes (or the liabilities). Tate, whose public comments give little indication that he enjoys spending time with women, shows the same attitude. Maybe these guys are obsessed with “body counts” because they treat life as one giant scoreboard.

whether or not Danis sees his posts as kayfabe is irrelevant. At least some portion of his audience won’t, because he is tapping into well-established anti-feminist talking points. In this worldview, the most humiliating thing that could happen to a man is failing to control his woman, an attitude that puts men into a torturous position of constant precarity. Other humans are by definition uncontrollable, no matter how much you intimidate them or patrol their behavior. But tell that to the late-Millennial and Gen Z influencers trying to shame women so that they will “behave”—and not embarrass the men who are deemed to be in charge of them.

Misogyny occupies a sweet spot in our culture—it is frowned upon enough to make young men trading off it feel edgy, but it’s typically taken less seriously than racism. Its post-#MeToo resurgence has led to members of the Influential Jerk Web coming out with phrases you might have thought died out with 19th-century laws on acceptable forms of wife beating. In 2021, the livestreamer Sneako notoriously confessed that he had watched his girlfriend have sex with another man at a party, and told the Peer to Peer podcast: “It felt like somebody was taking something from me, like someone was violating my property.” He was at pains to note that wanting to watch another man have sex in no way suggested that he was bisexual, which suggests a brittle borderline homophobia is also part of the deal.

Two other things are worth noting about the body-count discourse. The first is that some people on the edges of the Influential Jerk Web have consciously rejected its exhausting sexual monitoring of women. The left-wing streamer Destiny, for example, was raised Catholic but is now in an open relationship. His partner Melina Goransson regularly mocks Danis and other bro streamers, and recently retweeted a post by another user that read: “Quickly now! Do some push ups!! That’s how we change the world!! Now go home and call women whores for not acknowledging your existence and making their own money!!”

The second thing is that, in accordance with Rule 34 of the internet, the straight male anxiety that Danis and Tate are tapping into has been translated into pornography. One of those joining the pushback against Dillon Danis was the influencer Adam Grandmaison, better known as Adam22. He has a podcast with his wife, Lena Nersesian, or Lena the Plug, where they interview a female porn actor and then sleep with her. Last month, though, Nersesian slept with another man instead. Amid all the mockery about Lena’s body count and how Adam was a cuck, the video went viral—so viral that he bought her a $400,000 Lamborghini to celebrate its success. Tate criticized them, telling the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson that “this is what the Matrix wants from you as a man. They want the woman in charge, and the man below, with no backbone … I would argue, in nearly any household where the female is dominant, everyone is vaccinated.” Unfazed, the couple went on a podcast with Tate and invited him to take part in a threesome. (Tate declined.)

The intense interest in Grandmaison and Nersesian’s relationship makes sense: If the worst thing you can say to a man is that his partner is a “whore,” then there’s money on the table for whoever will admit to reveling in his wife’s high body count. And that’s the real lesson here. The internet has smashed all kinds of taboos, but without taboos, how can people feel the thrill of breaking them? The Influential Jerk Web has brought back sexual shame not just to control women but to extract pleasure from doing so.
 
Men with high body counts are gross though, not Chad. Also, some men are really bad at wearing condoms or any sort of protection if the woman is on birth control, but birth control will only prevent pregnancy, not STDs. Not that this matters because I’m already married, but if some guy told me he had sex with 5+ women before me, I’d be grossed out.
Yeah the idea that people think a guy is a Chad for having a high body count is mostly something that came over from nigger culture. In past days, rakes typically had tragic ends as disease and illegitimate births ruined their reputation. Also leaders who indulged in banging whores or concubines were considered weak and easy targets.

Niggers though were the ones that thought banging a bunch of thots was a good idea. You look up a lot of those Mississippi delta blues singers and many of them will have a dozen kids by the time they die at age 30 or whatever. History and literature has written about these guys and rarely was it positive. Seems like white society generally had a more monogamous tone to it. The idea that everyone just fucks a bunch of people is a recent phenomenon and we’re seeing the consequences it has on society.
 
A high body count can be an indicator of poor decision making, low impulse control, lack of loyalty, and a host of other behavioral issues; on top of the whole pair bonding thing, which yes, has been published as SCIENCE™. You shouldn't care about a woman's body count if you're just looking to get laid is what I would say, but let's face it, a high body count is also a greater likelihood of disease; so even if all you are is horny, just try to find something meaningful and get the sex from there, eventually.
Have you heard of these awesome drugs called “antibiotics”? They clear up most STIs for good. There’s also a newer class of drugs called “antiretrovirals” that can prevent you from getting HIV and treat HIV if you have it.

So if your gf has access to modern medicine and uses it, then the chances she’s going to give you the clap she got from her ex bf is low. Get tested ffs. This mindset just perpetuates shame and neurosyphilis
Most thots rack up a count of several hundred over the course of their lives. Just one dick a month starting at age 18 (lol yeah right) is 144 dicks at age 30. Considering how many girls have phases where they hook up frequently…yeah.

Body count does matter if you’re looking for a serious relationship or marriage. She will never give you an honest answer. If she is skanky enough you can tell. If she has admitted to fucking a nigger you can just throw her in the trash.
You do realize that women don’t accrue dick at a linear rate, right? We’re not all checking our calendars and saying “well, October is coming up, time to source a new penis.” Instead, women are likelier to have a single long term sex partner, and if that relationship fails, to move onto another one.

women don’t have hundreds of different sex partners unless they’re honest to god whores. Women don’t want a new guy in the sack every night, they want someone they can trust and who will love them.
Does no one care about STDs/STIs anymore? HPV? High body count is disgusting, no matter the gender.
We have a vaccine for that.
Ahem. A woman's ability to pair bond goes away the more partners she has. In fact, the more whorish a woman is, the less stable the marriages tend to be. After all, why settle when you can monkeybranch with great ease?

Besides that, there's also the real issue of them being a petri dish of STDs. And in California, you can give someone AIDS and its just a misdemeanor. The disease that makes you horribly sick, prone to cancer and can die from a cold is now just an oopsie. You can thank that fuck Scott Weiner. And that is not considering the fact that some of these women have animal STDs in them too. Zoonosis is real.

TL;DR: Cope more femoid. Whores will always be a liability.
What source do you have to back up the assertion that women can’t pair bond if they have more than one boyfriend in their lives?
Thus is the fate of the smart, friendly, nerdy nice guy who never got laid until his mid to late 30s. He has to settle for a used up slut who's been had by over a hundred guys, or nothing at all.

Fuck this gay earth, and everyone on it.
Fwiw the men are more likely to step out on a relationship then women.
I will still care.
I do not want to have a long term relationship with any woman nicknamed "The Plague Bearer"
If you think women who have had a sex life before meeting you are plague bearers then please stay away from them for their sake.

Final thought: the reason women will tell you their sex history is none of your business is because it’s a question that has no satisfactory answer for guys like you. Any answer she gives you will be one you chew on for weeks and fling in her face during domestics.
 
Good to see there is an almost unanimous agreement going on here lads. Gonna power level here a bit but I've had experience with women of loose moral fibre which I didn't mind at all cause it was all the same to me. I met my current mrs who was a total virgin literally never done anything sexual in her life and it was like night and fucking day. Sounds gay as fuck but there really is a deeper connection when your with a woman who hasn't ridden the cock carousel. Don't get me wrong if I fuck up and get booted to the kerb I'm not going to just never try again with someone else but they'd definitely need as low a body count as possible. Women seem to think it's a jealousy thing and maybe it is for a small amount of guys but most want to avoid them for literally every single reason you lads have already said. I'm also aware anecdotal "evidence" from some spastic on an autism forum means fuck all, I still stand by my words though.

Oh and on a random topic fuck high body counts because the higher the count the higher she's tongued some cunt's dung pipe and I'm sorry but why the fuck is that popular with every cunt now? Am I just so old that it's a generation thing because fuck that I'm never getting second hand aids from someone tonguing a guy's or girl's fart box. :story:
 
I met my current mrs who was a total virgin literally never done anything sexual in her life and it was like night and fucking day.
Gonna power level here a bit but I've had experience with women of loose moral fibre which I didn't mind at all cause it was all the same to me.
So women need to be celibate before they meet the man they will marry, but you, the men who would marry such women, do not have to do this?

Do you think STIs discriminate by sex? Or are you giving yourselves the moral latitude to have "loose pussy" while maintaining the expectation that your bride-to-be is sexually naive? Because that's hypocritical; don't judge a woman by her "body count" and they won't judge you for being a manwhore.
 
. This mindset just perpetuates shame and neurosyphilis
Shame is good because it prevents women from acting like whores.

Oh and on a random topic fuck high body counts because the higher the count the higher she's tongued some cunt's dung pipe and I'm sorry but why the fuck is that popular with every cunt now? Am I just so old that it's a generation thing because fuck that I'm never getting second hand aids from someone tonguing a guy's or girl's fart box. :story:

Part of the push to gay marriage was propagandizing anal play as safe, healthy, and even more desirable than normal sex. These days, if the thought of putting your dick or mouth where somebody poops makes you retch, there's something wrong with you.
 
rakes typically had tragic ends as disease and illegitimate births ruined their reputation. Also leaders who indulged in banging whores or concubines were considered weak and easy targets.
Source...? Cause I can think of plenty of rakes who did just fine. Josef Goebbels comes to mind. So does every emperor of China, King Henry the 8th, King Solomon, and Genghis Khan.

You really think other men considered Genghis Khan to be a "weak and easy" target? That he ruined his reputation as a conqueror by impregnating too many women out of wedlock? :story:

Shame is good because it prevents women from acting like whores.
Practice what you preach, playboy. If you act like a manwhore, you don't deserve a woman of character.
Part of the push to gay marriage was propagandizing anal play as safe, healthy, and even more desirable than normal sex. These days, if the thought of putting your dick or mouth where somebody poops makes you retch, there's something wrong with you.
Half of you seem fucking obsessed with anal so I guess there is something wrong with you.
 
Do you think STIs discriminate by sex?
YES. Many STIs discriminate by fucker/fuckee. In heterosexual relations, that's man/woman.

So women need to be celibate before they meet the man they will marry, but you, the men who would marry such women, do not have to do this?
Female here. Everyone needs to be celibate before marriage (not "before they meet the [wo]man...") and then have sex for procreation only.
 
Microchimerism occurs when a woman is pregnant , NOT with sex.
Yes, this is the case 99.9% of the time. However, these cells have been found in women who have only had daughters.

Screenshot_20230918_113319_Brave.jpg
Link

What can definitely be gleaned from this study is that microchimerism is frequent in women who've had abortions. So, moms are retaining their babies' DNA even after getting them torn out.

It also theorizes that microchimerism being mysteriously present in some women comes from having an older brother through the same mom. Of course, /pol/ tards are going to hone in on the sexual intercourse part, but it's not something that should be discounted entirely.
 
Última edición:
YES. Many STIs discriminate by fucker/fuckee. In heterosexual relations, that's man/woman.


Female here. Everyone needs to be celibate before marriage (not "before they meet the [wo]man...") and then have sex for procreation only.
Yeah OK fair enough; when it comes to HIV receptive partners are more likely to get it than tops. So women, gay men are at the highest risk of getting infected per exposure. But that does not mean the straight guys have Teflon dicks. And some STIs, like crabs or monkeypox, are more equanimous and the risk between male-female, receptive-penetrative is about the same for all.

I'm glad you have a consistent vision of sexual propriety, albeit a very restrictive one. I'm of the mindset that to a point, it doesn't matter. If you're in the normal pattern of serial monogamy that is ok. But if the men are acting like Don Giovanni, fucking everything that moves I would agree that is too many partners for my liking.
 
The sanctimonius shitlib who claims to be a good Christian carries on about how its okay to be promiscuous. Some points in passing:

- searches on the internet yield tons of results on how after a certain body count, women statistically have a much greater change of being divorced. I wonder if they have a higher chance of never marrying, or not having kids at all.
- there ARE differences between men and women. From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, the cost of promiscuous has always been much higher for a woman, in terms of unwanted pregnancy, which until modern times incurred a risk of death. This explains why promiscuity impacts women differently than men. Internet searches also indicate that women are more unhappy than ever, which coincides perfectly with third and fourth feminist wave nonsense. The creator of Sex and the City famously lamented, stating she regrets her choices, especially at not having kids.
- it is possible to condemn female sexual profligacy and also not approve of men being hyper promiscuous
- this is in the context not of a high school or college girl going steady with someone for months and having sex in a committed, loving relationship. This is in the context of hook up culture, only fans become normalized, where many of these young women have 20, 30, 40, 50 or higher body counts at a young age, sometimes before 21 or 22. No sane person would ever condone that, certainly not from a Christian perspective.
 
Motherfucker, find me any other context where people won't use your past behavior to predict your future behavior. If I took the Bossmanjack route and got myself 50 grand in gambling debt, no bank would loan me a nickel. If I got fired from every job I've ever held for sleeping on duty, no one would hire me again. But when it comes to how many dirty penises a woman willingly puts inside her? That's in the past, inkwell! Gosh, why are you getting so hung up on it, she's not that person anymore! These women are unironically no better than niggers. The future doesn't exist, the past didn't happen. All that exists is the guy that's splatting in me at this particular moment.
 
The funny thing is people like you will simultaneously say things like this and try to shame men who don't act like alleycats in their youth.
I do not think there are many women who would say to a man they were dating "I'm sorry, but you haven't slept around enough. You haven't even fucked a hooker. Come back when you have had sex with a dozen other women."

This meme that women hate virgin men for some reason is retarded.
But when it comes to how many dirty penises a woman willingly puts inside her? That's in the past, inkwell!
LMAO. So, men care about this issue because you're afraid it is gay to sleep with a woman whose already had another mans "dirty penis".
 
So if your gf has access to modern medicine and uses it, then the chances she’s going to give you the clap she got from her ex bf is low. Get tested ffs. This mindset just perpetuates shame and neurosyphilis
Being a two bit skank is okay cause medicine.

women don’t have hundreds of different sex partners unless they’re honest to god whores. Women don’t want a new guy in the sack every night, they want someone they can trust and who will love them.
Tinder Culture says different, they want someone who will love them..so long that someone has money. Of course guys with money don't want used up Sluts.

We have a vaccine for that.
We have Medicine so it is okay I have slept with several guys..I promise I want to settle down with you and only you now UwU

So women need to be celibate before they meet the man they will marry, but you, the men who would marry such women, do not have to do this?
No but I would like them to Average One sexual partner every five or so years of Adult Hood.
 
Goes for both sexes. Don’t think most people expect blushing virgins in the wedding night these days but having had sex with dozens of other people does suggest you’ve got something a bit wrong with your self esteem or impulse control, and it’s a big risk for STDs

Microchimerism occurs when a woman is pregnant , NOT with sex. Cells from every baby you’ve carried cross the placenta and seem to find a home in your body doing something we don’t really understand. It’s possible they act as limited potency stem cells and fixing damage and also possible they can trigger autoimmune issues. It’s very interesting.
But it absolutely is not ‘every man you’ve ever slept with.’ I know /pol/ runs this thread almost weekly.
You only get cell transfer from pregmancy. It’s even being used now to test for chromosome abnormalities in early pregnancy without the risks of miscarriage from amniocentesis or CVS.
The problem with that is that all of science is pozzed, and there's absolutely no way they're going to put out a study that makes their glorious liberated kweenz look bad. I don't put absolute stock in microchimerism, but it does seem like a possibility to me.

But all of this misses a larger point: whether or not it is beneficial for men to believe microchimerism through sex is real. At this point it would almost be acceptable to outright lie so men come to their senses and throw these whores in the garbage dump rather than wifing them up so they can pop out half-slut kids.
 
The sanctimonius shitlib who claims to be a good Christian carries on about how its okay to be promiscuous. Some points in passing:

- searches on the internet yield tons of results on how after a certain body count, women statistically have a much greater change of being divorced. I wonder if they have a higher chance of never marrying, or not having kids at all.
This is bullshit until and unless you can give me some concrete evidence it isn't.
- there ARE differences between men and women. From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, the cost of promiscuous has always been much higher for a woman, in terms of unwanted pregnancy, which until modern times incurred a risk of death. This explains why promiscuity impacts women differently than men. Internet searches also indicate that women are more unhappy than ever, which coincides perfectly with third and fourth feminist wave nonsense. The creator of Sex and the City famously lamented, stating she regrets her choices, especially at not having kids.
Do you get all your information about women from a TV show that ran 15 years ago?? Have you ever heard the phrase "correlation is not causation"? Do you get that evo psych is not really applicable in modernity? (ex. A car suddenly stops ahead of me on the highway, I hit the brake hard. No accident, but 5 seconds later I can feel the adrenaline rush of fight-or-flight response. That may be an evolved response, but it's not a very helpful one in context.)
- it is possible to condemn female sexual profligacy and also not approve of men being hyper promiscuous
Prove it, these guys claim to all be either virgins or tomcats that fuck everything
- this is in the context not of a high school or college girl going steady with someone for months and having sex in a committed, loving relationship. This is in the context of hook up culture, only fans become normalized, where many of these young women have 20, 30, 40, 50 or higher body counts at a young age, sometimes before 21 or 22. No sane person would ever condone that, certainly not from a Christian perspective.
Unless they're whores by trade I don't think very many women have a 'body count' (disgusting phrase) of 50 or higher.
Being a two bit skank is okay cause medicine.
Yeah, the prostitutes no longer die of infection or spread it around. It's great.
Tinder Culture says different, they want someone who will love them..so long that someone has money. Of course guys with money don't want used up Sluts.
That's called sugar babying, and it's a form of prostitution.
The problem with that is that all of science is pozzed, and there's absolutely no way they're going to put out a study that makes their glorious liberated kweenz look bad. I don't put absolute stock in microchimerism, but it does seem like a possibility to me.
OK, so the opinions you disagree with are wrong, all the major news agencies are lying, and scientific evidence is "pozzed" and therefore worthless. So the only thing you believe in are your own regressive beliefs, how convenient is that?

Also:
Men: Show us the data!
Women: *Provide data*
Men: Science is pozzed! I can't rely on this.
 
LMAO. So, men care about this issue because you're afraid it is gay to sleep with a woman whose already had another mans "dirty penis".
Liabilities that come with a woman with more partners:

-Higher chances of STDs. I do not care if antibiotics clean it up, you're still a dirty whore and I don't want your diseases.
-Higher chance of kids from a prior relationship. I doubt I need to explain the drawbacks of raising another man's splat, even to you.
-Higher chance of fried dopamine receptors and an overall desensitization to relationships.
-Higher chance she has emotional problems from said prior relationships.

Benefits that come from a woman with more partners:

-Might be marginally more skilled at sex.

But no fuck me, can't be any of that. I should just stop being so bitter and accept the modern wahmen for what she is: a dirty, disease-riddled arrogant whore with an inflated sense of self-worth.
 
Won't lie, definitely do judge women who have slept around a lot, though to be fair I'd also judge a guy who slept around a lot.

Maybe I'm talking out of my ass but think modern dating app culture has fucked up a lot of people on this front. People I know IRL who have met their partners the old fashioned way seem to be in more stable long term relationships/ married/ with kids etc. On the other hand I know a lot of women who are desperate to find a partner and use dating apps as the main or only way to meet people and all they have to show for it is countless one night stands and getting ghosted after putting out.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo