Does A Woman's Body Count Matter?

Does a woman's body count matter?

Matter for what?

It doesn't matter too much for a man who is running game.

It can matter a lot if you're looking for a wife (which most of you shouldn't be) or a mother for your children.

This isn't about what it is fair. This is about reality. This is about the way things are, whether we like them or not. Men and women are different. We have different bodies, different biology, different brains.

When running game, a man avoids virgins (men should avoid virgins in general) and women who aren't virgins but are now "saving it" or "waiting" for marriage, engagement, exclusivity, or several months into the relationship. As long as she doesn't have a serious STD, doesn't have children, and does what he likes, it doesn't matter how many guys she's been with (as long as she isn't a virgin). (There are other limitations on who to date, though.)

If a man is foolish enough to agree to be exclusive, shack up, marry, or have children with a woman, body count is going to matter to many men. There are many reasons why, in no particular order:

Dennis Prager Discussed Virginity

During his Male/Female Hour on his Wednesday, March 29, 2023 program, inspired by a previous caller, Dennis Prager asked callers about whether virginity was important in looking for a spouse and why. Dennis, who is in the middle of writing commentaries on the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), says while he thinks ideally intercourse should be saved for marriage, he "doesn't have the understanding that it is important in choosing a wife." Uh, well, I'll have to look up how he explains the Torah passages that have been cited as saying otherwise.

The first or one of the earliest callers was a woman whose son is 40 or almost 40, says he's intentionally kept this virginity, and he wants to marry a woman who has, too. Dennis asked if the son really does want to get married, and the caller related how her son had talked about wanting to be a husband and father, but some of the women he was interested in weren't interested in him, and vice-versa.

When Dennis found out that the caller was divorced from her son's father and is remarried, to a man who was also previously married, Dennis said "So it doesn't matter!" and encouraged her to point out to her son that she wasn't a virgin when she married a second time and neither was her husband.

What does Dennis mean that "it doesn't matter."? Any two people who are currently unmarried and aren't too closely related and are old enough to legally consent can get married. It doesn't make it a good idea! For all we know, the caller's marriage is terrible, or it will soon be. (Of course, that doesn't seem to be a problem for Dennis... divorce is no big deal to him other than it means people won't be married for a period of time.) People who beat each other can get married. Does that mean someone shouldn't seek to avoid a spouse-beater? There are always people who marry despite problems and red flags. It doesn't mean they should!

It's not unreasonable for someone who is looking to marry for the first time to want someone who has had the same lifestyle as them.

Dennis is so emotionally fixated on the idea that everyone should be married that he thinks people should abandon their standards.

He went on to encourage the caller to ask her son if God wants him to stay unmarried rather than to marry a woman who isn't a virgin. Dennis referred to "It's not good for man to be alone," which is from the Torah (and I argue is collective... none of us are alone now), but what about what the rest of the Torah says about choosing a wife???

Now, let's be clear here. I never had virginity as a requirement for a wife. If I got trapped in some silly "alternate life" movie that had me unmarried and I HAD to marry, I'd AVOID virgins. My advice to any man who is foolish enough to marry is to marry a woman who can at least pretend to want sex with grown men. Virgin women over a certain age are really skilled at NOT having sex. And I warn women that men who are willing to "wait" might be gay, asexual, low drive, pedophiles, or dealing with some psychological problem.

But if a man or woman insists her spouse be a virgin, I don't try to talk them out of that, or any other standard they might have. Because I think it's fine for people to never marry.

One caller came close to articulating a logical reason clearly, but I don't think Dennis got enough good responses on the program.

It is important to note that the caller who inspired the hour was looking for women in their early 20s. He wasn't looking for a 45 year-old virgin. And based on what people have said, they want to marry a virgin because...

• That is what their religion teaches and they want someone who demonstrates adherence to the religion
• They see virginity as a special gift and if they're going to marry someone, they think they should be the ones to receive (and, as the case might be, reciprocally give) that gift
• If both of them are virgins, they will be at the same level of (lack of) experience
  
• They see it as a sign of self-control that will make it more likely their spouse will remain faithful and endure times in which there won't be sex
• They believe it reduces potential problems with jealousies
• They don't want their spouse remembering past experiences
• They don't want their spouse making comparisons to past lovers
• They don't want to be with someone who has "a reputation" or is the subject of gossip
• They don't want to bump into their spouse's past lovers
• Some people believe that people, especially women, have a hard time bonding well with a spouse if she has previously bonded this way with others
  
• Some women get bored of sex, and so her being a virgin means it will take longer for her get bored of sex with him
  
• Men don't want to pay or pay more for what other men have gotten for less or free
• Some men see it as problematic for their wife to have had another man's cells/DNA inside of her
• STDs
• Virgins haven't had abortions
  
• Virgins don't have any biological children somewhere out there
  

I find some of those reasons to be silly or downright contrary to facts, and you likely do, too, but since Dennis asked the question, I wanted to provide the answer. Those aren't MY reasons, but reasons I know others have.

I wouldn't advise a man look for a virgin to be his wife. But I wouldn't advise most men look for a wife. Men who are just looking for hookups, booty calls, or even just "a girlfriend" should avoid virgins. Sex is a learned skill.

No, Being Interesting Isn’t Enough

There’s an author who is apparently niche-famous in polyamory circles and quite prolific on at least one online question-and-answer service. He writes well. Let’s call him “Mo.”

Mo frequently bashes anyone who’d label themselves (or be labeled by him) as “incel,” “MRA,” “MGTOW,” “redpill,” or “Manosphere,” and their talking points.

The older I get, the less I accept most labels as concrete. “What do you mean by that?” is a very helpful question. “Incel,” strictly speaking, means “involuntarily celibate.” How can someone be blamed for something that’s involuntary? Well, the term “incel” has come to mean, in common usage, a lot more than simply being involuntarily celibate. But there are people, including men, who are involuntarily celibate who do not behave in ways or think in ways Mo cites as so detestable.

Mo often writes that all those other guys (and probably many more outside of those labels) are wrong when they say a man needs to be rich, powerful, famous, tall, built, very handsome, and/or play games to get women. He says what a man needs to be is interesting. Mo is interesting, you see. Those other guys aren’t. Or their uncouth behavior or offensive beliefs override their level of interesting. (Leonardo DiCaprio must be really interesting, right?)

Here’s the problem. There is usually an enormous disconnect between what Mo and the other men are talking about.

What is meant by “get women” (or whatever phrase one might use)?

In Mo’s case, it is “have sex with a woman who doesn’t expect exclusivity from me or much of anything else, nor will she be exclusive with me.” Mo wouldn’t mind, in fact it might turn him on, if his wife bangs 100 men in one night, none of them him. In turn, there are at least two or three other women Mo is apparently banging on a regular basis, or at least when he can see them. Mo engages in orgies and apparently his relationships are all open (polyamory doesn’t automatically mean an open relationship).

We know what Mo looks like. And he readily admits to being poor.

It’s a good thing Mo has no interest in monogamy. Because if he did, he’d quickly find out that being “interesting” (and what he might think of as enlightened) would not be enough. His choices in available women would be quite limited. (I’m curious as to how many women he was actually able to get before he became niche-famous.)

But because he lives as though he doesn’t mind if any of the women he’s banging, even his wife, bang other people, they are willing to use him as a dildo. Heck, he even lets them beat him for jollies.

If he’s to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt him, he hasn’t been monogamous since literally his first sexual experience, since it was with multiple people.

Mo wants multiple women sexual partners, which, if we’re being honest most men want but are willing to at least attempt to suppress. But that’s where the common ground ends. The men he’s saying are wrong about women AREN’T INTERESTED IN THE SAME POOL OF WOMEN AS MO.

Mo doesn’t want monogamy.

Mo doesn’t want to have kids.

Mo doesn’t want to be a provider.

Mo doesn’t want to be what most women think of as husband material.

Mo doesn’t want to be what most women think of as boyfriend material.

Mo doesn’t want a woman most men would consider wife material.

Mo doesn’t want what most men would consider girlfriend material.

None of those women expect Mo to protect them, provide for them, fulfill all of their sexual needs, fulfill all of their romantic needs, father/raise children, build wealth for retirement, eventually be grandpa, or any of that sort of thing. He’s basically a dildo that gets passed around between multiple women, though he presents it as more meaningful or deep than that. 

“Sounds great to me,” you might think. Except these women aren’t really what you’d want. Nor are they what the men Mo mocks want. 

These men he mocks want a classic “girl next door” type of woman, not a “girl from the street corner” type, even if the street corner is online. Some want virgins; Mo will not date/have sex with a virgin, as he’s stated many times.

They want a woman to be THE woman in their life: their girlfriend, and maybe their wife and the mother of their children. They don’t went her to be the village tramp.

If one were to leave the other, it would be a significant life event and cause much difficulty, whereas if Mo “left” any of his lovers, they might have to find another man to beat them - consensually, of course, so that makes it OK, or something - or they could simply do with one less lover or beater.

These women the guys are seeking wouldn’t be flirting with or spending social time with other men, and the men wouldn’t be flirting with or spending social time with other women - at least not without the spouses also there. Mo calls this very standard condition of monogamous marriages controlling and abusive, because it means telling someone else (your spouse) who they can’t spend time with.

It’s a big disconnect. 

What Mo is doing is like responding to people who say, “It’s hard to find a true, close, enduring friendship” with “No it’s not! I just made a friend on Facebook by being interesting!” It’s like saying to someone who wants to grow their own food homesteading that they can drive through at Krispy Kreme and get a doughnut.

He’s never been in a monogamous situation. Never had a woman to himself, never pledged himself to one woman. He’s never had to financially support a woman on an ongoing basis, as far as I can tell.

Conversely, many of the men who would be labeled as “Manosphere” or “redpill” and the like have been “traditionally” married and may still be married. Tom Leykis, who I’d guess Mo would have significant disdain for despite overlaps in their politics and sexual behaviors, was, last I knew, married and divorced four times.

What these men are encountering is a situation in which they are being held to ridiculous standards and obligations to so much as get a date or two, let alone have a serious relationship.

These men are dismissed for not being at least six feet tall, earning at least six figures, not having a six-pack (toned abs) and/or not having a penis at least six inches in length. If any one of those criteria isn’t met or surpassed, these men are passed over, no matter how interesting they are, unless the men are wealthy, famous, or powerful.

A woman who wants a man to be her lifelong wallet, bodyguard, sperm supplier, etc. isn’t going to find a man who is “interesting” to be enough; not unless he’s meeting all those other criteria. 

Rather than mock these men and claim I have the answer because I’m interesting, I try to help them with the truth:

1) Odds are, they won’t have a lasting, happy marriage with what they’d consider a great wife. Almost no man will find that these days, but if they are determined to try, they should look for certain criteria, avoid certain things, and they should take certain steps. 

2) Running game works.

For either of those, being “interesting” isn’t sufficient. 

I’m here to help other men, not mock them. I’m not superior to them. I’ve simply observed and processed a wide spectrum of relationship advice and real-life relationships. I know what it’s like to be “traditionally” married, I know what it’s like to be in serious monogamous relationships, I know what “works” as far as running game, because I dated before I knew about it and then I later dated implementing some of it.

When Marriage Sellers Make One of My Points For Me

The Institute for Family Studies, despite being, overall, a marriage seller, is the gift that keeps on giving. There was another round of trying to convince people they're better of having less sex and less sexual variety. Let's take a look at this graph:


 
That graph was used to try to show people that sexual abstinence before means your marriage will be much more stable.

Look closely,  though. Even the best category shows that more than 55 percent of married people in that category believe their marriage may be in trouble of ending. Remember, this is from an organization that is promoting marriage. A minority of married people think their marriage is "very stable."

Do you want to get into a terrible state contract in which, most likely, you will be worried that you are facing what some men call "divorce rape"?

It gets "better," though. Let' look at the next graph.



According to this, 78-80 percent of married people who "saved sex" are NOT very satisfied with their sexual relationship. Sure, the point they were trying to make - that it's even worse for those of you who've had two or more partners - is true... so don't bother to marry!

Why bother to sign a terrible state contract if those are the odds?!?

When someone implies or outright says that "saving sex" for marriage will mean your marriage will be stable, without fear of it ending, and that your marital sex life will be very satisfying, they are ignoring that for MOST people who marry under those circumstances that's not true! Even just the data from which these graphs come indicate there are many married people who are very dissatisfied with their sex lives, including people who "waited". Those people, and the trade offs and risks shouldn't be ignored.

To be fair, there may be studies that show relationship stability and sexual satisfaction rates are even lower for people who aren't married. That's a "cart and horse" thing, meaning it could be that if people don't think their relationship is stable and the sex isn't great, they're less likely to marry.

But yet again, I must point out that these studies and surveys never distinguish intentionally free men who run game to find out how stable their lives are and how satisfied they are with their sex lives. There are men who are loving life and thriving free of a supposedly exclusive or marital relationship, and some them are also very happy with their sex life.

More Fun With Statistics - Body County and Marriage

Life on the Carousel

In an effort to discourage what they see as unfair competition, people like Dr. Laura will tell unmarried women something like:

 "The more sexual partners a woman has before she marries, the less she'll enjoy marital sex."

How exactly is that determined?

We can't compare people to themselves. No one person has had both experiences - having many sexual partners before marrying and having few or none before marrying. So how can anyone know?

This is how it is determined. Usually among other questions, they ask women who are or were married:

• How satisfied they are/were with their marital sex life
• How many partners they had before they married

Then, they notice that there appears to be some correlation.

Let's be clear about a few things though.

1) This is based on self reporting. People who have had few or no sex partners before their marriage have nothing for comparison. It's like giving a starving person plain rice. How happy is that person going to be with rice? Very! As far as sex, it's basically saying "I like sex" or "I'm happy with our sex life" even if they're having sex four times per year.

2) Who has few or no sex partners before marrying? Very religious people. Many of them consider it a sin or even a "negative confession" to say that they are anything less than thrilled with their marital sex life. Also, some unattractive women don't attract many sex partners. Of those who do marry, they're probably going to be happy.

3) There are many women who saved sex for marriage and then had a terrible sex life.

4) There are women who had "many" sex partners before marriage and have a great marital sex life. They tend to be women who like sex a lot and have a high drive.

5) What people who use this tactic are advocating is that you make vows and sign a state contract with someone before finding out if you're sexually compatible. It is VERY different to have no sex at all before marrying and to get very sexual with one person before marrying them. The latter often get lumped together with the former, even though with the latter, if they realize they're not sexually compatible, they are far less likely to marry in the first place.

6) It means something that the people who use this tactic don't apply to anything else. If a woman never goes to a nice restaurant before she marries, won't that make the experience of going to one with her husband that much more special? So an unmarried woman should decline offers to go to a nice restaurant, right?

There are many women who get bored of sex. If those women have had many sex partners before they married, then they might hit that wall of boredom earlier in their marriage. Incels and some others (like Dr. Laura, "purity" purveyors) say a woman's ability to bond, and thus enjoy sex more, gets damaged more the more sex partners she has (like a piece of tape that gets reused and reused loses effectiveness). But for any individual woman, there's no assurance that she'll enjoy sex a lot if she's waits and she won't enjoy it much if she doesn't.

Again, these studies never separate out women who have decided not to marry at all, are enthusiastic about sex, and don't have moral qualms about unmarried sex. Some of them enjoy sex very much. I know my first serious girlfriend enjoyed sex a lot even after having many partners. Or at least she was very effective at pretending to.

Pin the Tail on the Sperm Donor

Sometimes, Dear Abby gets it very wrong. UNSURE IN ILLINOIS wrote in to Dear Abby:

I am the mother of a beautiful daughter who has never met her real father.

You mean the sperm donor?

I wasn't sure about who he was, a fact I'm not proud of.

DNA tests are a must, guys, when it comes to those newborns.

I tried to convince myself that her dad was the one guy I really liked at the time, but as she has grown older, many of her mannerisms and little habits reflect characteristics of the other guy ("Bobby") who was also in my life then. I parted ways with both men while I was pregnant.

Ever hear of... adoption when you were that age? How about, oh, contraception?

I am currently married, although we are struggling. I am now questioning whether I should try to locate Bobby to see if he is the father. I don't expect anything from him, but I would like a resolution.

Hmmmm… she writes "we are struggling" and then writes "I don't expect anything from him." Riiiight.

This could strain my relationship with my husband, but if Bobby is the father, I strongly feel he has a right to know.

Why? Sound like you never told the other guy, either - he had just as much right to know as Bobby, right? Bobby had more of a right to know back when you were on your way to delivering. It is a little late now. Let's get real. She's hoping that Bobby will be rich and more attractive and nicer than her current husband, and that she can leave her current husband for Bobby. She admits it could cause strain in her marriage, and who knows what kind of strain it will cause her daughter and Bobby? She remembers Bobby as the guy she was having sex with all those years ago. He doesn't look the same anymore, and he probably doesn't act the same.

Dear Abby’s response was wrong...

Because you are willing to risk straining the relationship you have with your current husband, explain to him that you need to be sure of the identity of your daughter's father because the man's medical history could one day be important for her to have. It's the truth.

No, it isn't the truth. The girl's real father is the guy who is paying her bills and protecting her (he shouldn't have dated and married a mother of a minor child, and now he's going to suffer for having done so). She can send the daughter to get genetic tests and have medical exams that will determine possible medical issues. No need to contact Bobby.

Then contact both men you were seeing at the time of her conception, explain the situation, and request a DNA test.

Are you kidding me?!? More havoc?!? How about having her husband contact some old flings to check and see if they have any kids that could possibly be his biological offspring?

If you let them know that you don't expect anything from them but their medical history, they may be willing to comply -- and you'll have your answer.

She can say whatever she wants. A lawyer can still sue for back and future child support, and inheritance, on behalf of her daughter.

Guys, if you know you don't want (more) children and are fairly certain that will not change, and you're going to have sex with your wife or fornicate with women who are not your wife, get a vasectomy and have it verified with two sperm counts. Make deposits in a sperm bank first if you think you might change your mind about kids.

Halloween

I’m somewhat familiar with the history of Halloween, Samhain, All Saints Day, and All Saints Eve. I'm a Christian. I don't believe there is anything special, spiritually, about October 31 as opposed to any other day.

I don't see costume-wearing as a way to honor or confuse evil spirits. I see it as a chance to be creative. Trick-or-treating can be a way to get kids away from the games and television and meet the neighbors, things that lacking these days.

Growing up, I enjoyed choosing something to "be" for the day/evening, usually something that was homemade – and I liked trick-or-treating. (Pranks or any kind of vandalism were never a part of it.) As I got older, I enjoyed expressing myself by applying gory special effects makeup to myself and setting up a lightly scary scene with a theme inside the front of my family's house so I could entertain the trick-or-treaters as I passed out candy.

I've also enjoyed "haunts" of various sorts – commercial scare mazes or homemade front-yard eerie displays, things of that sort, and participated in a couple over the years.

I don't see modern-day Halloween as some sort of plot to instill Satanism or Wicca in our kids. It certainly has become massively commercialized and having the kids pig out on candy can be questionable given the obesity rates among Amerians these days, but the problem isn't October 31 – it is what the kids are eating and doing most of the 364 other days of the year.

I do believe, as a Christian parent, it is my responsibility to teach my kids to discern good from evil, wasteful folly from light-hearted recreation, etc.

I think "Hell Houses" can be a good idea if done right. Really, they aren't new. Martyr plays from long ago used gory stuff to spread the message. Way too often, Christian attempts to be "hip" are all too hokey or otherwise lacking in execution, so I want a Hell House to be done right.

I actually do believe that demons, including Satan, exist. I believe angels exist, and demons are simply fallen angels. I think people assign blame to demons that quite often belongs on themselves, or they think of demons doing things or having powers that they likely don't. Someone doesn't become demon possessed because they wore a mask on October 31. They may become demon possessed if they engage in occultic practices and aren't indwelt by the Holy Spirit (as all Christians are).

The biggest issue with Halloween these days, by far, is immodesty. Females of all ages fulfill the role of attention whores by dressing to call attention to their sexuality and certain parts of their bodies. They can be slutty and trashy with a supposed "free pass" because – it's Halloween! (Kind of like how cheating on vacation doesn’t count.) And being what we are, we guys are reluctant to object - unless it means our intended or wife is getting leers from other men, or our daughters are letting it all hang out.

Concerned (conservative) mother Rebecca Hagelin had a column about this.

Princesses look different these days. The pre-teen and teenage girls who show up are likely to be wearing trampy costumes that say “s-e-x,” rather than “trick or treat.” We all know that girls are being sexualized by the culture at younger and younger ages in their daily wear. But Halloween costumes have taken things to a new low, making our little girls into sex objects even midst what is supposed to be an evening of childhood fun. The sad reality is that we live in a pop culture that is obsessed with trying to make our boys and girls think about sex all the time.

The boys are going to think about it all of the time anyway, if they are anywhere near puberty. But if they are, they should be thinking about the unobtainable models and starlets of the day, not pre- or barely-pubescent girls who live nearby.

The "top costumes" for tween girls on one popular costume website showed a slew of vampy options, including the highly offensive "teen girls prisoner costume" as seen on a young model wearing thigh-high boots and 6 inch heels, and showing lots of flesh under her prison-striped mini-dress.

Do you have plans for Halloween? Or if you are reading this afterwards, what did you do? Have you been bothered by the trend of slutty costumes, especially for young girls?

Pulling a Double Shift

Some eleven-month-olds are twins, but unusual. So says this story from Fox Network's Dallas station.

"I have twins, but they're by different fathers," said Mia Washington.

The twins' parents contacted FOX 4, wanting to go public with their story.

Yuck. I think that was a terrible idea.

Washington admits she had an affair that resulted in two babies, born at the same time, fathered by two different men.

Sounds like something to trumpet from the rooftops, no?

"I'm very shocked," Washington said.

Why? You did know that you had two different penises inside you, right?

The parents went to Dallas DNA Lab Clear Diagnostics after noticing the twins have different facial features.

Uh, you mean like every other fraternal twin set in world?

When twins have two fathers, doctors call it heteropaternal superfecundation.

And I call it sluttery. And that at least three people were completely ignorant of contraception.

Dreiling said the medical marvel can happen when a woman releases multiple eggs during ovulation. If she has more than one sexual partner within the same time period, sperm cells can fertilize two separate eggs.

Is there anyone who has gotten past sixth grade who didn't know that?

The twins’ father said he's forgiven his fiancé's infidelity and has vowed to stay with her and raise both boys as his own.

His fiancé. Wouldn't want to rush marriage, or anything. You weren't married, buddy, so it wasn't infidelity unless you consider all sex prior to marriage infidelity. My guess is that you don't consider all of the other sex you have had with other women before meeting Washington to be infidelity.

"I'm trying to let everybody else know: Don’t put yourself in my shoes, because it can hurt and it does hurt, but you still have to go on with life," she said.

Well I’m glad they included that. And thank you, because if it weren't for you, I would have no idea that unprotected sex with multiple men around the same time could have negative consequences.

Washington said she plans to tell the boys about their DNA differences when they’re old enough to understand.

You're not going to have much of a choice, are you, since you went public with the story? Your kids would have been better off if you hadn't gone public and they never found out they were conceived by two different guys. "Mommy had sex with two different men around the same time, and didn't bother to use protection, so you're only half siblings - one of you isn't daddy's child." Why do that?!?

As for the other father, she has no plans to tell him.

Unless you were with a lot of different guys back then, he can probably figure it out... especially since you've gone public. He probably feels like he is off the hook (though he isn't), but on the other hand, he may sue – and get – some level of custody or visitation, especially since these kids were born outside of wedlock. Wouldn't that be lovely?

Nowhere in the article does it actually say this guy, James Harrison, is the biological father of either of them. It is possible that neither of them are his by blood. And guess what? It will be possible for her to divorce him after 10 years, extract alimony from him (for life) and child support, even if neither of the kids is biologically his, and then live with some other guy – maybe even one or both of the biodads.

Hopefully, that doesn't happen. Hopefully, these kids will be raised in a stable, happy, married household feeling like they are with mom and dad, but it isn't looking so promising for that to happen.

Guys, be careful where you stick it.