What's An Acceptable Number Of Sexual Parters For A 21-Year Old Girl To Have?

whats an accpetable number of sexual partners for a 21 year old girl?

  • bytch better be virginal! I don't want no sloppy twentieths and shyt..:scusthov:

    Votes: 28 22.0%
  • under 10 is fine :gladbron:

    Votes: 63 49.6%
  • under 30 is acceptable..but i'm staying strapped up :whoo:

    Votes: 4 3.1%
  • I don't care if she banged over 50 dudes. if im feelin her then sexual history is irrelevant :noah:

    Votes: 7 5.5%
  • i'm not a prude..but damn there comes a point when I'd fear for my health breh

    Votes: 16 12.6%
  • yall need to get out of this backwards mindset and stop putting arbitrary constraints on women :wtb:

    Votes: 9 7.1%

  • Total voters
    127
  • Poll closed .

winb83

52 Years Young
Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
48,634
Reputation
4,168
Daps
73,253
Reppin
Michigan
15 at 21? :what: I'm 24 & I'm not even CLOSE to double digits :scusthov:

:yeshrug: hey, I used to blame the media for glorifying sex but that ain't even the case anymore. Everybody's fukkin nowadays, not just girls c'mon guys easy on the slut buckets. :comeon: how many girls ya'll been wit?:aicmon:
having sex with two people a year on average for 6 years is reasonable for a woman.
 

Higher Tech

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
14,944
Reputation
2,361
Daps
39,269
Reppin
Gary, Indiana
What about a man? :troll:

:laff: @ you nikkas thinkin you're actually better than these "whores".

I agree with this too... sort of. Because the cooch will get soggy before I stay limp. Them keigels only do so much.

With that being said, men and women need to be reasonable when choosing partners. You can't just lay with everybody. It's too many scams, games and diseases for that.

That's why I would pass on a woman that's been all around the block. I feel like she's a bad decision maker. I can't speak on the dudes, because that's a womans choice. Whatever she feels comfortable with. But as a dude, I don't just lay with anybody.

I havent trusted every woman I laid with, but I keep that shyt to a minimum. It's just part of being a responsible adult.

Earlier Helga said 72 was ok, and to me that's fukkin absurd. No human should fukk 72 different people between 18 and 21. That's just dumb.
 

ClassyME

Pro
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
2,969
Reputation
-30
Daps
2,390
Reppin
Somewhere between OH & NV
I agree with this too... sort of. Because the cooch will get soggy before I stay limp. Them keigels only do so much.

With that being said, men and women need to be reasonable when choosing partners. You can't just lay with everybody. It's too many scams, games and diseases for that.

That's why I would pass on a woman that's been all around the block. I feel like she's a bad decision maker. I can't speak on the dudes, because that's a womans choice. Whatever she feels comfortable with. But as a dude, I don't just lay with anybody.

I havent trusted every woman I laid with, but I keep that shyt to a minimum. It's just part of being a responsible adult.

Earlier Helga said 72 was ok, and to me that's fukkin absurd. No human should fukk 72 different people between 18 and 21. That's just dumb.


I completely agree, ain't nobody got time for that.:bryan:

But, spoken like a true gentleman. :salute:
 

RicanFury

Come Home With Me
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
3,928
Reputation
136
Daps
4,113
Reppin
a BRONX Slum by I-87 NORTH
6fZO2.jpg


:ld:

:russ: second from the left bottom row is doing this face: :steviej:
 
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
921
Reputation
140
Daps
2,079
Reppin
NULL
Dont see how a woman number doesnt matter .....

Its like having two women who both make 50k...

And one woman has saved 25k of er 50k and another woman has saved nothing... You gonna pick the one who has no money????:merchant:









Really nikka?:rudy:
 

PartyHeart

All Star
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,658
Reputation
562
Daps
6,144
Reppin
NULL
So what? I wasn't talking about you in specific. I stated that societies tend to respect "ladies men" whilst chastising "sluts" and provided reasons as of why this is the case. I don’t see how your supposed preference alone is of any relevance here.

Society does a lot of things. It subjugates one group, usually for the benefit of another. Nothing surprising there, it happens throughout history and has zero to do with anything that is natural biologically. After all, if it was natural, what reason would there be to enforce it with rules and shaming tactics?
As a species our ultimate purpose is to propagate our genetics through reproduction, so copulating with multiple partners is advantageous for both men and women in a sense, but that doesn't change the fact that doing so is more risky for women than it is for men, in fact, if you know anything about “evolutionary psychology” you would understand this to be the foundation of Bateman’s Principle.
Being promiscuous is more risky for both male and female. For males more partners equals the need for gathering more resources, which is often an exhausting task. It also means more competition with other males for those resources, and thus greater chance of violence, death, etc. If you actually understood Bateman’s principle I have no idea why you’d suggest that multiple partners is not more risky for men. Bateman’s principle was also debunked a long time ago anyway.

The scientific community readily acknowledges that promiscuous activity, or producing multiple offspring, is a lot more risky for women than that it is for men due to two obvious reasons: 1) Birth risk; Child birth is not "risk free", child birth may cause death, the more births a woman is subjected to the larger her risk of dying due to giving birth becomes, men are not subjected to this risk 2) Females of all species, including ours, require additional resources in order to successfully incubate a child during pregnancy, pregnancy literally costs women massive amounts of resources and is very stressful physically/mentally, again, this is a cost we as men are not subjected to. There are plenty more points I could state but I want to keep this very brief.
Once again, multiple partners is riskier for both. But from an evolutionary psychology perspective, it doesn’t matter because that risk will be taken since the ultimate goal is to pass on genes. Also, from an evolutionary perspective, it actually makes zero sense for a female to be monogamous to only one male. Having multiple partners does more to 1) ensure pregnancy (more sperm) 2) receive the best possible genes 3) more resources 4) reduce risk of infanticide (if none of the males are sure of whose offspring it is, they are less likely to harm the child), and many more advantages.
Please state your other points though if you have them, because none of those overcome the evolutionary psychology urge to pass on your genes.

What you need to realize is that semi-effective forms of contraception were not available until very recently in human history, so the risks above were discounted through evolutionary pressures. In other words; Women have always stood a lot more to lose through copulation than men, and because of this females naturally developed a very "picky" sexual selective attitude during the early stages our evolutionary history that is still apparent today.
Irrelevant. Females haven’t selected to be more picky sexually, they are just told to be because it is beneficial for male’s to ensure the paternity of their off spring. That’s pretty much the entire reason why monogamy is useful, not to mention, for humans specifically, investment by both parents increases the chances of the infant’s survival and fitness probably a hundred fold.

I'll post the study about women reporting having more partners than men on average when you take away social pressure, etc.
 

Malta

Sweetwater
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
66,896
Reputation
15,250
Daps
279,767
Reppin
Now who else wanna fukk with Hollywood Court?
The higher the sexual count, the less likely she's capable of sustaining a long lasting relationship, it's honestly that simple.

People dropping all these ridiculous formulas and shyt, plain and simple, if a chick is attractive and has things in order she will run into a man who wants to keep her around long before she starts piling up 1980s action movie type body counts. If you have to break out a fukking abacus and recite Pi just to figure out how many dikks have been inside your girl something is wrong.

It's only a number until you visualize it, the next time you're watching an NBA game, realize that if your girl has fukked 15 nikkas, that's the 10 nikkas on the court and 5 nikkas off the bench. That essentially makes you head coach of a whore.
 

YBE

Banned
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
5,125
Reputation
-10
Daps
5,524
The higher the sexual count, the less likely she's capable of sustaining a long lasting relationship, it's honestly that simple.

People dropping all these ridiculous formulas and shyt, plain and simple, if a chick is attractive and has things in order she will run into a man who wants to keep her around long before she starts piling up 1980s action movie type body counts. If you have to break out a fukking abacus and recite Pi just to figure out how many dikks have been inside your girl something is wrong.

It's only a number until you visualize it, the next time you're watching an NBA game, realize that if your girl has fukked 15 nikkas, that's the 10 nikkas on the court and 5 nikkas off the bench. That essentially makes you head coach of a whore.

Some broad on here said 72 bodies was normal...

auditorium.jpg


72 nikkas? If your chick can fill up an auditorium with all the nikkas she fukked, somethings wrong breh :heh:
 

Da Jungles

CBALL
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
9,908
Reputation
1,546
Daps
25,900
Reppin
MUSIC
Some broad on here said 72 bodies was normal...

auditorium.jpg


72 nikkas? If your chick can fill up an auditorium with all the nikkas she fukked, somethings wrong breh :heh:

bytch could have a graduation ceremony with her body count :leon:
 
Top