ABC, CBS, FOX & NBC Have Lost More Than 77% Of Their Market Share

[JayhawkCO]

I think it as just plain weird when in the dating world today, this question and "term" likely comes up:
"What's Your 'Body Count'"? -- The 20's equivalent of "how many notches are there on your bedpost?"

With women nowadays that can be double or even triple digits.

Why specify women in this statement?

Isn't this discussion mainly about men seeking women?

I mean, not specified as such. Just seemed like your concern is about a woman's body count, not a man's. I could be reading it incorrectly.

If am considering a relationship with a woman it is a concern. Ability to successfully pair bond is inversely proportional to the height of the body count.

Not hard to find out either -- just let her talk and it will soon come out.

Man, I just view the world so much differently than you do.

[Max Rockatansky]

That attitude is how you end up with nobody.

[Beltway]

I think it as just plain weird when in the dating world today, this question and "term" likely comes up:
"What's Your 'Body Count'"? -- The 20's equivalent of "how many notches are there on your bedpost?"

With women nowadays that can be double or even triple digits.

Why specify women in this statement?

Isn't this discussion mainly about men seeking women?

I mean, not specified as such. Just seemed like your concern is about a woman's body count, not a man's. I could be reading it incorrectly.

If am considering a relationship with a woman it is a concern. Ability to successfully pair bond is inversely proportional to the height of the body count.
Not hard to find out either -- just let her talk and it will soon come out.

Man, I just view the world so much differently than you do.

I don't want to be with a woman who has been run through more times than the Holland Tunnel.

Credit: Coach Greg Adams

[JayhawkCO]

I think it as just plain weird when in the dating world today, this question and "term" likely comes up:
"What's Your 'Body Count'"? -- The 20's equivalent of "how many notches are there on your bedpost?"

With women nowadays that can be double or even triple digits.

Why specify women in this statement?

Isn't this discussion mainly about men seeking women?

I mean, not specified as such. Just seemed like your concern is about a woman's body count, not a man's. I could be reading it incorrectly.

If am considering a relationship with a woman it is a concern. Ability to successfully pair bond is inversely proportional to the height of the body count.
Not hard to find out either -- just let her talk and it will soon come out.

Man, I just view the world so much differently than you do.

I don't want to be with a woman who has been run through more times than the Holland Tunnel.

Credit: Coach Greg Adams

Afraid you can't measure up?

I think a woman's body count is probably about the 1567th most important thing when I'm considering a relationship.

[hotdogPi]

By your own logic, your body count is too high for women to be interested in you.

[Rothman]

I think it as just plain weird when in the dating world today, this question and "term" likely comes up:
"What's Your 'Body Count'"? -- The 20's equivalent of "how many notches are there on your bedpost?"

With women nowadays that can be double or even triple digits.

Why specify women in this statement?

Isn't this discussion mainly about men seeking women?

I mean, not specified as such. Just seemed like your concern is about a woman's body count, not a man's. I could be reading it incorrectly.

If am considering a relationship with a woman it is a concern. Ability to successfully pair bond is inversely proportional to the height of the body count.

Not hard to find out either -- just let her talk and it will soon come out.

So, if she's at 48, she's a no-go?

[Beltway]

I don't want to be with a woman who has been run through more times than the Holland Tunnel.
Credit: Coach Greg Adams

Afraid you can't measure up?
I think a woman's body count is probably about the 1567th most important thing when I'm considering a relationship.

Measure up? If you want to be with a pro that is your decision.
Measure up? If anything sex would be easier with her. But she may no longer be orgasmic.

If am considering a relationship with a woman it is a concern. Ability to successfully pair bond is inversely proportional to the height of the body count.
Not hard to find out either -- just let her talk and it will soon come out.

So, if she's at 48, she's a no-go?

Compete with what she experienced in bed with 48 other men?

Think she will stop at 49?

By your own logic, your body count is too high for women to be interested in you.

Body count is not a 'dated' count -- it is the count of sexual partners.

[Rothman]

If am considering a relationship with a woman it is a concern. Ability to successfully pair bond is inversely proportional to the height of the body count.
Not hard to find out either -- just let her talk and it will soon come out.

So, if she's at 48, she's a no-go?

Compete with what she experienced in bed with 48 other men?

Think she will stop at 49?

Did you stop at 46?

[Beltway]

If am considering a relationship with a woman it is a concern. Ability to successfully pair bond is inversely proportional to the height of the body count. Not hard to find out either -- just let her talk and it will soon come out.

So, if she's at 48, she's a no-go?

Compete with what she experienced in bed with 48 other men?
Think she will stop at 49?

Did you stop at 46?

Ha ha. Only about 5% of men attain a number like that high. I am not one. Don't/didn't want to be.

[Rothman]

If am considering a relationship with a woman it is a concern. Ability to successfully pair bond is inversely proportional to the height of the body count. Not hard to find out either -- just let her talk and it will soon come out.

So, if she's at 48, she's a no-go?

Compete with what she experienced in bed with 48 other men?
Think she will stop at 49?

Did you stop at 46?

Ha ha. Only about 5% of men attain a number like that. I am not one.

Well, given everything else you've revealed in this thread, it really is begging the question as to whether your perspective on relationships has resulted in you attaining whatever relationship goals you set for yourself, whether marriage or whatever else.

[thenetwork]

I had gone to the public library to use the internet and visited a few different singles sites (such as match.com), and that's the one that seemed the most promising.  These were the fun and wacky days of the internet, in 2002 or 2003 (I can never remember which one).

I met my wife on match.com 26 years ago when finding dates on the internet was still not widely accepted yet.

Had to spend $40 for a simple scanner then, just to put some photos of me on my profile, so she could see what I looked like.

Best $40 investment I ever made, and still married after 23 years!

[Beltway]

Well, given everything else you've revealed in this thread, it really is begging the question as to whether your perspective on relationships has resulted in you attaining whatever relationship goals you set for yourself, whether marriage or whatever else.

Defense of ultra-high body counts is rather revealing about relationship goals and history.

Plenty of people would rather be alone than settle like that. And they prove it.

[ModernDayWarrior]

Well, given everything else you've revealed in this thread, it really is begging the question as to whether your perspective on relationships has resulted in you attaining whatever relationship goals you set for yourself, whether marriage or whatever else.

Defense of ultra-high body counts is rather revealing about relationship goals and history.

Plenty of people would rather be alone than settle like that. And they prove it.

Those people are called "incels" and I've yet to see a reason why you or anyone else should care what they think. Yes, anyone who reduces a woman to her body count number is bound to be disappointed.

Do you have a similarly low opinion of men with high body counts? Genuinely curious.

[Beltway]

Defense of ultra-high body counts is rather revealing about relationship goals and history.
Plenty of people would rather be alone than settle like that. And they prove it.

Those people are called "incels" and I've yet to see a reason why you or anyone else should care what they think. Yes, anyone who reduces a woman to her body count number is bound to be disappointed.

No -- they are "volcels" -- they remain voluntarily single until they meet someone who meets their own internal standards for being pair‑bondable and capable of sustaining a successful relationship.

[Rothman]

Well, given everything else you've revealed in this thread, it really is begging the question as to whether your perspective on relationships has resulted in you attaining whatever relationship goals you set for yourself, whether marriage or whatever else.

Defense of ultra-high body counts is rather revealing about relationship goals and history.

Plenty of people would rather be alone than settle like that. And they prove it.

Are you saying that, after the 47 women that you've dated, and all your spreadsheet-enabled data tracking, that you've decided that you're happier alone rather than pursuing whatever relationship goals you had when dating? 

[Beltway]

I'm not answering personal interrogatories.
My comments were about definitions, not my private life.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not answering personal interrogatories.
My comments were about definitions, not my private life.

Why pursue this rabbit hole of statistics then?  Plenty of us have been willing share some our personal backstories about relationships, dating and marriage.  Shame you pursued this line of posts and are wussing out after the questions got uncomfortable. 

[Beltway]

Statistics aren't personal disclosure.
Discussing definitions and distributions doesn't obligate me to answer personal interrogatories.
I'm not engaging that line of questioning.

[Max Rockatansky]

Statistics aren't personal disclosure.
Discussing definitions and distributions doesn't obligate me to answer personal interrogatories.
I'm not engaging that line of questioning.

You skewed the statistics initially to paint a narrative that you were more "active" in successfully pursuing female partners.  What made you think that the other users weren't going to pick apart what you put out?

Since you keep dodging answering if you were ever married I'll take that as an insinuation that you never have been. 

[Beltway]

Statistics aren't personal disclosure.
Discussing definitions and distributions doesn't obligate me to answer personal interrogatories.
I'm not engaging that line of questioning.

You skewed the statistics initially to paint a narrative that you were more "active" in successfully pursuing female partners.  What made you think that the other users weren't going to pick apart what you put out?
Since you keep dodging answering if you were ever married I'll take that as an insinuation that you never have been. 

Two separate comments started this tangent:
– 'women don't find you enjoyable'
– 'no man in this hobby has that kind of game'

Both were personal claims directed at me. My reply addressed the definitions behind those claims, not my private life.

Statistics and categories aren't personal disclosure, and they don't obligate me to answer interrogatories about my biography.

And no --  you're not extracting anything here. You're being toyed with.

[Rothman]

Statistics aren't personal disclosure.

Sharing the statistics of your dating history and hobbies is the very definition of personal disclosure.

[Rothman]

And no --  you're not extracting anything here. You're being toyed with.

What in the world...

Isn't this deliberate trolling, then?

[Beltway]

Categorical counts aren't personal disclosure.
They don't identify anyone, they don't describe events, and they don't provide biography.
Discussing distributions and definitions doesn't obligate me to answer interrogatories about my private life.

"Being toyed with" means you're not extracting personal information from me.
It's a boundary, not trolling.

[Max Rockatansky]

And no --  you're not extracting anything here. You're being toyed with.

What in the world...

Isn't this deliberate trolling, then?

He's wrong in the assumption that refusing to answer clarifying questions doesn't actually answer anything. 

[Rothman]

And no --  you're not extracting anything here. You're being toyed with.

What in the world...

Isn't this deliberate trolling, then?

He's wrong in the assumption that refusing to answer clarifying questions doesn't actually answer anything. 

...or that refusing to answer questions now erases what he's already said.

I totally agree that no one has to answer anything they don't want to, but...egads, putting what he did out there, then establishing the boundary after putting all that out there and then saying "Haha, I'm toying with you, neener neener..."

I mean, people'll draw all sorts of conclusions from this type of behavior and what was revealed before this very too-late boundary was put down...