. >Okay, so you're a degenerate having a ton of casual sex without commitment?
Apparently, yes. The fact you think it's degenerate where most people would regard it as normal perhaps speaks more of you than it does of the societal problems you love to scapegoat.
>No, I'm being intimate with a person I love.
I would argue that if you truly loved someone their past would be little concern to you. Love is unconditional, lust has requisites.
>here we see a toastie roastie trying to go under cover. Isn't it cute?
I'm a dude. Not sure how to prove, but I'm a dude
>>It's not about physical virginity or quality of sex
That's about the only well-reasoned response so far. I suppose you're statistically correct but I find Jow Forums's reliance on dubious statistics and this intense requirement to categorise everyone under labels produces a broken, paranoid and highly pessimistic worldview. Let us say you met and hit it off with a girl. She's all you can think about, and then you find out she once took a guy home from a nightclub or some shit. That would really be a deal-breaker for you? I mean you're entitled to your own preferences but it seems you're willingly denying yourself happiness there.
>The idea of her thinking "Chad was so much better than this loser" would never leave my mind. It's like I'm getting cucked by my own paranoia.
That was something I suffered BADLY from too, but at crunch time it's much less of a problem than you'd imagine because the concept of 'good sex' differs wildly between those who never or rarely have it and those who often do. Good sex is disgusting, sweaty, intense, passionate and fucking great, bad sex is robotic, pornographic and just downright depressing. In my experience, women love it when you love it, and we love it when she loves it. It won't be a problem when the time comes, friend. Believe me. You won't be having sex with someone who regards you as a loser, anyway.