top of page
  • Robert Farago

Andrew Tate's Bodycount Bible

The author revisits the "bodycount" issue via Andrew Tate


”On 24 October, in the year of Our Lord 2023, online manfluencer and alleged sex offender Andrew Tate wrote on X/Twitter: ‘I reject women who have slept with more than 3 men. Vile.’”


Vile is also Guardian columnist Van Badham’s opinion of Mr. Tate and his pronouncement. She considers Mr. Tate a “nasty misogynist” and a “vacuous braggart.”


In this opinion, she’s not alone. A legion of professional pundits share Ms. Badham’s view that Mr. Tate is The Worst Man in the World™ for his behavior towards women and his advice to men.


Ms. Badham’s got some advice of her own for female readers worried they’ll be left on the shelf for exceeding Mr. Tate’s recommended “body count,” as well as women considering putting their private parts off-limits to avoid sexual excommunication.

It is now in the interests of your health and safety to add at least four penis-shaped notches to your bedpost to ward him off – although you really should bang however many lads that take your fancy in order to be perfectly sure.

So don’t sleep with Andrew Tate but do sleep around. Because a woman “shouldn’t have to commit to one sexual partner forever without any knowledge of the broader sexual self.”


Hang on. Mr. Tate isn’t saying women can’t have more than three partners. He’s refusing to have sex with those who have. Or did he mean a relationship?



In any case, doesn’t Mr. Tate have the right to reject a woman for her “body count” in the same way a woman has the right to reject a man for his “body count”? Personal preference. Freedom of choice.


Turnabout is fair play.


Yes, well, there’s that word “vile” at the end of Mr. Tate’s X-rated position paper. It’s one thing to state your sexual standards for women, another to vilify those who don’t meet it.


Especially when millions of impressionable young men take Mr. Tate’s every word as gospel.

A terrifying study from January discovered the unhappy news that a third of Australian teen boys – across all sectors of Australia’s class-polarised school system – were taking behavioural cues towards women and sexuality from the “relatable” Tate.

Here’s a question: what’s Mr. Tate’s body count? From what I’ve read, it’s many multiples of three.


I’d bet dollars to donuts most of his “conquests” had a large number of metaphorical penis-shaped notches on their proverbial bed.


If so, Ms. Badham could’ve ripped the world famous “manfluencer” a new one for being a hypocrite.


Or could she?


At least one cigar amigo reckons it’s natural and perfectly acceptable for a man to spread his seed widely (paraphrasing) and it’s laudable for women to limit their partners in the name of mental and physical health and reproductive success.


And… here we are. Facing ye olde double-standard: slut shaming a woman who sleeps with multiple partners while calling a man who does the same thing a “stud.”


This dichotomy flies in the face of sexual equality (in the strictest sense of the term). And, I’d suggest, the ideals of empathy, understanding and kindness towards another human being, not just women.


Ideally, if a man wants a woman with a low body count, fair enough. If a woman doesn’t want a man with a high body count, she has the same right to draw the line wherever she sees fit.

Sounds like a great ideal! With the best of intentions! What could possibly go wrong?


As outlined in How Dating Apps Destroyed Dating, women are attracted to “high value alphas” like Mr. Tate. Men with money, looks and/or power. Cads who love ‘em (at best) and leave ‘em.


Meanwhile, lonely/horny “average” boys and men see Mr. Tate’s sexual success and seek to emulate it. And not in a nice way. Because Mr. Tate isn’t nice.


I return you to Mr. Tate’s use of the word “vile.” His Tweet’s final word goes beyond critical condemnation of “high body count” women. Beyond hate. Straight to the worst of all possible reactions: disgust.


Disgust is textbook “othering” – dehumanization. Which leads to nothing good and a lot bad. To misogyny – and beyond!


I reckon a man should value himself enough to understand that sex is best as a means to an end beyond simple physical release, ego enhancement and social status. When you’re in that head space (so to speak), less is more.


Same for a woman? Again, that’s their choice. One that men should respect, come what may (so to speak). Unlike Andrew Tate. Maybe when he’s older…

0 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page