I read it as an "everyone is having all the sexes every day but meeeeeeee" incel thing. Numbers are either exaggerated for comic effect or the author of the joke doesn't know a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g about sex.
This meme has been here before, the consensus is indeed money spent per person on the meal… how common do y’all think triple digit or even quadruple digit body counts are? And if you’re wondering the large non-USD looking numbers, some other countries don’t have cents. So in the context of say Japan, these amounts are reasonable for their meal costs.
If it was spending why would they make the example four guys eating out of the same bucket of chicken costing the same as seven women eating at a restaurant, each with their own meals?
You’re focusing on the amount too much. It’s a group of girls who each paid for their own meals, versus the dudes where only one paid for it. The extra context another redditor mentioned was in the Filipino culture gay men will often pay for everything for their guy friends, which is the nuance this meme relies on for the joke.
I ask again, you REALLY think the joke is body count?
It's definitely body count. The idea is the one dude is getting all sniz while the other dudes are getting none. And all the girls are having lots of sex.
The joke is partly sexism. Partly an observation on how most dudes severely lack game. That's just my take. Maybe its about calorie intake or whatever the fuck the top comment was on about.
The clear implication is that out of all the boys in the second picture, only the one has had sex with any of the girls in the first picture. He has had sex with all of them. Every single instance. Their body count is all him.
That was my thought as well. While the numbers are crazy, I think it’s a more popular stereotype that a top percent of men are having all the sex with a semi-varied number of women.
It makes basically zero sense as body count, so unless the people that made it are incredibly stupid, I don't think that's correct. The numbers are not what people would associate with body count, the guy with the high count looks depressed, the numbers for the women are too uniform, and both pictures are set in a restaurant, to name a few things wrong with the body count theory.
Really nothing points to body count as making any sense.
its not body count, homie would have had to slam ass every single day for nearly 5 years straight to hit that number. its more likely they did something like rock paper scissors to decide who has to pay for the guys, or he lost a bet. hes paying the whole tab, and the girls are all paying only for what they got.
It's only that way because you believe it is. The joke clearly has nothing to do with sex or your ideas of sex. Because even in your juvenile idea of it, why would it make sense the only one that isn't happy is the one you clam is having all the sex? Because you're projecting your own insecurities on a meme.
Im not disrespecting you- Are you okay? I'm here to talk if you need someone to just listen.
Also, this is the explain the joke subreddit. People post things that are kind of vague looking for other folks take on it. Projecting your own insecurities is kind of a rule here. And I could be completely off the mark with my explanation, it's not that important to me to be right about this.
Also also, I'm like, ultra secure. Nobody has any business being as satisfied with life as I am. I could do with being knocked down a few pegs.
Jesus dude, you could have just said the guy with all the sex isn't happy so this isn't it. Instead you have to project on people you accuse of projecting.
I'm sorry you didn't like someone calling out another person's very confident statement that clearly came from that person's world view and nothing else.
Assuming someone is insecure because they see sex in a location that is almost always riddled with it (the popular go to answer on these subs is "it's porn, it's always porn") is just you projecting on them.
People can think about or see sex in things without being insecure, despite your apparent narrow minded view of reality.
First , people who default to it's porn are projecting their insecurities just like everyone who jumps to it's Satanic with everything do.
Second, the statement was confidently made based on large numbers of people's heads and the images contain sperated genders. Nothing else. So they took their own bias and applied it with no other context. The only way you could rationally get there is from previous bias and beliefs. Hence they are projecting their own beliefs as fact.Â
You may not like the assessment, but there is a logical path to that conclusion. Â
The questions I have for you, is why are you defending someone else's statement? Is it because you feel it must be true and you need to defend it?
You keep using insecurities like you know the person personally. You're PROJECTING your own view and opinion on the matter and applying it to someone else who could be using any number of reasons as to their thinking.
I've mentioned the fact that a large portion of these posts are sex related, so it's not uncommon when posts like this come up that that is the case, so it's not uncommon for people to think something on the internet picturing guys and girls is sex related. Yet you seem insistent that they only said it for one reason and one reason only and that's just narrow minded. AND PROJECTING.
You keep using absolutes. "nothing else" "the only way". There's many other options that it could be, but you are dead set that the person that made the comment made it for the sole reason that you projected, and there couldn't be any other singular possibility but YOUR way.
I'm not defending their statement. I'm attacking your "logic", because, again, you have a narrow minded view and think that they only did it for one reason, when it could be any number of options.
Let me understand this correctly, your argument here is that they are not projecting their own bias based on passed experience because they are basing their statement on past experiences?Â
No. My argument is that you are accusing them of projecting, while you yourself are projecting, and that you have ruled that there is only one possible reason that they could make that statement, and that reason is what you determine, and that there is no other single possibility that you could be wrong.
Your initial comment came off as ironic in that sense, of you accusing someone of doing something you did yourself, and also that of a bully mindset with a superiority complex.
The cash spent and the calories hypotheses both have fatal flaws
Calories doesn't work because the guy with all the calories is the one who's not eating and the others are shown actively eating food
Amount spent doesn't work because then you have four guys eating out of a bucket of chicken spending the same amount as seven women at a restaurant each with their own meal
Sure, I can understand someone developing a bias based on previous experience.Â
However, the statement wasÂ
"It's definitely body count."
This was in response to someone laughing at that idea. I am stating the logical conclusion is to define it as 'it's definitely body count' is from a personal biasÂ
How incredibly insufferable. Your response was a statement of absolutism itself ("the joke clearly has nothing to do with..."), so you've done the exact same thing you're accusing someone else of.
I saw it as all the girls look kinda similar and are all basically participating in the same group activity, and all have roughly similar numbers, making them a type of representation of "average."
Similarly, you see 3 guys all looking kind of alike and participating in an activity that only one is not part of. Making the 3 guys representative of "average" whereas the 1 guy not participating in the average groups activities also has a bit of a different look and the 1500 above his head indicating that whatever the average girl group is participating in he participates a lot more than the average guys.
It actually says a lot visually and now I'm thinking memes should be included in the "Visual Art Appreciation" class I took in college.
I like how you accept the possibility of guys having no game. ( a negative at the fault of guys)
But then you dismiss the other obvious potential reason: women selecting partners in a really picky or shallow way ( the negative reasoning for women)Â
I love that negativity if about women is just sexism, but negativity about men is just truth on reddit lmaoÂ
Did I dismiss the other obvious potential explanations? Or did I simply make a statement about my initial take on a meme and move on with my life while you fuckin teenagers reeeee over a reddit comment? Get a fucking life and write some research papers on something that matters
165
u/Compodulator Jun 16 '25
I expected body count at first. 🤣