Hubbry Logo
Body countBody countMain
Open search
Body count
Community hub
Body count
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Body count
Body count
Body count
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Edward III's herald, the crowned king of arms, counting the dead after the battle of Crécy

A body count is the total number of people killed in a particular event. In combat, a body count is often based on the number of confirmed kills, but occasionally only an estimate. Often used in reference to military combat, the term can also refer to any situation involving multiple killings, such as the actions of death squads or serial killers.

The military gathers such figures for a variety of reasons, such as determining the need for continuing operations, estimating efficiency of new and old weapons systems, and planning follow-up operations.

The term has since been used to describe the number of sexual partners a person has engaged with.[1]

Military use

[edit]

"Body count" figures have a long history in military planning and propaganda.

Sassanian Empire

[edit]

According to Procopius, when the Persians were about to march to a war, the king would sit on the throne and many baskets would be set before him. The men of the army would pass along the baskets one by one, each throwing one arrow in the baskets, which would then be sealed with the king's seal. When the army returned to Persia, each man would take an arrow from the baskets, and the number of casualties would be determined by the number of remaining arrows.[2]

The Holocaust

[edit]
See also: The Holocaust and Bandenbekämpfung

During the Holocaust in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and other eastern areas, killing was done by Nazi Germany's military police forces, including Einsatzgruppen, the SD, and Wehrmacht police battalions, in massacres by shooting the victims.[3] Such units measured their progress by counting the number of people killed.[4] And the number of killed people was 1.5 million Jews. These murder operations took place under the guise of anti-partisan warfare, but in reality few of those killed were actually partisans.[5]

Vietnam War

[edit]
Main article: Vietnam War body count controversy

Since the goal of the United States in the Vietnam War was not to conquer North Vietnam but rather to ensure the survival of the South Vietnamese government, measuring progress was difficult. All the contested territory was theoretically "held" already. Instead, the U.S. Army used body counts to show that the U.S. was winning the war, leading to falsified and inflated enemy body count numbers. The Army's theory was that eventually, the Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army would lose after the attrition warfare.

Historian Christian Appy states "search and destroy was the principal tactic; and the enemy body count was the primary measure of progress" in the US strategy of attrition. Search and destroy was a term to describe operations aimed at flushing the Viet Cong out of hiding, while body count was the measuring stick for operation success. Appy claims that American commanders exaggerated body counts by 100 percent.[6] This method was controversial, due to two issues. The first is regarding the counting of unarmed civilians killed in actions as enemy combatants in free-fire zone[7] as it was estimated that around 220,000 civilians killed by US/ARVN battle operations were miscounted as "enemy KIA".[8] Another issue is inflation[9][10] and fabrication of body count in after-action reports, which is reported to have given false and inaccurate casualty figures for enemy dead.[11][12]

Rhodesian Bush War

[edit]

During the Rhodesian Bush War the Rhodesian Security Forces were focused on achieving a high 'kill rate' against the communist guerrilla forces. While this motivated the Rhodesian personnel to kill large numbers of guerrillas, it may have led them to attack civilians and murder prisoners. The emphasis on the 'kill rate' may have partly been the result of the influence of American and Australian Vietnam War veterans who volunteered to fight for Rhodesia.[13]

Iraq War

[edit]
Main article: Casualties of the Iraq War

In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US military adopted an official policy of not counting deaths. General Tommy Franks' statement that "we don't do body counts" was widely reported. Critics claimed that Franks was only attempting to evade bad publicity, while supporters pointed to the failure of body counts to give an accurate impression of the state of the war in Vietnam. At the end of October 2005, it became public that the US military had been counting Iraqi fatalities since January 2004 but only those killed by insurgents and not those killed by the US forces.[14]

Slang usage

[edit]

The term "body count" has been used as a euphemistic slang term for how many people one has had sex with. This usage gained further popularity in 2020 on the social media app TikTok, where users would ask strangers what their "body count" was.[1][15]

See also

[edit]
Look up body count in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Body count

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Body count refers to the number of enemy soldiers killed, as tallied in military operations. In contemporary , it denotes the number of sexual partners an individual has had. The military application of the term traces back to historical battles where victors enumerated fallen foes to gauge success, but it became a central metric during the under U.S. attrition , where commanders reported kills to demonstrate progress against North Vietnamese and forces. This reliance on body counts incentivized overreporting and misidentification of civilians as combatants, contributing to strategic miscalculations and public disillusionment as verified enemy losses proved elusive despite high tallies. The slang usage, adapted from wartime origins, emerged in urban and youth cultures to quantify , often highlighting asymmetries in how past sexual experiences influence partner evaluations and long-term pair-bonding prospects.

Military context

Definition and historical origins

In military parlance, body count refers to the enumerated tally of enemy combatants during specific engagements or over defined operational periods, often used as a proxy metric for assessing tactical success and . This quantification typically relies on visual confirmation of corpses, reports, or aerial assessments, distinguishing it from broader casualty figures that include wounded or missing personnel. The term's formalized usage traces to the U.S. involvement in the (1955–1975), where it gained prominence under an attrition doctrine championed by Secretary of Defense , who prioritized empirical data to evaluate progress against North Vietnamese and forces. By 1965, as U.S. troop commitments escalated from 23,300 to over 184,000, body counts became a staple in after-action reports, briefing slides, and public announcements, with daily tallies influencing promotion decisions and bombing campaigns. For instance, General , commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam from 1964 to 1968, explicitly tied operational efficacy to these figures, stating that victory would be achieved when the enemy suffered unacceptable losses, estimated at a cumulative body count exceeding 500,000 by war's end. While rudimentary enemy death tallies appear in ancient and —such as Roman legions recording kills or post-battle enumerations at Crécy in 1346—the modern "body count" as a standardized, data-driven indicator distinctively crystallized during , building on precedents but amplified by quantitative management techniques imported from industry. This evolution reflected a shift toward metrics-heavy warfare, where abstract numbers supplanted territorial gains or political outcomes as primary success gauges, a practice McNamara had honed at the before applying it to defense strategy in 1961. Pre-Vietnam conflicts lacked the term's ubiquity, with counts serving purposes rather than systematic policy drivers.

Estimation methodologies

In historical conventional battles, enemy body counts were often estimated through direct physical enumeration of corpses on the following engagement, a practice documented as early as where Persian forces collected arrows or weapons deposited by troops to tally losses. This method relied on ground troops or commanders visually inspecting and counting remains, as reportedly done by English forces after the in 1346, where King Edward III oversaw the tally of approximately 1,500 French dead amid claims of up to 4,000 total casualties. Such counts provided immediate post-battle assessments but were limited by factors like body removal by retreating forces, in prolonged fights, or incomplete searches of terrain. In ancient and medieval contexts, proxies supplemented direct counts, including the collection of enemy equipment or abandoned or captured, which served as indirect indicators of fatalities when bodies could not be verified. For instance, Roman historians like described enumerating slain enemies by inspecting arms and armor left behind, while logistical records of expended offered rough estimates based on known effectiveness. These approaches assumed a between matériel losses and personnel kills, though they often overestimated to non-fatal abandonments or scavenging. Modern employs simulation-based methodologies, such as the U.S. Army's Casualty Estimation Methodology (CEM), which uses deterministic models integrating killer-victim scoreboards from simulations like COSAGE to project enemy casualties. These calculate losses by applying single-shot probability of kill (SSPK) rates for direct fires—factoring range and target type—and lethal areas for indirect fires like , categorizing outcomes as (KIA, e.g., 25% of engagements), (WIA, 69%), or captured/missing (6%) per field manuals. Crew casualties are scaled by vehicle destruction probabilities, with updates every 12 hours based on extrapolated rounds fired and terrain-modified effectiveness, enabling theater-level forecasts without real-time body verification. Statistical modeling refines estimates in data-rich environments, drawing from historical casualty logs and medical databases like the Theater Medical Data Store (TMDS) to fit distributions such as exponential or gamma to wounded-in-action rates, then extrapolating to fatalities using fixed kill ratios (e.g., 1:3 KIA to WIA). For Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF) phases, gamma distributions modeled surge-era rates at α=0.74, β=0.24 per 1,000 at-risk personnel-days, validated against actual reports from battles like (2004), where simulations matched 558 observed casualties. These methods prioritize empirical hit probabilities over anecdotal counts, reducing bias from unverified claims. In asymmetric conflicts like the (1955–1975), body counts shifted to aggregated field reports from units, combining confirmed kills via visual confirmation, captured weapons as proxies (one weapon equating to one enemy), and intelligence-derived estimates, but systemic inflation occurred due to career incentives and attrition strategy metrics under Secretary McNamara. Troops often included probable kills, civilian dead, or double-counted bodies, with higher commands pressuring upward revisions; post-operation sweeps aimed to verify but frequently relied on unrecovered estimates amid jungle terrain and enemy body evacuation. Similar issues plagued (2003–2011) insurgent tallies, where drone imagery and supplemented ground counts, yet methodological challenges like distinguishing combatants from civilians and underreporting by adversaries led to discrepancies between U.S. claims (e.g., thousands in specific operations) and independent audits showing overestimations by factors of 2–5. Remote sensing technologies, including and , emerged post-World War II to estimate bomb damage craters as lethality proxies, calibrated by known munition yields (e.g., one 500-pound correlating to 5–10 casualties in open formations). In counterinsurgency, (HUMINT) and (SIGINT) provide supplementary , such as intercepted enemy reports of losses, though verification remains elusive; statistical surveys post-conflict, like household polling in , retroactively adjust wartime figures but capture indirect deaths rather than immediate body counts. Overall, while direct enumeration persists in accessible battles, hybrid model-proxy approaches dominate, tempered by awareness of incentives for in prolonged wars where verifiable is scarce.

Key historical applications

In the (1950–1953), U.S. heavily relied on body counts as the primary indicator of success against North Korean and Chinese forces. Commanders reported enemy casualties from battles and engagements to quantify progress, with kill ratios influencing assessments of operational effectiveness and . This metric underpinned attrition-focused tactics, where accumulating high enemy death tolls was seen as a path to breaking adversary will and capability. The (1955–1975) marked the most extensive and controversial application of body count as a strategic measure. Under General William Westmoreland's leadership from 1964 to 1968, U.S. forces adopted an attrition doctrine emphasizing "" missions to inflict maximum casualties on North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong units. Body counts, compiled from ground verifications, aerial bomb damage assessments, and defector reports, became the central metric for evaluating unit performance, with daily tallies briefed to superiors and used to justify escalations in firepower and troop commitments. For instance, during operations like the 1966 Binh Dinh offensive, reported enemy kills exceeded 10,000, touted as evidence of advancing victory despite elusive foes. Post-Vietnam conflicts, such as the (2003–2011) and Afghan War (2001–2021), employed body counts more selectively within frameworks, informed by prior overreliance pitfalls. U.S. Central Command tracked militant casualties from airstrikes and raids to gauge pressure on groups like and the , but subordinated them to indicators like population security and governance metrics. In , for example, 2019 assessments correlated spikes in body counts—estimated at over 23,000 fighters killed since 2014—with temporary reductions in offensive capabilities, though sustained territorial gains proved elusive.

Strategic role and effectiveness

In the Vietnam War, body counts played a central role in General William Westmoreland's attrition strategy from 1965 to 1968, which sought to impose casualties on North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong forces exceeding their recruitment and reinforcement rates, thereby reaching a theoretical "crossover point" where enemy strength would irreversibly decline. This approach aligned with search-and-destroy operations, where permanent territorial control was elusive due to guerrilla tactics, making quantifiable enemy deaths the primary indicator of operational success and progress toward overall victory. Body counts were systematically tracked in monthly reports by the (MACV), often alongside over 180 other metrics, to demonstrate to U.S. policymakers and amid public skepticism. Their effectiveness as a strategic tool, however, proved limited and often counterproductive in contexts. While Westmoreland maintained that counts were conservative and reflective of genuine attrition—claiming historical analyses showed only 15-20% overestimation—they incentivized field commanders to prioritize aggressive pursuits of kills over pacification or population security, as in (late 1968), where 10,899 enemy deaths were reported against just 748 weapons recovered, suggesting significant inflation or misattribution of civilian casualties. A 1977 survey of U.S. generals who served in found only 2% viewed body counts as a valid measure of progress, with many labeling them "fake" or "worthless" due to unverifiable data and failure to capture enemy regeneration through recruitment or political support. Empirically, the metric did not correlate with strategic success, as North Vietnamese forces absorbed reported losses exceeding 500,000 by 1973 yet sustained offensives, highlighting body counts' inadequacy for assessing holistic warfighting outcomes in asymmetric conflicts where social and political dimensions outweighed raw manpower depletion.

Criticisms and empirical challenges

Critics of the body count metric argue that its overreliance in operations fostered a "" doctrine prioritizing enemy kills over territorial security or political stabilization, leading commanders to pursue high-risk engagements that alienated civilian populations and failed to erode insurgent support. This approach, formalized under General William Westmoreland's attrition strategy from 1965 onward, incentivized quantifiable outputs at the expense of qualitative goals like pacification, as units chased metrics for promotions and reports rather than sustainable control. Empirical data from the war's later phases, such as the 1968 , illustrate this disconnect: U.S. forces reported over 45,000 enemy during the assault, yet North Vietnamese and forces demonstrated operational resilience, infiltrating urban centers and sustaining morale despite losses exceeding 10% of their estimated strength. Accuracy of body counts faced systemic challenges, with U.S. surveys indicating that 61% of field commanders viewed figures as inflated to meet higher ' expectations, often including probable kills, casualties misattributed as combatants, or double-counted bodies from multiple engagements. Official tallies reached approximately 580,000 enemy deaths by 1972, but audits and post-war analyses revealed discrepancies, as verification in dense terrain relied on visual confirmation without forensic standards, enabling in reporting chains. Scholarly assessments, drawing on declassified records, highlight how this metric ignored enemy recruitment rates— inducted 200,000-300,000 troops annually during peak years—rendering net attrition illusory despite gross kill figures. Broader empirical critiques extend to body counts' poor correlation with strategic outcomes across conflicts; in Vietnam, kill ratios averaging 10:1 in favor of U.S./South Vietnamese forces did not translate to victory, as enemy logistics via the sustained infiltration at 100,000-200,000 personnel yearly, per CIA estimates. Post-Vietnam explicitly rejected body counts as a primary success indicator, citing their distortion of operational priorities, a stance reiterated in and where similar metrics were downplayed to avoid Vietnam-era pitfalls, though internal tracking persisted for tactical review. These challenges underscore causal limitations: body counts measure tactical lethality but neglect adaptive enemy behaviors, population dynamics, and political will, as evidenced by sustained Viet Cong recruitment from rural grievances exacerbated by U.S. tactics.

Sexual slang context

Etymology and linguistic evolution

The term "body count" first entered English lexicon in military parlance during the era of the , referring to the enumerated tally of enemy combatants killed in combat operations. This usage emphasized quantifiable metrics of success amid , where verifiable kills were prioritized over territorial gains. Its repurposing as for the cumulative number of sexual partners dates to the early , with attestation around 2006 in informal contexts, evolving from the metaphorical extension of "conquest" narratives in interpersonal relations. By the 2010s, the proliferated through online forums such as and , as well as urban and hip-hop influenced vernacular, where it connoted a ledger of intimate encounters akin to battlefield tallies. This shift reflects a broader linguistic pattern in , borrowing militaristic imagery to frame sexual activity in terms of dominance or accumulation, often without the literal finality of death. Linguistically, the phrase retains its compound structure—"body" denoting the human subject of the act, "count" implying —mirroring its antecedent but adapting to casual on and . Usage has since normalized in digital media, including social platforms like and by the mid-2010s onward, where it functions as a in discussions of relational history, though regional variations persist (e.g., "notch count" as a in some dialects). Dictionaries like formally incorporated the sexual connotation by the 2020s, signaling mainstream lexical acceptance amid debates over its reductive implications.

Popularization in modern culture

The slang usage of "body count" to denote the number of sexual partners entered in the late , with Canadian artist releasing the track "Body Count" on May 4, 2018, as a response to slut-shaming and an endorsement of female sexual autonomy. This song framed high partner counts as unproblematic, contrasting with traditional judgments of . In hip-hop, the term appeared in rapper Latto's "Sunday Service" from her August 21, 2020, album Queen of Da Souf, where she asserted a low count amid boasts of selectivity, and later in "Put It on da Floor Again" (April 2022), prompting public discourse on gender-differentiated expectations. By the early 2020s, the phrase proliferated on , particularly , where videos debating acceptable body counts in amassed millions of views, often highlighting male preferences for lower female counts. This viral spread integrated it into Gen Z lexicon, with usage peaking in relationship advice content and challenges by 2023, as documented in teen slang compilations. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) amplified debates, with influencers and podcasters invoking the term to quantify relational value, though empirical studies note its correlation with perceived commitment risks rather than inherent moral weight.

Social perceptions and gender dynamics

Social perceptions of an individual's "body count"—the number of lifetime sexual partners—often associate higher numbers with diminished traits such as trustworthiness, intelligence, and attractiveness, particularly in evaluations for romantic or social interest. A 2024 study involving 853 U.S. adults found that targets described as having 12 partners, compared to 1, received significantly lower ratings across these dimensions, with effects persisting regardless of whether the history involved casual or committed relationships. Similarly, histories emphasizing casual sex led to harsher judgments than those focused on long-term pairings, reflecting a broader stigma against perceived promiscuity as indicative of impulsivity or unreliability. Gender dynamics reveal asymmetries in these perceptions, challenging traditional notions of a sexual that penalizes women more severely for promiscuity. While evolutionary theories predict men would devalue high-body-count women due to paternity uncertainty, empirical data show mixed patterns: a Norwegian study of 923 participants detected no traditional , with promiscuous men appraised more negatively than women in short-term contexts (mean suitability score -0.18 vs. -0.05). The U.S. study corroborated a reverse dynamic, where men with extensive histories faced steeper penalties in attractiveness and desirability ratings than women, attributed possibly to modern shifts toward egalitarian norms or heightened scrutiny of male sexual excess. Women evaluators, in particular, applied more negative appraisals to sexual histories overall, suggesting intra-gender policing influences perceptions. In mate selection, both sexes exhibit preferences for lower body counts in long-term partners, though men report stronger aversion to women's higher numbers, linking them to reduced commitment likelihood. Cross-national surveys indicate that multiple prior partners correlate with lower desirability for across genders, but men consistently prioritize sexual restraint in female partners to mitigate relational risks. Women's attitudes toward men's histories appear more permissive, often viewing moderate experience positively for short-term encounters while still discounting extremes in committed scenarios, reflecting differential reproductive costs. These dynamics persist despite cultural pushes for symmetry, underscoring causal factors like biological asymmetries in .

Empirical evidence on relational and health outcomes

Longitudinal analyses of U.S. national survey data, including the National Survey of Family Growth and the Add Health study, reveal that greater numbers of premarital sexual partners correlate with elevated risks, independent of confounders such as age at marriage, , and family background. Individuals with nine or more premarital partners exhibit the highest marital dissolution rates, with hazard ratios approximately 2-3 times those of persons marrying as virgins or with zero premarital partners other than their spouse. This pattern holds across genders, though some datasets indicate steeper gradients for women, where ten or more premarital partners associate with probabilities exceeding 30% within five years of marriage, compared to under 10% for those with two or fewer. Marital satisfaction and quality similarly decline with higher premarital partner counts. Research synthesizing multiple datasets finds that persons with extensive sexual histories prior to report lower levels of relationship dedication, confidence, and communication efficacy, alongside reduced overall in . These associations persist after controlling for premarital and socioeconomic factors, suggesting mechanisms beyond mere selection effects, such as diminished pair-bonding capacity or mismatched expectations. Casual sexual experiences during emerging adulthood further exacerbate risks, linking to poorer long-term relational outcomes like proneness and instability. On health outcomes, elevated lifetime sexual partners strongly predict increased (STI) incidence. Cohort studies among adolescents and young adults demonstrate that multiple sequential or concurrent partnerships raise STI acquisition odds by 2-5 fold, with overlapping relationships amplifying transmission via undetected infections. Adults reporting ten or more partners show higher prevalence of chronic STI sequelae, including and risks, per epidemiological data from surveys. Psychologically, frequent casual encounters correlate with subsequent depressive symptoms, anxiety, and diminished , as evidenced in prospective studies of college-aged samples tracking behaviors over multiple years. These findings underscore cumulative exposure risks, though protective behaviors like consistent use can mitigate but not eliminate them.

Controversies and normative debates

The concept of body count has sparked debates over its relevance to long-term relationship stability, with empirical data indicating that higher numbers of premarital sexual partners correlate with elevated risks. Analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) data from 2002–2013 revealed that women with ten or more premarital partners faced a five-year rate of 33 percent, compared to 6 percent for those with zero premarital partners other than their . Similarly, a 2023 study drawing on longitudinal datasets confirmed that nine or more lifetime partners prior to predict higher dissolution rates than fewer partners, attributing this partly to diminished pair-bonding capacity from repeated sexual experiences outside committed relationships. Critics, often from progressive media outlets, argue such correlations reflect outdated moralism rather than causation, yet the patterns persist across cohorts and control for variables like and , suggesting behavioral selectivity or impacts on attachment. Gender asymmetries fuel further contention, as men tend to express greater concern over partners' body counts due to evolutionary pressures favoring paternity assurance, while women prioritize emotional over numerical history. research posits that men perceive higher sexual intent in potential mates and are more distressed by physical , leading to preferences for lower-count partners to minimize cuckoldry risks—a observed cross-culturally in mate selection surveys. Women, conversely, show less aversion to men's higher counts, aligning with lower costs, though some studies note increasing female selectivity in egalitarian societies where resource provision gaps narrow. Normative disputes arise here: traditionalists view male selectivity as adaptive realism, while feminists decry it as patriarchal control or "slut-shaming," overlooking data on asymmetric STD transmission burdens borne by women from promiscuous male networks. Health implications intensify controversies, as elevated body counts demonstrably heighten (STI) risks through cumulative exposure. Prospective cohort studies link multiple partners to increased odds of , , and acquisition, with lifetime partner count serving as a stronger predictor than concurrent partnerships alone; for instance, individuals reporting ten or more partners exhibit up to 70 percent higher cancer risks tied to oncogenic viruses like HPV. Debates center on personal autonomy versus : proponents of unrestricted sexuality argue use and testing mitigate dangers, yet real-world adherence falters, with serial or concurrency amplifying transmission chains. Sources minimizing these risks, prevalent in mainstream outlets, often prioritize empowerment narratives over epidemiological data, reflecting institutional biases toward destigmatizing despite evidence of downstream societal costs like and treatment burdens. Normatively, body count disclosure remains divisive in dating contexts, with arguments for transparency clashing against privacy rights and potential judgment. Advocates for candor cite trust-building and compatibility screening, as mismatched values on sexual history predict relational discord; evolutionary models frame non-disclosure as deceptive signaling that erodes mate evaluation. Opponents contend inquiry itself objectifies individuals, reducing humans to metrics and perpetuating inequality, though this overlooks reciprocal preferences where high counts signal impulsivity or lower commitment thresholds. Religious and conservative perspectives emphasize moral hazards, linking high counts to eroded virtues like chastity, while secular libertarians defend it as harmless exploration; empirical trends, however, show stronger marital outcomes among those delaying or limiting partners, challenging narratives of experiential benefits. These debates underscore tensions between individual liberty and evidence-based mate choice, with data favoring caution over ideological dismissal.

References

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/body-count
  2. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/body-count
  3. https://warontherocks.com/2017/10/a-vicious-entanglement-part-v-the-body-count-myth/
  4. https://www.historynet.com/body-count-in-vietnam/
  5. https://www.warontherocks.com/2017/10/a-vicious-entanglement-part-v-the-body-count-myth/
  6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/205692
  7. https://tomdispatch.com/body-count-nation/
  8. https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/05/31/178263/the-dictatorship-of-data/
  9. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/persian-empire-counted-casualties.html
  10. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA621488.pdf
  11. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA149644.pdf
  12. https://www.icrc.org/en/download/file/20053/irrc-868-11.pdf
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8581199/
  14. https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/bb458a95-3331-4a96-b987-f4bc9f9fb6b6/search-and-destroy-campaigns-and-body-counts-video-ken-burns-lynn-novick-the-vietnam-war/
  15. https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/military-pressure-and-body-counts-in-afghanistan/
  16. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA609967.pdf
  17. https://www.justsecurity.org/63281/body-counts-are-terrible-way-for-the-public-to-assess-us-counter-terrorism-operations/
  18. https://academic.oup.com/jah/article/99/1/365/854883
  19. https://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=3720
  20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26098328
  21. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0968344511422312
  22. https://www.reuters.com/article/opinion/dont-believe-the-us-military-when-it-says-it-doesnt-keep-body-counts-idUS3965528362/
  23. https://www.csis.org/analysis/back-body-count-lack-reliable-data-wars-iraq-afghanistan-and-pakistan
  24. https://findmykids.org/blog/en/body-count-meaning
  25. https://www.slang.org/body-count-meaning-definition/
  26. https://popcrush.com/jessie-reyez-interview-body-count-single/
  27. https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/latto-body-count-lyrics-response-1235984821/
  28. https://www.familyeducation.com/gen-z-slang/body-count-meaning
  29. https://gabb.com/blog/teen-slang/
  30. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12607-1
  31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-024-10246-8
  32. https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049231165687
  33. https://ifstudies.org/blog/men-and-women-with-multiple-sex-partners-are-less-desirable-as-long-term-mates
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10989935/
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X22001119
  36. https://ifstudies.org/blog/number-6-in-2023-the-myth-of-sexual-experience
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7871523/
  38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12667734/
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054139X02007103
  40. https://srh.bmj.com/content/46/2/100
  41. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr110.pdf
  42. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.068437
  43. https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability
  44. https://ifstudies.org/blog/testing-common-theories-on-the-relationship-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability
  45. https://wheatley.byu.edu/00000187-7c64-d575-ad9f-7c77a1a40001/the-myth-of-sexual-experience-press-release-pdf
  46. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14681994.2019.1639657
  47. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/gender-equality-influences-how-people-choose-their-partners.html
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2744967/
  49. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1411843/
  50. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/more-sexual-partners-more-cancer-2020042819658
  51. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/multiple-sex-partners
  52. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/sexually-transmitted-diseases-stds/symptoms-causes/syc-20351240
  53. https://arfer.net/projects/galaxy/paper-gd
  54. https://medium.com/said-differently/why-body-count-is-a-terrible-sexual-phrase-91a874244afb
  55. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/premarital-sex-and-greater-risk-of-divorce/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.