Habeas Corpse Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 If you're a woman: 5 If you're a man: 17 According to a study. So, women especially. How many do you prefer and have you already gone over the average?
hoping2heal Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 I'm a woman and, I'm way under average. I would die a happy woman if the next man I have sex with, is the last. I've gone out and done my wild times at ridgemont high , just not sexually nor do I have the desire to do that, quite frankly. To me, I would be supremely happy just finding one person I could trust and have a good sex life with. I'm not all worried about variety, quantity etc. I mean, I've been banging the same woman for over ten years and every year it gets more enjoyable .
mogul Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 Either that estimate is super conservative or it does not reflect our current generation. I am just stepping in to my early twenties age wise and am half way there already. Most of the women i have been with are either at 5 or over 5 already in the age range of 19-24. I'm not sure if the survey polled university educated people? I am also quite curious as to what women's numbers are and the age. I am not sure if i have only been with really promiscuous women or just normal.
Bejita463 Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 I don't want to do it, but I've been given no choice in the matter:
SoulSearch_CO Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 I'm over the average and not entirely thrilled about it. I'd be as happy as can be if my BF were my last. LOL...that sounds depressing at first, but really, it shouldn't be.
SoulSearch_CO Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 I don't want to do it, but I've been given no choice in the matter: I'm not sure this wouldn't be more relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_U2yG3uZp0
nothappyjan Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 being a 23yr old virgin (due to lack of option, not religion etc) I would be happy to just meet one guy to have a relationship and sex with....but i think doing an "average" for something like that is silly, as people differ so much in their views on sex some people sleep with at least 10 different people a year some people one in a lifetime
Bejita463 Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 I'm not sure this wouldn't be more relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_U2yG3uZp0 Heh, it is more relevant to the thread as a whole probably, yes.
Lucky_One Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 I am trying to figure out how a 51-49 population can end up with such a disproportionate number of sexual partners. Think about Boy1 and Girl1. If B1 has sex with G1, and then B1 has sex with G2 and G1 has sex with B2, then they have both had sex with 2 partners. They then have sex with G3, G4, B3 and B4 - and both have had 4 sex partners. She continues sex with B4. But B1 is still out there getting it like a unfixed dog. So obviously there are just a few girls out there who will give it up to anyone in order for the boys to get so many sex partners. That's a little scary. Also amazing how people must still find it "ok" for a guy to be able to **** multiple girls and it means nothing but a notch in his belt, but a girl who does that is referred to as a ho or a bike.
Kamille Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 is anyone else disturbed by the fact that in the graph, 6 months old appear to have had at least one sexual partner?
LovieDove24 Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 is anyone else disturbed by the fact that in the graph, 6 months old appear to have had at least one sexual partner? Yes and apparantly 6 month old males are even a little further ahead than that at approximatly two sexual partners. The link to this graph appears as though it could have easily done by anyone bloke with a high school education and a computer made after the 1990's. With that being said, even if the "average" is 5 for women I would never divulge my number to the man I was dating because I think it only causes drama. I will say something rather "You aren't my first but lets see where this goes and hopefully you'll be my last ."
Sam Spade Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 I think it's perfectly fine to have a double standard in this case . given that women are entirely in control of sexual relationships, more than X number of partners simply reflects poor judgement . The first handful or so you can chalk on experimentation and bad luck. After that, harder to pull it off . Either way, no relationship material. (And in the absence of counsequences or the need for too much effort, guys will happily take anything they can:) - the women wouldn't - , hence the double standard.)
amymarieca Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 I think it's perfectly fine to have a double standard in this case . given that women are entirely in control of sexual relationships, more than X number of partners simply reflects poor judgement . The first handful or so you can chalk on experimentation and bad luck. After that, harder to pull it off . Either way, no relationship material. (And in the absence of counsequences or the need for too much effort, guys will happily take anything they can:) - the women wouldn't - , hence the double standard.) You can't possibly be serious...
Trialbyfire Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 Unless you're dead, you can't ever state a lifetime number...
paddington bear Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 the problem with these statistics is that who knows where they are gathered from. You've got people who don't believe in sex before marriage mingled in with highly active sexual people, so the averages get skewed - in fact I take any survey with a pinch of salt. Sam Spade, you're making assumptions. What if you are terminally single, like myself. My number of sexual partners are likely to be higher than someone who was in a LTR, then another LTR then another. The person in the LTR has actually had waaaaaay more sex than me, but because I've out of necessity had to break out ocassionally, because shock and horror, women like sex too. I would, by your standards be seen as some kind of slut woman not fit for a relationship whereas someone who's been f****d every which way over years and years by one partner is more preferable?
Author Habeas Corpse Posted May 31, 2009 Author Posted May 31, 2009 Yes and apparantly 6 month old males are even a little further ahead than that at approximatly two sexual partners. The link to this graph appears as though it could have easily done by anyone bloke with a high school education and a computer made after the 1990's. With that being said, even if the "average" is 5 for women I would never divulge my number to the man I was dating because I think it only causes drama. I will say something rather "You aren't my first but lets see where this goes and hopefully you'll be my last ." I hope this is a joke. The '6 month' cell is how many sexual partners the subjects prefer in that given time span. The study was done by Dr. David Buss, one of the world's leading evolutionary psychologists.
Author Habeas Corpse Posted May 31, 2009 Author Posted May 31, 2009 the problem with these statistics is that who knows where they are gathered from. You've got people who don't believe in sex before marriage mingled in with highly active sexual people, so the averages get skewed - in fact I take any survey with a pinch of salt. Random Sampling fixes that problem Sam Spade, you're making assumptions. What if you are terminally single, like myself. My number of sexual partners are likely to be higher than someone who was in a LTR, then another LTR then another. The person in the LTR has actually had waaaaaay more sex than me, but because I've out of necessity had to break out ocassionally, because shock and horror, women like sex too. I would, by your standards be seen as some kind of slut woman not fit for a relationship whereas someone who's been f****d every which way over years and years by one partner is more preferable? This is number of PREFERRED sexual partners, not actual.
mr.dream merchant Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Thats just how it is. People don't really twist their face up at a guy who gets laid by lots of girls. I don't. But its just programmed into me, its how I came up, to not only that, but look down on girls who get around. Its hypocritical, stupid, and double-standard as ****. But that's just how I grew up. A girl was always a hoe if she gave it up real easy. But the dude was always the mutha****in man if he was baggin on the chicks on the block. Its ****ed up when you think about it. But so are alot of other things in this world like females trapping dudes with children. So I don't feel too bad for holding that double standard. I don't even think twice about committing to a chick who's had a large number of partners. Its not like I even make an effort to blow her off, it just clicks in my brain. But it doesn't mean I wouldn't **** her no strings attached. Oh well, call me whatever you want, its how a dude was brought up. I've ****ed a couple of different loose chicks. The only reason they arent around now is because they wanted a relationship and I didn't see them fit because they gave it up to me so easy. It was a turn off really. But not too much of a turn off for me to get laid. Sucks I know, but alot of guys think like that. And girls to. I just couldnt take a freaky chick who gives it up easy serious. I'd just give it to her a couple times, and then call it quits. All the while I'm looking for a not so freaky chick to make my GF. My GF now was prude as **** when I met her, I hated it, but I'm glad she's like that. Took me two months to get in her pants. She sucked at ****ing. But I taught her alot. And I'm pretty happy with the whole thing now. And she's faithful as hell, so faithful its scary. But hey, that's what I want. If she was a loose ass chick we wouldn't have made it past a month.
Author Habeas Corpse Posted June 1, 2009 Author Posted June 1, 2009 That "double standard" is rooted in evolutionary biology. Men and women are different biologically, so naturally, we have different attitudes about each sex's sexual behavior. Women have to endure the cost of child bearing while men don't have to go through any physiological changes to reproduce. Because women go through the pain of pregnancy and birth, their standards are much higher. Plus, they can only have one child (excluding twins) basically once a year (excluding Irish twins). Men can have hundreds of kids in that time span, if he sleeps with enough women. So men are much more eager to have a sexual experience with a new partner than women.
IcemanJB Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Just for sake of argument, my number is 2, and of those two, their numbers were 3 and 2 respectively before me.
Author Habeas Corpse Posted June 1, 2009 Author Posted June 1, 2009 Remember this is PREFERRED number of partners, not actual. It says it in the thread title.
Trialbyfire Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 The number I prefer and the number that have happened, are in complete synch. It's below the supposed average of 5.
Kamille Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 The number I prefer and the number that have happened, are in complete synch. It's above the supposed average of 5. :laugh:
Trialbyfire Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 The number I prefer and the number that have happened, are in complete synch. It's above the supposed average of 5. :laugh: One of these things is not like the other, One of these things is not the same
Recommended Posts