Jump to content

The number of lifetime sexual partners you prefer is.....


While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

Posted
If you're a woman: 5

If you're a man: 17

 

Huh?? is this at once.. :laugh:

 

Gosh...I'm waaaayyyy over average (over 300) :o

 

No walls. :lmao:

  • Author
Posted
I wouldn't say that most men look down on women who sleep around. I have dated several men who wanted to know all the details of my sexual past because it was a turn on for them. They had the mentality that the more partners I had, the sexier I was. Some men just get off on women who are very sexual.

The point of the survey was to test Buss's theory that men prefer more sexual partners than women. Hardly surprising, but without scientific data such speculation is useless.

Posted

SamSpade:

This is an absurd statement that supposes that ALL long term relationships are healthy and mutually respectful. It also assumes that a man who is not monogamous does not respect women. And then it's summed up with an unprovable (99% of women are going to agree).

 

 

It's far from absurd. Infact, it's just plain common sense. In the majority of cases, a woman has a better chance with a man that is more ready to committ to a woman instead of having beded dozens of women. Now all men that committ are good men. Not all men that sleep around are bad. I do agree with that. But the truth remains that in most cases, his history backs up his game.

 

Which might be one reason why women are attracted to men that are already partnered. Because for women, commitment to one woman is VERY attractive in MOST cases to women. A woman is going to go by what a man has done. Of course my percentage was thrown in just to make a point and isn't based on any studies. But I think you get the gist of what I am saying. Feel free to make a seperate post to examine my comments futher if you don't believe me. Most women are attracted to men that have the ability to commit to her strictly.

 

 

But, apparently, it's perfectly okay for a woman to sow her oats and not a man. Typical hypocritical B.S. So if it's a guy, it's skanky, but if it's a girl, that's just our modern age. I guess women can't catch STDs!

 

That's not what I said at all. I didn't say it wasn't okay for men to sow his oats and for women it was. I was mearly talking about the polor opposite sides. The standard is that it's okay for guys to sleep around, it's not okay for girls. I was mearly addressing the opposite spectrum on both sides. As a woman, *I* personally would prefer a man that hasn't slept with alot of women. As a woman, *I* haven't slept with alot of man. As a woman, I totally understand why some women and men might want to bed alot of partners. Doesn't change the fact that a man that is able to committ IS attractive to women. That's also biology my friend.

 

 

Here's some truth for you. Of course a woman can go out and get what she wants. Just about any woman, any hour of the day, can walk outside her home, and with minimal effort, find a man to have sex with. That's why prostitution is the world's oldest profession. It's also why the double-standard (the slut/stud double standard) will never go away. From a breeding (read: sexual partner) standpoint, promiscuity is advantageous to men, while selectivity is advantageous to women.

 

Do you know that nature also dictates that a woman find a mate that is both the best provider for her with the best genes for her off spring? Of course, that's a very hard combination to find. It's been documented that females will find a good provider in one man, and find the man with the best genes in the other. Not exactly the selectivity you had in mind when it came to women is it.

 

I bring this point up to illustrate that just because we can justify behaviors based on nature, doesn't mean they should apply to how we live our life. We are capable of living beyond that. In this day and age, I am not so sure it's in the best interest anymore of the man to "spread his seed". And frankly, I get tired of that excuse. I thought men had their own brains and were not just drones to making excuses based on biology.

 

While I see the point you are making. It remains that calling a woman a name for enjoying sex is a way for men to remain social control over women who are infact, just as sexual of creatures as men. Funny that men want women to be so sexual but only on their terms. It no longer works that way. Women want to enjoy their sexuality. We were created to be just as sexual. And we can be turned on by variety just as much as men can. Label us with names but with each generation less and less women care and want to enjoy the freedom of their sexuality just as men have enjoyed for eons. I don't see it going back anytime soon.

 

 

However, there will always be the truism that an overly promiscuous woman is a slut. You can dress it up with whatever feminist b.s. you want, but that's how it is. Otherwise, why don't we just legalize prostitution? Hookers are the ones on the farthest end of the bell curve, and they're savvy enough to make a buck off of it. "My body, my choice" - feminists should be all for it.

 

That's not a truism of nature though. The truism is based on social law goverened by a male domianted society to control the sexual nature of women. Nature doesnt' call a woman a slut for being promsicuous, other human beings do. It has nothing to do with feminist ideas.

 

 

 

For example, a woman can have a lot of sexual partners simply by submitting herself, being a convenient receptacle. No skills required for or learned from that.

 

And it is comments like these that are so damanging to women. Refering to them as nothing but "receptcales" while you attach no degrading dogmatic comments to men for their own prolictivities.

Posted
And it is comments like these that are so damaging to women. Referring to them as nothing but "receptcales" while you attach no degrading dogmatic comments to men for their own prolictivities.

 

I say it because it is true, and it is those women who make the choice to be a receptacle. I choose a different path with my sexuality. If that "damages" them, so be it. They deserve the damage. I'm frankly tired of supporting women and listening to their bullshyte emotional crap. The inverse of the vaginal receptacle is the emotional receptacle and I've been one of those. Thanks to discourse with women like you, I'm happy to say that era is now over. Thank god :)

Posted
It's far from absurd. Infact, it's just plain common sense. In the majority of cases, a woman has a better chance with a man that is more ready to committ to a woman instead of having beded dozens of women. Now all men that committ are good men. Not all men that sleep around are bad. I do agree with that. But the truth remains that in most cases, his history backs up his game.

 

the choice to fully commit to a partner is absolutely unrelated to sexual history. A relationship is a whole lot more than "ok, now I'm gonna stop f*cking other people" - it's a complete lifestyle change. i'd be hard pressed to believe that whether someone had a girlfriend/boyfriend in college, or chose to "sow oats" or whatever while there and hence has a higher "number" has anything to do with their ability to sustain a relationship as an adult.

 

to apply common sense as you stated earlier, think of it this way. Someone that has dated/experienced/been with a fair number of the opposite sex is much more apt to be sure of their decision when they have selected "the one" than someone that marries their high school sweetheart. this is purely speculation on my part, but I have a feeling that "I wonder if the grass is greener on the other side" syndrome is the culprit in most infidelity. someone that has not had a lot of experience with other members of the opposite sex (whether intercourse is invovled or not) is much more likely to feel this syndrome.

Posted

Thanks to discourse with women like you, I'm happy to say that era is now over. Thank god :)

 

You don't know what type of women I am to even make that statement.

 

 

the choice to fully commit to a partner is absolutely unrelated to sexual history. A relationship is a whole lot more than "ok, now I'm gonna stop f*cking other people" - it's a complete lifestyle change. i'd be hard pressed to believe that whether someone had a girlfriend/boyfriend in college, or chose to "sow oats" or whatever while there and hence has a higher "number" has anything to do with their ability to sustain a relationship as an adult.

 

Of course a relationship has alot more to it. The fact remains that people look at people's histories to determine future behavior. That's true around the board for sex, or other actions.

 

 

to apply common sense as you stated earlier, think of it this way. Someone that has dated/experienced/been with a fair number of the opposite sex is much more apt to be sure of their decision when they have selected "the one" than someone that marries their high school sweetheart. this is purely speculation on my part, but I have a feeling that "I wonder if the grass is greener on the other side" syndrome is the culprit in most infidelity. someone that has not had a lot of experience with other members of the opposite sex (whether intercourse is invovled or not) is much more likely to feel this syndrome.

 

The grass is always greeener syndrome is dependent on how happy a person feels with themselves, not based on what they have or haven't done by a certain point in life. While I agree, alot of people can feel the grass is always greener syndrome, I don't think "sowing your wild oats" means that you "get things out of your system". I think it coud quite possibly fuel more of the same behavior.

Posted
I say it because it is true, and it is those women who make the choice to be a receptacle. I choose a different path with my sexuality. If that "damages" them, so be it. They deserve the damage. I'm frankly tired of supporting women and listening to their bullshyte emotional crap. The inverse of the vaginal receptacle is the emotional receptacle and I've been one of those. Thanks to discourse with women like you, I'm happy to say that era is now over. Thank god :)

 

 

Whew! Carhill, you've been on a roll. One's tolerance for demanding, spiteful or clingy women does decline with age (and sex drive). It is liberating, however, to no longer be in the thrall. :)

Posted

For all we know, this poll could have been done on ten women and ten men.

 

Five women said they preferred to have 20 sexual partners, and the other five said 4 partners... All are different ages, all have different religious standards, etc., etc.. same with the men.

 

Get where I"m going with this?

 

;)

 

Statistics are quite entertaining.

Posted
For all we know, this poll could have been done on ten women and ten men.

 

Five women said they preferred to have 20 sexual partners, and the other five said 4 partners... All are different ages, all have different religious standards, etc., etc.. same with the men.

 

Get where I"m going with this?

 

;)

 

Statistics are quite entertaining.

 

I think that would average to 12 then...

 

But really, I guess those results aren't surprising. I guess I am in the minority of women when I say I would love to have many sex partners, certainly more than 5, I've exceeded that already and I'm only 22.

Posted

another thing is are they polling only single men and women?

 

obviously my answer would vary greatly between now and two years ago!

Posted

So obviously there are just a few girls out there who will give it up to anyone in order...

 

Why is sexual activity viewed as something a female "gives up" instead of something she "enjoys", or at least "mutually partakes in"?

  • Author
Posted
For all we know, this poll could have been done on ten women and ten men.

 

Five women said they preferred to have 20 sexual partners, and the other five said 4 partners... All are different ages, all have different religious standards, etc., etc.. same with the men.

 

Get where I"m going with this?

 

;)

 

Statistics are quite entertaining.

No, I don't see where you're going with this. You have to actually know something about statistics before you find faults with its methodology. Maybe you can go to CERN and discredit particle physics with your arguments from ignorance.

 

Buss and Schmitt [Psychol. Rev. 100 (1993) 204–232] found that men report preferring more sex partners than women do. Pedersen, Miller, Putcha-Bhagavatula, and Yang et al. [Psychol. Sci. 13 (2002) 157–161] reanalyzed the data of Buss and Schmitt and also collected their own. They found no sex differences in either data set. We show that, when appropriate graphical and statistical methods are used, men clearly report preferring more partners. At all comparable locations on curves showing cumulative number of desired partners, men report preferring more than three times as many partners as women do. Furthermore, the data show that men and women who desire between one and about five desired partners over their lifetime come from a normal distribution, with a standard deviation of about 5. Thus it is incorrect to conclude that men and women who desire more that one lifetime sexual partner come from a different population than those who want only one. We discuss the implication of the data for sexual strategies theory [Psychol. Rev. 100 (1993) 204–232] and attachment fertility theory (AFT; Miller & Fishkin, 1997).
Posted
Why is sexual activity viewed as something a female "gives up" instead of something she "enjoys", or at least "mutually partakes in"?

 

I imagine it is because some men want a woman to "submit" to them. They have no idea we want it just as much as they do.:)

Posted
Why is sexual activity viewed as something a female "gives up" instead of something she "enjoys", or at least "mutually partakes in"?

 

thank you thank you THANK YOU!

 

I don't feel as if I've "given up" anything when I sleep with a guy. I enjoy it and have fun and if it doesn't work out I certainly don't regret sleeping with him. I enjoy experiencing a new person and new things.

 

And, more frequently than not, the guy ends up wanting to pursue a relationship and I'm like, "eh, it was just sex dude..."

 

Luckily I met what *might* be my perfect match about a year ago...and he really could care less about how many partners I've had.

Posted

I don't think when I'm on my deathbed I'm going to worry about this. Rather, I'll worry about whether I did the things that made me happy, in a meaningful vs. an instant-gratification way.

Posted
thank you thank you THANK YOU!

 

I don't feel as if I've "given up" anything when I sleep with a guy. I enjoy it and have fun and if it doesn't work out I certainly don't regret sleeping with him. I enjoy experiencing a new person and new things.

 

And, more frequently than not, the guy ends up wanting to pursue a relationship and I'm like, "eh, it was just sex dude..."

 

Luckily I met what *might* be my perfect match about a year ago...and he really could care less about how many partners I've had.

 

Does he wrap it up when he's massaging that funky tuna?

Posted
Does he wrap it up when he's massaging that funky tuna?

 

That was childish and completely uncalled for. Grow up.

Posted
That was childish and completely uncalled for. Grow up.

 

Close up. ;)

  • Author
Posted
I don't think when I'm on my deathbed I'm going to worry about this. Rather, I'll worry about whether I did the things that made me happy, in a meaningful vs. an instant-gratification way.

It's perfectly logical for one to worry about his or her "reproductive success". Propogating one's genes is the most meaningful thing one can do.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
It's perfectly logical for one to worry about his or her "reproductive success". Propogating one's genes is the most meaningful thing one can do.

 

 

Rally? So, do you want baby mamas all over or are you saying you want to make sure that you have a family, or at least one kid in your lifetime? Are you a sperm donor? Or have you applied to be one?

Posted

Dang, I'm a woman and I hit triple digits while still in my 20s (which was 20 years ago...)

 

Of course, now, I haven't had any in MONTHS, but that's another story! :mad:

×
×
  • Create New...