Do you really care how many partners a woman has been with?

[Angel1111]

It's got nothing to do with being considered easy or with women "getting in touch with their sexuality". In fact, I've never heard of anyone rejecting a woman because she was too in touch with her sexuality. What a bizarre thing to say.

 

Here's why some men dislike women who have been around the block too many times. In my observation, girls who sleep around a lot don't sleep with just anybody. Their short-term flings are inevitably with guys who are out of their league for the purpose of long-term relationships. So they have their fun with the typical hot guys who have zero interest in anything more serious with them. At the same time, the typical 'average' guy is getting blue balls (as evidenced by the multitude of posts from frustrated men on these forum) because he's too short, or too bald, too unhip, too middle class, or too whatever.

 

At some point, the fun loving gal decides that she wants to get married and have kids and reluctantly realizes that she will have to settle down for an 'average guy'. And this average guy, who is now 30+, is all of a sudden a much hotter commodity than he was in his 20s. He is out of college, established in life, and is suddenly in demand with women whose biological clock has hit the eleventh hour. But all these years of rejection and frustration have made him resentful. And now that he has the upper hand hand in the dating world, it's not surprising that he is biased against women who have been sleeping around with the 'cool' guys while avoiding men like him.

 

Although I don't think it's a good idea for either sex to have had a multitude of sex partners (just my opinion), I think you're making a lot of assumptions about a woman who might not be married in her 30's. This might be a small majority of women you're talking about, but it's definitely not the majority. And the idea that women are the ones who are particular about looks is just downright funny. Men are far more guilty of being hung up on looks than women ever will be.

[Angel1111]

I never realized it until now but there are a lot of jaded and bitter men out there. It's really sad.

[jw90063]

I never realized it until now but there are a lot of jaded and bitter men out there. It's really sad.

 

Why until now? There seems to have been many on this site for a good while.

[CaliGuy]

This is actually a good argument as to why those "average" guys in their 30s should go for younger women.

 

Agreed, especially if you have your stuff together.

[CaliGuy]

I never realized it until now but there are a lot of jaded and bitter men out there. It's really sad.

 

Why until now? There seems to have been many on this site for a good while.

 

Not all of us are jaded and bitter. From what I have seen it's mostly men who have a complex over some part of their anatomy they feel is inferior to other men (height, looks, Johnson, etc).

 

Those men blame their inability to maintain a healthy relationship on non-sensical things they have no control over instead of where they blame should be placed: On their attitudes.

 

Personally, it's "bad attitudes" and "insecurities" which are why these men fail at relationships. Not their physical attributes.

[Ruby Slippers]

Just as reflected in the OP, compartmentalization accepted, be aware, just like men's compartmentalization has affected you (women) and your choices and preferences in partners, yours will affect men and their perception of and choices in partners.

In my life, the men who have been the least threatened by my sexual past have had the most desirable qualities overall. They are, for the most part, confident in themselves and their own sexual skill, and seek a woman who is sexually confident and open as well.

 

On the other hand, those who were threatened by my sexual past were also insecure, controlling, and stingy/selfish/self-absorbed.

 

If a potential partner cannot understand that it's hard to find a good partner and I've had a fling or two during single times along the way, it won't hurt my feelings if he moves along.

[Chicago_Guy]

How so? All the men on LS claim that when are in their 20s they want the thugs & players but when they hit 30+ years old they want the average guys.

 

So wouldn't the new batch of 20 somethings be doing the same thing

 

Those guys are incorrect. A decent and successful guy in his 30s can be very attractive to a lot of women in their mid-late 20s.

[carhill]

If a potential partner cannot understand that it's hard to find a good partner and I've had a fling or two during single times along the way, it won't hurt my feelings if he moves along.

That's actually perfect. I love being a devil's advocate

 

Now, next, is a man's interest in your relationship history deemed to be a negative trait? Why? Presumably, that perspective would align with your interest in his relationship history, yes?

 

For example, if most of his 'number' took place outside of relationships, would that have any meaning for you? Take your own numbers and project those upon him for discussion purposes. Theoretically, with equal numbers, you should be compatible in that regard, both from an experience standpoint as well as a sexual/relationship preference standpoint. In your actual experience, did you find such a correlation? IOW, was there any correlation between the 'threatened' subset of males and the 'confident' subset of males, wrt to the numbers? Was parity 'better'? 'Worse'? Statistically meaningful?

 

To be honest, I think *most* men in this thread are trying to present an authentic representation of how we view the numbers dynamic and what weight we give it in interpersonal relationships. Personally, as I've said before, I've dated (and married one) women with far higher 'numbers' and never found it to be threatening at all. Sex, to me, isn't about that. Other men have different perspectives. Hopefully, some clarity will result. Like you said, it's hard to find an appropriate partner and IMO understanding dynamics like presented in this thread is part of that equation.

[Ruby Slippers]

Now, next, is a man's interest in your relationship history deemed to be a negative trait? Why? Presumably, that perspective would align with your interest in his relationship history, yes?

Not at all, and I have always been honest. It's just that as I get older, I care less about the number. Now, enjoying each other in the present and moving in the same direction is the goal. I don't care as much what he's done in the past. Extreme numbers (0 or 100 partners) would warrant discussion, but other than that, I'm not that concerned.

 

For example, if most of his 'number' took place outside of relationships, would that have any meaning for you?

Maybe. But that fact could have any of multiple meanings, so I wouldn't just assume he's a player, or make whatever other assumptions.

 

Theoretically, with equal numbers, you should be compatible in that regard, both from an experience standpoint as well as a sexual/relationship preference standpoint.

99% of the sex I've had in my life has been in committed relationships, and I'd say that men I've had relationships with have been in a similar range -- maybe 95% for them, but very close. If a potential partner told me his number was more like 50%, I really don't think I'd care. As long as he's capable of enjoying sex with me in all its forms (from down & dirty fun to sweet luv-makin'), and we are compatible in the other important ways, we're cool.

 

One of my exes was a virgin -- another had had about 20 partners and a MMF threesome in his early 20s. I wasn't fazed by either.

 

IOW, was there any correlation between the 'threatened' subset of males and the 'confident' subset of males, wrt to the numbers? Was parity 'better'? 'Worse'? Statistically meaningful?

In general, the more threatened the guy, the lower HIS number. The more confident the guy, the higher his number.

[Woggle]

The fact of the matter is that women who are more sexual are more likely to cheat. Ruby Slippers herself has advocated women marry a provider and have a baby by some stud so with that mentality why should any man trust her?

[Johnny M]

And the idea that women are the ones who are particular about looks is just downright funny. Men are far more guilty of being hung up on looks than women ever will be.

That's the illusion that women have been desperately trying to maintain in an effort to position themselves as somehow being 'less shallow' than men. But only a total idiot would actually believe that women care less about looks than men do.

[carhill]

R_S, how would rate the 'virgin' on your scale of confident to threatened?

 

Lastly, retrospectively, assuming you aren't still with one of the gentleman (I don't believe you are), did you find any meaningful connection between your perceived perspective of them (confident versus threatened) and your ultimate compatibility?

[Ruby Slippers]

R_S, how would rate the 'virgin' on your scale of confident to threatened?

He was the anomaly and in many ways the exception of the bunch. (He is the only one I am still truly friends with.) I would say he was slightly threatened at first, but once we were solidly a couple, not at all threatened. So, on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most confident/least threatened, he went from a 9 to a 10.

 

Lastly, retrospectively, assuming you aren't still with one of the gentleman (I don't believe you are), did you find any meaningful connection between your perceived perspective of them (confident versus threatened) and your ultimate compatibility?

I had the best success overall with the most confident of the bunch. The less confident the guy was, the more controlling and mean he was to me, which decreased my happiness. So, my happiness and perception of compatibility increased in direct proportion to my partner's overall confidence.

[carhill]

So, to conclude, generally speaking, confidence and compatibility flow from a higher number of partners by your prospective mate. That's good information, moving forward. It certainly will help to more quickly sort the various potentials who approach. TBH, I've found a similar, if inverse, relationship, so I will use that good information to do the same. I appreciate the help.

 

Also, happy to hear you had and have a good friendship with the virgin. Virgins get a bad rap around here, undeservedly so, IMO.

[You'reasian]

He was the anomaly and in many ways the exception of the bunch. (He is the only one I am still truly friends with.) I would say he was slightly threatened at first, but once we were solidly a couple, not at all threatened. So, on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most confident/least threatened, he went from a 9 to a 10.

 

I had the best success overall with the most confident of the bunch. The less confident the guy was, the more controlling and mean he was to me, which decreased my happiness. So, my happiness and perception of compatibility increased in direct proportion to my partner's overall confidence.

 

Some women are comfortable in their own skin are very, very trustworthy and great partners - they seem to bring out the confidence in men.

[carhill]

There are realities to that comfort level, however. Don't know how that fits into the dynamic though. I'd still be inclined to take it at face value.

[Lizzie60]

For those who say that it's a 'deal breaker' or a 'turn-off' ... my question:

 

How exactly do you think you'll know for sure... I can't believe someone who had numerous partners.. would be dumb enough to divulge the numbers... honestly...

 

For example.. if you ask him/her.. and she says a number (any number).. how do you know that this number is 'real'... really... give me a break!

[carhill]

I match up words with actions. Being observant is a gift not only applicable to women. I know you, Lizzie, think men are dolts who can easily be deceived. That's OK; I like that

[Stockalone]

For example.. if you ask him/her.. and she says a number (any number).. how do you know that this number is 'real'... really... give me a break!

 

Self-absorbed people will lie, that's a risk we have to take. Still, I do hope that most people are honest enough not to lie.

 

As far as finding out is concerned, sometimes certain information will come to light and then we know they lied.

[Lizzie60]

I match up words with actions. Being observant is a gift not only applicable to women. I know you, Lizzie, think men are dolts who can easily be deceived. That's OK; I like that

 

 

Hum... not sure what 'dolts' means.. but if it's negative.. I disagree... I love men... but to think that men/women would tell their 'date' (if they are really interested in them) how many partners they had.. is completely naive... (if the number is high)... I'm not talking about 2-3 partners.. but let's say they had more than 25 for example... if they know it would turn off their 'date' they will simply lie about it.. and to think otherwise is stupid..

[Lizzie60]

Self-absorbed people will lie, that's a risk we have to take. Still, I do hope that most people are honest enough not to lie.

 

As far as finding out is concerned, sometimes certain information will come to light and then we know they lied.

 

and how exactly can you prove they lie (without a doubt)... if you are in love with the person...

 

Imagine... most BS who finds out their partner is cheating.. will believe the 'liar' unless they caught him during the 'act'...

[samspade]

About this topic - I wouldn't ask or want to know. Even if a woman tells you, she's probably lying anyway. In any case, a female will eventually communicate her history to you, even if it's not overtly communicated. Actions, anecdotes, behavior, inclinations...these will tell you more than any number.

 

I just read something on another site, "If you had a key that opened any lock, you'd consider that a great key, a master key. But if you had a lock that could be opened by any key - well, that's a pretty terrible lock."

 

I just thought it was a funny way to illustrate the ol' double standard.

[BUENG1]

About this topic - I wouldn't ask or want to know. Even if a woman tells you, she's probably lying anyway. In any case, a female will eventually communicate her history to you, even if it's not overtly communicated. Actions, anecdotes, behavior, inclinations...these will tell you more than any number.

 

I just read something on another site, "If you had a key that opened any lock, you'd consider that a great key, a master key. But if you had a lock that could be opened by any key - well, that's a pretty terrible lock."

 

I just thought it was a funny way to illustrate the ol' double standard.

 

Being heterosexual in and of itself is a double standard. People are only concerned with double standards that do not benefit themselves .

[Ruby Slippers]

I just read something on another site, "If you had a key that opened any lock, you'd consider that a great key, a master key. But if you had a lock that could be opened by any key - well, that's a pretty terrible lock."

 

I just thought it was a funny way to illustrate the ol' double standard.

This whole idea about men's number being a badge of some sort because they had to work for it, and women's being a black mark because they didn't, I find silly. Men might have to work harder to have sex at all, but women have to work just as hard to have sex with men we want to have sex with. Sure, we can walk out the door and find a dozen men we could have sex with. But we have to work just as hard as men to find someone we want to have sex with, as we are generally much more selective and have higher standards for sexual partners.

 

Sex is not about operating your key or being a gatekeeper (unless you are manipulative). It's about pleasure, connection, the expression of desire or love, fun, or any combination of these elements.

[Stockalone]

and how exactly can you prove they lie (without a doubt)... if you are in love with the person...

 

Imagine... most BS who finds out their partner is cheating.. will believe the 'liar' unless they caught him during the 'act'...

 

Even though I prefer a confession, reasonable doubt will sometimes be enough.

 

Besides, most women who have a higher number aren't keen on being in a relationship with a guy who would judge them if he knew the truth. Some women will find it offensive to even be asked, no matter what number they might have. They usually tell me it's none of my business.

 

And, not everyone is as devious as you Lizzie. As far as BS are concerned, wanting proof makes sense. That's what PI's are for, but even without proof, if there are too many coincidences, it's most likely true.

 

And should I ever catch someone in the act, that's when all those neat little things I learned in the army, like hand-to-hand combat, will be useful.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Stockalone