ThaWholigan Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 I'm actually quite liberal in my views about sex compared to most of my family. I'm not too bothered about numbers really - like Woggle said, there are other factors, such as cheating, that are more pressing than how many people she actually had sex with. 1
Pompom Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 Yeah. The first is the strongest in my eyes, unless you've already resigned sex to being nothing more than a recreational activity with a multitude of people. Actually, the first was intense on a physical/horny level, but it was utterly meaningless otherwise. I don't regret it though. Believe it or not, my best and most meaningful and strong as you call it, was number XX7 and it couldn't have felt any better if it had been my first; I'm actually sure it would have been awkward and the parting even more painful than this way. But this is my point of view, and only reflects itself. 1
jcrew11 Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 "Past sexual partners" is far more of a hang-up for men towards their GF's than the other way round. (this board is testimony to that....) There is still enormous stigma against a woman having had 15 past partners, than there is against a man who's had 15 past partners. a guy has 'sown his wild oats' a gal is a tramp. Double-standards doesn't cover it. Maybe it's about 'putting something in', as opposed to 'taking something in'. The former can be withdrawn, the latter is somehow tainted....? I have no idea..... FWIW - me at 55 - 6 in total. Including present H. H - at 50 - over 100. Mostly ONS. I give a damn.... I think its odd that women complain about the "Double Standards" of promiscuity. I'll be honest, in most cases, men are lying about their promiscuity. While some people may think it should be okay for women to be MORE promiscuous - there are real consequences for promiscuous women, primarily getting pregnant from absentee boyfriends. Its a defense mechanism to protect themselves and other women into "slut-shaming" to prevent women from raising children as single moms. Men look down on promiscuous women because they are afraid she will cheat on him (and possibly get pregnant by another man) which the other boyfriend/husband will have to support another guy's child. Women foolishly look up to promiscuous men and players like George Clooney, because they have the charm to get a lot of women and live a playboy bachelor lifestyle. Women don't want to date virgin Nerds because they have no charisma. On the flip side, even average-looking women can become promiscuous and find men (ugly or attractive) to hook up with really easily. Whereas, nerdy ugly men cannot engage in promiscuity even they wanted to. Bottom line, if there are promiscuous men out there, its because women allow these Male Players to live a promiscuous lifestyle, and get away with it. You can choose not to date a man who has slept with 100 women, but then there would be no fun.
carhill Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 If she's had more partners than I've had years on the planet, in addition to LTR's/M's, I'd be a little concerned, but my main concern would be her marital and family history. My partner count is low, and always within LTR's/M, so I feel I've been liberal in this perspective.
jcrew11 Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 Not as much as Englishmen do in Australia.... the pattern in this thread seems to be the usual.... women really don't seem to care too much about previous body counts. men seem to think it's more of an issue....STD's, 'purity', that kind of thing.... Its odd that the fear of AIDS has almost dissipated. In the 1980s and 1990's when Magic Johnson announced he had Aids, I think a lot of people got scared from promiscuity. Now with the easy access to condoms, it seems promiscuity is more popular than ever. But there is the fear that promiscuous men and women can get diseases easier.
ASG Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 There is no number that is too high. As long as they're not cheaters, I'm ok with it.
TaraMaiden Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 I promise - I swear - the next time I spot a new thread from a guy complaining about his GF's sexual past and how he 'can't get over it' - I'm gonna blow an alert trumpet to tell everyone in this thread, who says numbers don't matter, to comment.... 1
joystickd Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 For me it's not about how many its more about how you feel about that number. If you feel bad to the point where you feel a high level of shame about it then you are have issues. If you are willing to own up to it then its cool. Hell my first sexual experience was with someone known as the Wal-Mart whore so I really have no problem with promiscuous women. I just have a problem with the one that feel bad and hide what they have done to the point where they portray a false image of what they are. I'm mainly focused on gangbangs and videotapes. I want to know if you have done those. Absolute dealbreakers for me. I don't tape myself nor will I participate in a gangbang. 1
Pompom Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 For me it's not about how many its more about how you feel about that number. If you feel bad to the point where you feel a high level of shame about it then you are have issues. If you are willing to own up to it then its cool. Basically I agree, however even though personally I feel no shame and I enjoyed my wild time, I also have to consider the other person's stance which may be less open-minded. Telling someone he's number 339 can be quite a bombshell and not everyone will stick around. And I don't consider it lying to say "Many" or "Wild times" instead of an exact number. And I also think everyone should be allowed a secret as long as they don't affect the present.
oracle Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 No. Double digits is where I draw the line. So 90 is ok but 101 is not? 2
Titanwolf Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 So 90 is ok but 101 is not? I don't know what you're getting at. >9 and I don't want to know.
oracle Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 I don't know what you're getting at. >9 and I don't want to know. I am seeking clarification on a statement you made? Im not sure what is confusing...
TaraMaiden Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 I don't know what you're getting at. >9 and I don't want to know. you mentioned 'double digits'. 10 - 99 is - double digits. Why would 10 be acceptable, but 99 not....? I think is what his question meant..... and in fact, it's not a bad question.
Titanwolf Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 you mentioned 'double digits'. 10 - 99 is - double digits. Why would 10 be acceptable, but 99 not....? I think is what his question meant..... and in fact, it's not a bad question. Ok, allow me to clarify. Crossing over into double digits is when I lose interest.
Titanwolf Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 Why? (10 Characters) Is a letter with a long tail. It would require me to go into a lot of detail, which would probable scorch your eyes. I can say that, considering my age range begins at 20 and ends at 40, doing the maths using what I deem as a LTR (3 years+), I don't see how a woman can have such a high "body count" as you put it. Unless she's fond of one night stands, in which case, I'm not interested, it would be at most 6 people (if they only had sex in a LTR ,with the same person with no downtime after they split, going into another relationship). I know that some women become sexually active before the age of 20, but even then, from age 15 (let's say) to 20, your "body count" would still only be 8 people (possibly 9) by the time you reached 40 (if we're still going by what I deem, a LTR). How many men could you have slept with, that you could honestly say you loved? and if it's a hefty number, I seriously question those people's definition of love. People often confuse infatuation and lust, with love these days. Call me very old fashioned. My view is probably very unusual in this day and age, but then I've always detested the fact that I was born into this era.
TaraMaiden Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 "numbers" are absolute hogwash... you can have a slutty person who's only had sex with 4 partners, but whose behaviour in bed is overtly exhibitionist - or a person who's had 'double-figure' experiences, but isn't all that well-versed, and is into vanilla sex.... it's not numbers - it's attitude.
Titanwolf Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 "numbers" are absolute hogwash... you can have a slutty person who's only had sex with 4 partners, but whose behaviour in bed is overtly exhibitionist - or a person who's had 'double-figure' experiences, but isn't all that well-versed, and is into vanilla sex.... it's not numbers - it's attitude. I agree, you're right. I'd have no reserves in the bedroom when it came to the woman I love. Though it's not the prowess that concerns me. It's the ability to detach from sex to such a degree that you're able to have sex with 492 partners (yes, someone has confessed to this before), it eludes me.
joystickd Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 Overall men realize that women attach sex with emotions, attraction, etc. Numbers matter to some men because they see that as an indicator that this person is not the stereotypical woman. I mean 100 men and a man can wonder if she has sex like a man. It would be a problem to some men to date a woman that is perceived to approach dating and relationships like a man. Some heterosexual man don't want to date like that. Also on some level when it comes to something like this women are held to a higher standard than men. At the end of the day its a preference and as a woman why waste the energy on a judgmental man. Every action has a consequence good or bad.
Pompom Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 Well Joystick, that is a pretty one-sided way of looking at it. Not all women are emotional about sex, and not all men are not. I myself can have it both ways, emotionally significant, and as a sport, and I don't think of myself as less feminine for it. I've just returned from a duckface-and-bows photo session...
joystickd Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 Well Joystick, that is a pretty one-sided way of looking at it. Not all women are emotional about sex, and not all men are not. I myself can have it both ways, emotionally significant, and as a sport, and I don't think of myself as less feminine for it. I've just returned from a duckface-and-bows photo session... i just offered another perspective and it maybe a reason men see it that way. Why get bent out of shape about a preference anyway?
Pompom Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 I didn't get bent out of shape, I just didn't think generalizing and reinforcing gender roles was a good idea.
joystickd Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 I didn't get bent out of shape, I just didn't think generalizing and reinforcing gender roles was a good idea. Reinforcing gender roles lol. Well women reinforce gender roles too. I will say mention that women should approach and you will get a reinforcement of gender roles. Like I said its what that particular man wants. There is a man out there that doesn't have an issue with it. I just offered a perspective on it.
Recommended Posts