Titania22 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 When someone loses count the number is probably too high. Most people will lie anyway. I'm guilty of it. What if you were married for 10yrs and didn't think you needed to remember the number and then one day found yourself divorced. Sometimes forgetting isn't about a number being large, but rather so much time passing, and also thinking you won't need the information again. The same could be said about calculus for most people. (i.e. if you never use the information you forget the information).
candie13 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Candie is not super bright...there are decent women out there well, the good Lord was generous with me and gave a pair of killer legs and an firm arse that compensate for that, can't complain .
candie13 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 If your number of partners exceeds your number of days on earth so far X 3, that's too high a number. Algebra, OMG... you know what my favorite saying was, until I read your post? "Another day has passed, another day when I haven't used algebra!!" Thanks for ruining that for me ! soo... if there are 7 days a week and 4 weeks a month... how many years did you say I should be counting, again? siiiiighhhhh!
ASG Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 I'm not trolling, I have serious insecurities that I need to address before I can enter any relationship. I generally believe people become promiscuous once they have had sex with a partner more than five times. But that is a WRONG definition of promiscuity. Surely you must understand that! Also, since being promiscuous has a bad connotation, why do you equate havng sex WITH THE SAME PARTNER as being promiscuous?? Surely you'd thing that's a good thing, no??? Or should we all just be celibate for the entirety of our lives??
ltjg45 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 I couldn't help but to be curious how many females would be turned off if I told them my number is 0 at the age of 26.....
candie13 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 To me, this would mean that you may have some issues with your social integration skills - and I say it off the top of my head, since I haven't met you (IRL or read too many of your LS posts)
Babolat Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Numbers do not concern me; lifestyle does. If a girl has a pattern, a lifestyle of partying, meeting a guy, having sex, partying, meeting another guy, having sex, that's an issue and probably a deal breaker. If she has a pattern of comitted relationshsips with the intent to date, not an issue. And like others here I never ask about my GFs sexual past; it's the past. Most have volunteered, I listen, I do not ask questions.
pbjbear Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 I have my highs and my lows I guess. But I am always honest about it. And most women generally can get over it. Not so true for many guys. I would drop you like a hot potato if I dated you. Men like you rarely make good boyfriends...I have never seen a guy who describes women the way you do (selfish and disrespectful) shape up to have a good LTR with a woman...they usually have other traits which prevent a healthy fulfilling relationship
Kingtut380 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Don't worry about it. A woman's sexuality shouldn't be curtailed simply because of what society or a man thinks. Let your freak flag fly.
carhill Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 As this discussion recurs consistently, here's a reprint of my response from a past thread: My version for a woman my age is age minus fifteen minus number of years married times two So, if a woman is 52 minus 15 minus 20 years married times two equals 34. So, for me, if her partner count is over 34, that's promiscuous, essentially two partners per year for every year not married since the age of 15. As an example, my exW was married a total of 16 years when I met her at age 39 and had more partners than the requisite 39-15-16x2, or 16, by a factor of roughly 2.5. Or, to put it another way, her partner count was roughly a magnitude (10x) greater than my own. My numbers currently are 52-15-10x2 =54 to be 'promiscuous'. Subtract 50 from that number to find my actual partner count. That's how I define promiscuous. YMMV. Most of the women I've dated and had relationships with met or exceeded that definition. I doubt it's uncommon, at least in my generation. Relationship history *and* family history are far more important to me than number of sexual partners. Obviously, STD history/status is relevant as well, from a health standpoint.
Kingtut380 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Dear lord, you and I are kindred spirits It sounds like the three of us are kindred spirits. I love digging though scientific studies and weeding out all the bad science out there (and there tons of it). The only thing I don't understand is why there is so much moral judgement placed on people when a lot of these things are strictly biological in nature. Especially involved with mating.
candie13 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 I'm 32, so according to your rule, I should be either at 32 minus 15 times two: around 34 (youhoouuu, way to go, I'd better put on my party shoes tonight) or... if I count my 7 years relationship (not married, but engaged), I would be at 32 minus 15 minus 7 times two: I only get 20 (still plenty more room, haha, but totally unfair) !!! I am being punished for good behaviour here... and if you add my other 3 years bf before that (he lived with me and also wanted to get married)... 32 minus 15 minus 10 times 2, that would be 14! Great, juuuust great (at least I get a double digit number, lol)!
sabre80 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 I dunno. My number is going up faster now than when I was younger. I've spent the majority of my adult life in two serious relationships (2+ years). Now I'm realizing that it's important to date a lot of people in order to find out what you really want. The two guys I've slept with since my last serious boyfriend have all been short term things. We dated for around a month, slept together, and eventually realized it wasn't going to work out for other reasons and broke it off. I could easily see this happening 12-13 more times before I hit 30. Is that a cause for concern for guys? I just don't see any way around it. I'm not about to turn down guys that I'm attracted to (mentally and physically) just because I feel like my number is getting too high. And my people picker is fine. The guys I've dated have been awesome and I don't regret them. Learned a lot, but we weren't compatible for a lifelong thing. The number would not bother me but the circumstances behind the number would bother me. I would have a hard time accepting what you wrote above because I would view it as that you are capable of segregating sex and love and I view sex as an extension of love when words are no longer capable of expressing feelings. It would be too drastic a difference in lifestyles. Probably not a good word but I did not want to use difference in morals because that would sound too judgemental as if my morals were better. They are just better for me.
pbjbear Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) It sounds like the three of us are kindred spirits. I love digging though scientific studies and weeding out all the bad science out there (and there tons of it). The only thing I don't understand is why there is so much moral judgement placed on people when a lot of these things are strictly biological in nature. Especially involved with mating. I dont buy that argument because men flip out when I say there are just as many scientific studies that show women prefer men with money or some kind of success and we shouldnt be bashed for it...after all, its evolution. They say "its not true" even though I majored in evolutionary psychology and wrote a thesis on it and spent over 40 hours reading very well conducted scientific articles based on this. They want to believe its not true so they can get the most benefits out of women. Men = selfish. We live in a world that encourages women to evolve past their evolutionary tendencies and yet discourages men to evolve past theirs Anything that doesnt support their intentions (if a guy doesnt have $...he hates my views on evolution) they get angry. Cant have it both ways boys... Edited February 5, 2013 by pbjbear
Kingtut380 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 I just don't think that either sex has evolved too far from their evolutionary tendencies. My problem with these studies is that there are so many confounding variables. It's almost impossible to empirically say something is true when you're dealing with perception and motive. What the modern female wants today is the same thing she's always wanted. It's just wrapped up in a societal context. My advice for women ( please for gods sake don't listen to me. What the hell do I know) is if you want a good man that's not a player simply don't give up the booty. I think it is manipulative as hell but it will qualify these guys before things go to far. You've got to be strong though and try not to seek validation from it. Just my 2 cents...
Untouchable_Fire Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Someone (I dont remember who) in a recent thread stated that it was a deal breaker if a girl's number is in the double digits. This thread isn't aimed at that person, it just got me thinking. I'm 23 now and I've been with 6 people. I average about 1 new person per year, and they were all either serious LTR boyfriends or people that I started dating with the intent of it becoming serious. So say I keep dating until I'm 30 or so before meeting the person I'm supposed to be with. By then my number will be well into the double digits (hypothetically). I'm not too worried about this because I know I'm not promiscuous but reading that post did make me wonder. Would you guys really have a problem with a sexual history like that? Just reading that history at age 23... I would be more worried that you just suck at relationships vs. you being promiscuous.
SJC2008 Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 People view sex differently for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure my views on sex come from my religous upbringing. One of the main reasons I'd rather wait to have sex with a woman I'm dating is because I want to know she's not going to give it up to anyone. IMO the "it's just sex" crowd, regardless of gender, are the ones who cheat the most. Western culture is way to lax on it's sex views IMO and as a man I feel I'm in the minority with my views. TBS we are human and things happen, I had a couple ONS before (one being everything but sex). I wouldn't have a problem dating a woman who has had a couple/few ONS and/or sewed some oats after an R but she'd have to have the same view as me. At 31 I think anything over ten would be a deal breaker for me.
Titania22 Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 As this discussion recurs consistently, here's a reprint of my response from a past thread: My version for a woman my age is age minus fifteen minus number of years married times two So, if a woman is 52 minus 15 minus 20 years married times two equals 34. So, for me, if her partner count is over 34, that's promiscuous, essentially two partners per year for every year not married since the age of 15. As an example, my exW was married a total of 16 years when I met her at age 39 and had more partners than the requisite 39-15-16x2, or 16, by a factor of roughly 2.5. Or, to put it another way, her partner count was roughly a magnitude (10x) greater than my own. My numbers currently are 52-15-10x2 =54 to be 'promiscuous'. Subtract 50 from that number to find my actual partner count. That's how I define promiscuous. YMMV. Most of the women I've dated and had relationships with met or exceeded that definition. I doubt it's uncommon, at least in my generation. Relationship history *and* family history are far more important to me than number of sexual partners. Obviously, STD history/status is relevant as well, from a health standpoint. Wow that's cool, mine would =28, and I am well below that, so that is really cool. It also seems a more rational calculation, because it allows for the number to increase over time. The way some of these other people number it, I feel like I would have had to live a virtually celibate lifetime, just to stay within their expectations. Even now it feels like my life has been pretty celibate. If I could change one thing about the amount of sex I have had in life, it would be that I had had more sex during my 30's.
animalover Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Someone (I dont remember who) in a recent thread stated that it was a deal breaker if a girl's number is in the double digits. This thread isn't aimed at that person, it just got me thinking. I'm 23 now and I've been with 6 people. I average about 1 new person per year, and they were all either serious LTR boyfriends or people that I started dating with the intent of it becoming serious. So say I keep dating until I'm 30 or so before meeting the person I'm supposed to be with. By then my number will be well into the double digits (hypothetically). I'm not too worried about this because I know I'm not promiscuous but reading that post did make me wonder. Would you guys really have a problem with a sexual history like that? Honestly, I find myself to be a very conservative guy when it comes to sex and I would not mind to have a relationship with a girl who has only had sex with guys who she was in LTR ... I don't think it is about the number of guys but about the approach to sex what is important for most of us... I would not mind to be with a girl who has been with 15 guys (just an exaggerated number to proof my point, don't come with relationship issues later... I know that a person who has been in 15th LTR probably is also problematic) only LTR that with a girl who has been with 3 guys but in a gangbang or 3 ONS...
Recommended Posts