amaysngrace Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Numbers are irrelevant -- only the "number at hand" matters. I agree and I'm glad you said so cuz honestly....I lost count and am not about to go back and try to add 'em all up AGAIN. My exH wanted a number...and I had to do it and when I told him honestly, he was mad at me. Next time maybe I should lie, huh? Oh, and BTW...to anyone who thinks people with a higher # cheat...I was never unfaithful to him while we were married....well, I never had "sexual relations" by definition in the words of Bill Clinton anyhow
Art_Critic Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Every person should have at least one sexual experience with the same sex to be sure they will not suddenly turn or desire to be gay once married. This should only apply to women ..
kitten chick Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Myself, I couldn't really trust someone who had a casual attitude/history when it came to sex. Well to each his own but I think it's foolish to belive that you know about a person by the number of people that they slept with. You're really rolling the dice when you date people (unless you meet them through friends/coworkers). They could be lying or telling truth. So then if you don't know if a person's lying or telling the truth, how can you be sure that they've had a low number of partners or by your definition a casual attitude/history. And what about oral sex? What if this person has had a tremendous amount of oral sex but very few intercourse partners? Does that count as a casual attitude/history? IMHO, it's too complicated. Who gives a crap? As long as they haven't reached porn star status why should you care?
ronnieromance Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 I feel like this whole thread is just one urban myth after another. Just because you've had a lot of partners doesn't make you great in bed and it doesn't mean you're going to cheat. Just because you've had a few partners doesn't mean that you're not adventurous in bed and it doesn't mean youo're going to be faithful. You can't multiply or divide an honest person's numbers and you can't rely on the number a dishonest person tells you. I can back every one of these statements with examples. Really, numbers just don't matter. Just for some fun facts, the guy that cheated on me slept with the lowest number of people than any other guy I've ever met (in adulthood). I want to agree with you, and in theory I do. But I've been with girls who have had "a lot of sex with a few guys" ie, a few ridiculously long long-term-relationships...They sucked in bed. Enthusiasm !=technique. While some people may learn with 5 people what others do with 15, experience is experience and sex is like anything else that you get better at with experience. -R-
kitten chick Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 I want to agree with you, and in theory I do. But I've been with girls who have had "a lot of sex with a few guys" ie, a few ridiculously long long-term-relationships...They sucked in bed. Enthusiasm !=technique. While some people may learn with 5 people what others do with 15, experience is experience and sex is like anything else that you get better at with experience. -R- True but just like with anything else, some people are born naturals
shoedevil Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Well to each his own but I think it's foolish to belive that you know about a person by the number of people that they slept with. Well, you know about their sexual behavior, and that is part of the whole person. And I was referring to sexual context, not number. The context has always been more important to me than the number. Unless you don't think ethics/morality are relationship compatibility issues? So then if you don't know if a person's lying or telling the truth, how can you be sure that they've had a low number of partners or by your definition a casual attitude/history. You trust that the person is telling the truth. That's why I think most people want to meet their loved ones through friends/family/coworkers. There is at least some expectation of honesty if somebody you know and trust can vouch for the other person. Not 100%, but better than nothing. And what about oral sex? What if this person has had a tremendous amount of oral sex but very few intercourse partners? I don't differentiate between the two, myself. I consider both "sexual relations", unlike our former president. IMHO, it's too complicated. Who gives a crap? As long as they haven't reached porn star status why should you care? Why would you discriminate against porn stars? I think most people have some level of sexual ego and self esteem. Shouldn't they be allowed to find the person they are most comfortable with, sexual or otherwise?
ronnieromance Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Then I suppose your ideal partner would be an ex-prostitute or porn star? They have the most experience, after all. I wasn't insinuating anything, just pointing out some studies that have been done. I don't think you could do the same in regards to virgins or people with few partners being terrible lovers. But I understand where you're coming from. You place sexual satisfaction at the top of your list. I don't think that's the best strategy for long-term relationship success. Just my opinion. I like your wanna-be moral high road. No, I don't put sex at the top of my list, but I'm mature enough and honest enough to know that I'm not going to be happy with someone for long when the sex sucks. If you haven't had enough sex to tell the difference between bad sex, no sex and good sex, well, that's your problem. If you're naive enough to think it isn't important then, again, that's your problem. BTW, I'm not insinuating anything, just that, you know, I've been with girls who were experienced and some that weren't as, so I'm speaking from experience, not statistics. Wow, I must have hit a chord with my ideas about people who don't have much experience being, usually, mediocre lovers. I counter with a 1st hand observation and you rebut with...stats. -R-
amaysngrace Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 I agree with R. I base my observations on before, during and after marriage and I can honestly say being with one guy for a while got me a little stagnant in the lover department. I know he wasn't the guy for me, if he was we'd still be married, but it was so nice to be with someone else after him. It made me realize what I was missing. I think experience brings skills, just like anything else you do in life. Also, when you are comfortable enough in your own sexuality, you can be a better lover. Sometimes the comfort zone you get in when you're in a long term relationship actually brings about inhibitions.
TUDOR Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 I am 30 and if a count of 25 to 30 makes him a slut I am so out on this conversation! Can't we all just get along and leave the #s quesition out of it.
tanbark813 Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 True but just like with anything else, some people are born naturals I am the Mozart of f***ing.
kitten chick Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 I am the Mozart of f***ing. That sounds painfuly boring
tanbark813 Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 That sounds painfuly boring You don't fool me, NT. I know you want your big, numb boobs covered with my wig powder.
ronnieromance Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 I'm laughing and shaking my head...I wish there was an applicable emoticon. -R-
shoedevil Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Wow, I must have hit a chord with my ideas about people who don't have much experience being, usually, mediocre lovers. I counter with a 1st hand observation and you rebut with...stats. You hit a chord because you were generalizing about people. I can counter your claim with my own first hand experience, that someone with little or no sexual experience can be a very satisfying lover. We're both right because we have two very different points-of-view. Arguing over subjective notions like good sex/bad sex is pointless. Your statements seemed to suggest that you'd dump a girl if she didn't satisfy you in bed. To me, that's reducing her to a sex object. If you think that's the right thing to do, so be it. Other people might disagree. Sexual satisfaction is very important in a relationship, but I wouldn't dump somebody who wasn't "perfect" in bed.
Mz. Pixie Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 That sounds painfuly boring Really?? That's interesting!! I'm not trying to be a prude, I'm just saying for me that's a high number. Despite the fact of the things I've done in the last two-three years I am still rather old fashioned.
ronnieromance Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 I was generalizing...Which one of us was saying that many partners is an indicator of the sub-par level of ones' morals and personality? Oh that's right. It was you. If you think you can overlook disatisfying sex forever, I point you to the marriage forum. Oh, and the cheating forum too. I'm 30. I don't want kids anytime soon, I'm about to pack up and move clear across the country, and the last thing on my mind is marriage. If you can think of a more deserving reason to be in the top 5 category of "Why I dumped you", please, lay it on me. For the record I think good sex won't necessarilly keep someone, if all else is lacking, but bad sex can very often be one of those straw that broke the camel's back things. Don't misconstrue the importance I put on it. It's not the most important thing, but it is something I have standards for. There is nothing wrong with that. -R-
shoedevil Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 I was generalizing...Which one of us was saying that many partners is an indicator of the sub-par level of ones' morals and personality? Well, I never made that statement. It's easy to put words in someone's mouth. I was pointing out the results of one survey. But for the record, I don't think a high number of partners is a particularly attractive quality. Sorry I can't goose-step behind you on this one. If you think you can overlook disatisfying sex forever, I point you to the marriage forum. Oh, and the cheating forum too. Every large survey I've seen has concluded that married people have more sex, and more satisfying sex, than single people. That doesn't mean eveybody should be married, nor does it mean every married person is dissatisfied. Commitment is about more than just getting what you want out of the relationship. If you can think of a more deserving reason to be in the top 5 category of "Why I dumped you", please, lay it on me. More deserving reasons? Let's see - he/she cheated on me, he/she tried to kill me, he/she is abusive, etc. I think those are far better reasons than "you're an unsatisfying lover and will never improve". It's not the most important thing, but it is something I have standards for. There is nothing wrong with that. Too bad you're not as open-minded about other peoples' standards.
ronnieromance Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Well, I never made that statement. It's easy to put words in someone's mouth. I was pointing out the results of one survey. But for the record, I don't think a high number of partners is a particularly attractive quality. Sorry I can't goose-step behind you on this one. Every large survey I've seen has concluded that married people have more sex, and more satisfying sex, than single people. That doesn't mean eveybody should be married, nor does it mean every married person is dissatisfied. Commitment is about more than just getting what you want out of the relationship. You've heard of buyers remorse, right? Being intimate with statistics (I swear it wasn't a pun) I'm sure you realize there is a 50%+ divorce rate. It's a top reason, pretty much. More deserving reasons? Let's see - he/she cheated on me, he/she tried to kill me, he/she is abusive, etc. I think those are far better reasons than "you're an unsatisfying lover and will never improve". Are you as mellodramatic in person? Just curious. Too bad you're not as open-minded about other peoples' standards. Indeed...Listen, I have to go. I'm meeting a girl on met on webdate for drinks. -R-
shoedevil Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 You've heard of buyers remorse, right? Being intimate with statistics (I swear it wasn't a pun) I'm sure you realize there is a 50%+ divorce rate. It's a top reason, pretty much. I think the top reasons for divorce are infidelity and excessive disagreement. Are you as mellodramatic in person? Just curious. Maybe... Indeed...Listen, I have to go. I'm meeting a girl on met on webdate for drinks. Have fun! But if she asks questions, be honest about your intentions...
Vertex Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Why so much bickering? Why do numbers matter? Obviously there's no set law: You can have a few partners and know a clitoris like the back of your hand, or you could be the village bicycle and not be able to tell a penis from a kumquat. Some people are just naturally gifted in certain realms, and sometimes people try over and over again at something but lack a certain inherent magic. Whether or not someone has had many partners shouldn't matter. As long as they are faithful to an individual during a relationship, the past should remain that way. If they've been with many people due to infidelity then yes, it is something to consider. But it is wrong to objectively judge a person based on sexual past because there are just so many variables, and we oftentimes don't know the whole story. Are you going to tell me that it is impossible to find the love of your life if she just so happens to have a past including 30 sexual partners? If the relationship is great, of course you will say no. Therefore it is illogical to dwell on the matter.
Sand&Water Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 Should she ditch him? She didn't know about his past until she discovered some things by accident. Pretty much, yes. There isn't much for me to say. If she can't deal with a guy, who has slept around a lot, then quite frankly they will not mesh together. Those type of guys, have a certain stereotype brainwashed/imprinted into their head, that it will take some adjustment, realization, and down time for them to settle down with ONE woman. Until then, they'll just keep on going. Hopefully they'll hit a wall sometime soon. Tough luck!
shaunablain Posted June 9, 2006 Posted June 9, 2006 My good god 25 is a slut!!!!!!!!! LMAO my ex had been with about 70!!! maybe she just feels intimidated the man is 28...28!!!
RarePearl Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 OK, the situation WAS hypothetical. I don't know the guy I described, but I know that there are plenty of guys out there with this number. I will concentrate on the men's replies. A very few men said that he had too many women and is probably a slut and cheat. But most men stated that he might have changed, that numbers don't matter, and he isn't necessarily a slut. I just wonder why whenever a guy posts about his girlfriend having over 20 partners and is in her 20s - she is immediately a slut and he should dump her. I don't know if it's called a double standard, but it's definitely different for men vs. women. Why? I personally don't have a problem with my hubby's three-figured number by age 48 and he doesn't have a problem with my 15 until age 30. But it bothers me that women are being called sluts just like that, while men are OK with the same numbers.
Vertex Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 It isn't different. Whether it's a guy or a girl, the numbers just simply don't matter. Anyone who has a double-standard in a hypocritical sense needs re-evaluation.
tanbark813 Posted June 10, 2006 Posted June 10, 2006 But it bothers me that women are being called sluts just like that, while men are OK with the same numbers. I think you'll find that the people who look down on guys for having high numbers are the same people who call women sluts for having high numbers. I personally don't care how many people a gf or potential gf has slept with.
Recommended Posts