# How many is too many



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

How many sex partners is your cut off in a relationship?

I think it probably shouldn't be discussed for most people because of the jealousy, but I couldn't date a woman who was brand new - like virgins or been with one person. 8 or so is the cutoff but I like them to have some experience.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

I doubt anyone woman would actually admit she's been with more than 8 guys. Depending on how old she was. For a 20 yo woman that's a lot. Not for a 40 yo. Anyway - there is no way to really know how many someone has been with. People lie about these things all the time.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

Wouldn't want to know.
Doesn't bother me either way. If I can have lead a life of sexual debauchery then I'd have to be some piece of work to be aghast is she did, too.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

My ex was with 14 before me and she was 22 at the time. Bothered me at first but I got over it pretty quickly. Now for other girls I don't really give a **** unless it's something preposterous like 30 or 40.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

rymo said:


> My ex was with 14 before me and she was 22 at the time. Bothered me at first but I got over it pretty quickly. Now for other girls I don't really give a **** unless it's something preposterous like 30 or 40.


How do you know it was really only 14? I think women always under-report and men always over-report the number of partners they've had.


----------



## nemesis1 (Dec 21, 2009)

Eight is nothing for a 20 year old these days. People are not prudish about sex anymore.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

scarpia said:


> How do you know it was really only 14? I think women always under-report and men always over-report the number of partners they've had.


We talked about everything. We were super open with each other and I just got the sense that she wasn't lying because she had told me stuff way crazier than the number of people she slept with. Do I know 100% for sure? No...but it didn't really matter to me anyway.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

scarpia said:


> I doubt anyone woman would actually admit she's been with more than 8 guys. Depending on how old she was. For a 20 yo woman that's a lot. Not for a 40 yo. Anyway - there is no way to really know how many someone has been with. People lie about these things all the time.


Umm I admit it. I used to count how many people I have been with but the last like two years I haven't..I'm pretty sure it's been around 10...


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

It's better to have a don't ask, don't tell policy with this subject.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

I dunno why anyone would ask it...I have never been asked.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

I guess it depends. If ur really secure about it it probably won't matter. Some people get turned off if she banged the whole eastside though. I probably wouldn't ask, too old for that. Plus I'm not in the game no more - getting married


----------



## winesipides (Jul 10, 2012)

87wayz said:


> Some people get turned off if she banged the whole eastside though.


i would be one of those persons.


----------



## pita (Jan 17, 2004)

I give not a single crap.

Who would ask, anyway? The person's boning me now. That's the important bit.


----------



## Taija (Nov 3, 2008)

It really doesn't matter to me. It doesn't tell much about them as a person; being a virgin doesn't make someone a loser, and having slept with 15 people doesn't make someone a *****.

I, too, would like my partner to have some experience, but it's not a requirement in any way. Hell, some experienced people can actually be worse at sex than some virgins, if they keep making some mistakes that no one just ever told them about. Not to mention that every person is different and when you have sex with someone new, you might find that you're back to square one and have to start learning all over again.Even with little to no experience, talking honestly about your sex life and not being afraid to try new things with you significant other can quickly turn you into a master - you've just gotta learn what they like.

In any case. I've personally had 3 sexual partners in my life (the first one was a girl and I was pretty young then, though, so it wasn't quite the same kinda sex). The third one was my current boyfriend, who had had something like 5-8 partners before me. Despite that, it felt like I was the more experienced one. I think overall I might have even had sex more times than him and had always talked a lot about it with my partners to maximize pleasure for both of us.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

Taija said:


> It really doesn't matter to me. It doesn't tell much about them as a person; being a virgin doesn't make someone a loser, and having slept with 15 people doesn't make someone a *****.
> 
> I, too, would like my partner to have some experience, but it's not a requirement in any way. Hell, some experienced people can actually be worse at sex than some virgins, if they keep making some mistakes that no one just ever told them about. Not to mention that every person is different and when you have sex with someone new, you might find that you're back to square one and have to start learning all over again.Even with little to no experience, talking honestly about your sex life and not being afraid to try new things with you significant other can quickly turn you into a master - you've just gotta learn what they like.
> 
> In any case. I've personally had 3 sexual partners in my life (the first one was a girl and I was pretty young then, though, so it wasn't quite the same kinda sex). The third one was my current boyfriend, who had had something like 5-8 partners before me. Despite that, it felt like I was the more experienced one. I think overall I might have even had sex more times than him and had always talked a lot about it with my partners to maximize pleasure for both of us.


Yeh..despite my ex having slept with 13 more people than me (at the time) lol...she had never been with a guy who could give her an orgasm before and she really didn't know what the hell she was doing (dead fish style). I ended up teaching her everything and I had only been with 1 girl before her. Funny how that works sometimes.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

rymo said:


> Yeh..despite my ex having slept with 13 more people than me (at the time) lol...she had never been with a guy who could give her an orgasm before and she really didn't know what the hell she was doing (dead fish style). I ended up teaching her everything and I had only been with 1 girl before her. Funny how that works sometimes.


Don't let her gas u up bro. All women do this. They swear ur the best ever to inflate your ego. Just like the organs are made to fit in each other, women know how to "fit" the masculine hubris


----------



## Whitney (Oct 2, 2008)

I think what is more important than the number is having a somewhat similar sexual history. If you are a virgin and you start dating someone who has one night stands every weekend then there's bound to be problems.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

87wayz said:


> Don't let her gas u up bro. All women do this. They swear ur the best ever to inflate your ego. Just like the organs are made to fit in each other, women know how to "fit" the masculine hubris


Let her gas me up? It wasn't really what she was telling me, it was more the fact that I could just tell she didn't really know how to have good sex. And from her history it made sense that she never had an orgasm from a guy. Not to mention it was very difficult to get her off at first. Of course I changed that  I'm not saying there aren't a million other guys who could have also done it, but the combination of me knowing what I was doing and our emotional connection made our sex great regardless of what she said or didn't say. Sexually I don't really care about a girl inflating my ego, tbh, because that's just about the only area I am comfortable with myself in. If only they would inflate my ego about my personality


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

rymo said:


> Let her gas me up? It wasn't really what she was telling me, it was more the fact that I could just tell she didn't really know how to have good sex. And from her history it made sense that she never had an orgasm from a guy. Not to mention it was very difficult to get her off at first. Of course I changed that  I'm not saying there aren't a million other guys who could have also done it, but the combination of me knowing what I was doing and our emotional connection made our sex great regardless of what she said or didn't say. Sexually I don't really care about a girl inflating my ego, tbh, because that's just about the only area I am comfortable with myself in. If only they would inflate my ego about my personality


I can agree with that. Over time you do build and figure these things... initially they like to gas u up if they really dig you tho


----------



## Taija (Nov 3, 2008)

87wayz said:


> Don't let her gas u up bro. All women do this. They swear ur the best ever to inflate your ego. Just like the organs are made to fit in each other, women know how to "fit" the masculine hubris


I don't think that's true. Sure, some girls might do it, but don't all new lovers always just compliment each other to heaven?

The same thing that happened to rymo actually happened to me, too. Even though I had had great sex with my ex-boyfriend of 3 years, he had never managed to give me an orgasm through oral sex. I figured I just wasn't able to (some girls can't get an orgasm from sex), but then I had sex with my current boyfriend and he blew my mind. Well, he wasn't instantly good at it or anything, but he got better with time and eventually I was able to achieve the best orgasms of my life.


----------



## Peter Attis (Aug 31, 2009)

komorikun said:


> It's better to have a don't ask, don't tell policy with this subject.


This



87wayz said:


> Some people get turned off if she banged the whole eastside though.


But also that

Also, in b4 the "SS" is mentioned.


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

I don't care and I don't have the right to know my partner's sex history unless I need to know for health reasons. No matter if she is a virgin or has a count over 100, I have no right to poking around into her sex history and cast a judgement on it. For me, it is as simple as that.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

MaxPower said:


> I don't care and I don't have the right to know my partner's sex history unless I need to know for health reasons. No matter if she is a virgin or has a count over 100, I have no right to poking around into her sex history and cast a judgement on it. For me, it is as simple as that.


Yeah, you don't have a right but you can ask. Doesn't even mean you will get the truth as others have indicated.

Its possible to cast judgement on anything, but I respect people who don't. I tend to think that if you knew for a fact that she banged enough people to where her guestbook could supply a third of the census, that might suck, right?


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I actually don't care, and don't want to know.


----------



## jonmorris73 (May 24, 2012)

.


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

87wayz said:


> Yeah, you don't have a right but you can ask. Doesn't even mean you will get the truth as others have indicated.


Of course I can ask or she could tell me, but I have no right to demand the information. If she lies, I will be more interested in her reasons for lying (Self-conscious? Ashamed? Fear of judgement?) and why she feels the need to lie to her partner, not what she is lying about.



87wayz said:


> Its possible to cast judgement on anything, but I respect people who don't.


You can cast judgement on anything, but that doesn't mean you have to.



87wayz said:


> I tend to think that if you knew for a fact that she banged enough people to where her guestbook could supply a third of the census, that might suck, right?


Nope, because I genuinely don't care. I maybe alone on this, but I put sexual history, appearance, social status, finances, political positions, her past, some behaviours and interests in the same category, that is I don't care. What I care about and what I'm attracted to is her personality. I take a relationship very seriously and when I enter into one, I want it to last. At the end of the day, all that stuff I listed really doesn't matter, her personality matters. I never want to get into a relationship because of just her sexual history, nor rule one out because of it.



jonmorris73 said:


> But don't you guys think it's tougher for a person with a 100+ prior partners, versus say 10, to hold down a monogamous long-term relationship?


That maybe the case, but will you be willing to risk passing on the perfect partner just because there is a off chance that they are not able to be monogamous based on nothing more than their number?


----------



## blue the puppy (Jul 23, 2011)

i dont judge. im more interested in whether theyve stayed faithful to ex partners.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

Ur not going to find "perfection" in someone who has no sexual restraint. Would you marry a glutton? Or a dopefiend? Same risks involved AIDS is real. Even if she's clean now, promiscuity at such a high level lends itself to cheating. I'm not uptight about it, I just don't want a full fledged, pass around, "I did it because he had power windows" kind of freak


----------



## Xtraneous (Oct 18, 2011)

^


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Having sex with 8 people is promiscuous? 8 people in a year or 8 people in one month?


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

komorikun said:


> Having sex with 8 people is promiscuous? 8 people in a year or 8 people in one month?


lawl...seriously.

btw I don't get when a guy says 'I don't have a right to know, and I wouldn't prod' and all this crap. If you treat the number of sexual partners your gf has had as some taboo, it becomes just that...a taboo - some scandalous mystery buried deep under a veneer of lies and deceit. I mean, what is the big deal? If your girl isn't totally uptight it's a conversation you could have right away and get it over with bing bang boom. I don't care about the number, per say, and some girls will just lie about it, but just discussing it is still a great start to developing a relationship based on openness and honesty about everything, which to me is extremely important And if she balks at the notion of discussing her sexual history, THEN you know she's really got something to hide


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

komorikun said:


> Having sex with 8 people is promiscuous? 8 people in a year or 8 people in one month?


Nobody is giving promiscuity a threshold. I was just saying that personally, I'm more content with a number under 10. Its not an absolute deal breaker, but if she's just someone who gets passed around like a blunt, or the peas like we used to do, then I'm good


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

rymo said:


> lawl...seriously.
> 
> btw I don't get when a guy says 'I don't have a right to know, and I wouldn't prod' and all this crap. If you treat the number of sexual partners your gf has had as some taboo, it becomes just that...a taboo - some scandalous mystery buried deep under a veneer of lies and deceit. I mean, what is the big deal? If your girl isn't totally uptight it's a conversation you could have right away and get it over with bing bang boom. I don't care about the number, per say, and some girls will just lie about it, but just discussing it is still a great start to developing a relationship based on openness and honesty about everything, which to me is extremely important And if she balks at the notion of discussing her sexual history, THEN you know she's really got something to hide


Right


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

87wayz said:


> Ur not going to find "perfection" in someone who has no sexual restraint. Would you marry a glutton? Or a dopefiend? Same risks involved AIDS is real. Even if she's clean now, promiscuity at such a high level lends itself to cheating. I'm not uptight about it, I just don't want a full fledged, pass around, "I did it because he had power windows" kind of freak


You're prejudging a person based on nothing more than their number. You don't need to know their sex history to know if they are clean. Ask them to get tested, and you will have your answer.

High number lends to cheating? What if, the person had a few fun years during college and had a one-night stand almost every week, in just two years their number might be as high as 104, but now they want to commit. Are you going to turn them down just because of their number? If you are worried about cheating I would be looking at their relationship history, not their sexual one. Plus, if you can't trust the person not to cheat on you, well, sorry you have either major trust issues or there is simply no trust in the relationship to begin with and it's doom to fail.



rymo said:


> btw I don't get when a guy says 'I don't have a right to know, and I wouldn't prod' and all this crap. If you treat the number of sexual partners your gf has had as some taboo, it becomes just that...a taboo - some scandalous mystery buried deep under a veneer of lies and deceit. I mean, what is the big deal?


*bangs head on desk*



rymo said:


> And if she balks at the notion of discussing her sexual history, THEN you know she's really got something to hide


Or maybe she is a bit ashamed of it? Because women can't have a high sex drive, right? Or maybe she's scare you will judge her negatively on it? Since you're assuming so much over one number.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

rymo said:


> Let her gas me up? It wasn't really what she was telling me, it was more the fact that I could just tell she didn't really know how to have good sex. And from her history it made sense that she never had an orgasm from a guy. Not to mention it was very difficult to get her off at first. Of course I changed that  I'm not saying there aren't a million other guys who could have also done it, but the combination of me knowing what I was doing and our emotional connection made our sex great regardless of what she said or didn't say. Sexually I don't really care about a girl inflating my ego, tbh, because that's just about the only area I am comfortable with myself in. If only they would inflate my ego about my personality


 You're a sex machine!!


----------



## winesipides (Jul 10, 2012)

i'm a hypocritical *****.


----------



## Schizoidas (May 11, 2012)

I don't have a set number in my head but I do find women who have sex outside of relationships repulsive - that's a bigger deal breaker for me


----------



## winesipides (Jul 10, 2012)

Schizoidas said:


> I don't have a set number in my head but I do find women who have sex outside of relationships repulsive - that's a bigger deal breaker for me


same here. but i believe in and strongly enforce the double standard. :yes


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

Schizoidas said:


> I don't have a set number in my head but I do find women who have sex outside of relationships repulsive - that's a bigger deal breaker for me


Wow..what do you think about men doing that?


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

Yeah seems like it will be...figures there will be a double standard.:roll


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

How do men become experienced if all women are supposed to be virgins? 

By having sex with other guys or what?


----------



## winesipides (Jul 10, 2012)

komorikun said:


> How do men become experienced if all women are supposed to be virgins?
> 
> By having sex with other guys or what?


i don't know how it works, it just does.


----------



## Schizoidas (May 11, 2012)

meganmila said:


> Wow..what do you think about men doing that?


Well, I'm not interested in men so I really don't care..


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

It would be really horrible to have less than 10 sex partners. I mean what if the 1st 5 guys were crap or only so so in bed but you just accepted that as normal and got married, forever destined to crappy sex for the rest of your life. You also wouldn't know what kind of penis you like best. Or what style of kissing is the most enjoyable.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

MaxPower said:


> *bangs head on desk*
> 
> Or maybe she is a bit ashamed of it? Because women can't have a high sex drive, right? Or maybe she's scare you will judge her negatively on it? Since you're assuming so much over one number.


I am? I don't think I said one thing about that. I even said my ex was with 14 people and I got over it pretty quickly. You got the wrong guy pal. Personally if I'm with someone so reserved that she is ashamed of her number then that's a red flag for me.


----------



## Schizoidas (May 11, 2012)

komorikun said:


> It would be really horrible to have less than 10 sex partners. I mean what if the 1st 5 guys were crap or only so so in bed but you just accepted that as normal and got married, forever destined to crappy sex for the rest of your life. You also wouldn't know what kind of penis you like best. Or what style of kissing is the most enjoyable.


Ermm, surely the safer option would be just to use a few different objects up there..

anyways, I wouldn't even care if my gf didn't have the most perfect vagina. People are so much more than their genitals


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Schizoidas said:


> Ermm, surely the safer option would be just to use a few different objects up there..
> 
> anyways, I wouldn't even care if my gf didn't have the most perfect vagina. People are so much more than their genitals


It is not just about how it feels during sex. There is also a visual and manual aspect to it. I'm not saying it has to be perfect but people do have preferences.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

I've never asked a hooker how many guys she has serviced. Do I want to know??


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

MaxPower said:


> You're prejudging a person based on nothing more than their number. You don't need to know their sex history to know if they are clean. Ask them to get tested, and you will have your answer.
> 
> High number lends to cheating? What if, the person had a few fun years during college and had a one-night stand almost every week, in just two years their number might be as high as 104, but now they want to commit. Are you going to turn them down just because of their number? If you are worried about cheating I would be looking at their relationship history, not their sexual one. Plus, if you can't trust the person not to cheat on you, well, sorry you have either major trust issues or there is simply no trust in the relationship to begin with and it's doom to fail.
> 
> ...


I respect your opinion but I think men have an inclination to less promiscuous women for biological reasons that run very deep. People can have high sex drives, vorascious apetites, or even dangerous compulsions but we overcome that bc we are not animals.


----------



## Taija (Nov 3, 2008)

MaxPower said:


> You're prejudging a person based on nothing more than their number. You don't need to know their sex history to know if they are clean. Ask them to get tested, and you will have your answer.
> 
> High number lends to cheating? What if, the person had a few fun years during college and had a one-night stand almost every week, in just two years their number might be as high as 104, but now they want to commit. Are you going to turn them down just because of their number? If you are worried about cheating I would be looking at their relationship history, not their sexual one. Plus, if you can't trust the person not to cheat on you, well, sorry you have either major trust issues or there is simply no trust in the relationship to begin with and it's doom to fail.


I wholly agree. The number doesn't tell anything about a person.

Here are two hypothetical situations:

Woman A is a 30-year-old woman who has slept with 58 different people.

Since she was 16, she's been in 8 different relationships that each lasted 1-2 years. Inbetween those relationships, she had a one night stand (which totals to 8 partners over the years) and 2 people she dated and had sex with but it didn't work out (a total of 16 partners). At age 21, she had a bit of a wild phase and ended up picking up a different guy from a bar every other weekend (a total of 26).

Woman B is a 30 yo who has slept with "only" 3 people.

From age 18 to 20 she had sex countless times with a friend with benefits. At age 20, she got into a relationship that lasted for 4 years. A little while after that, she got into a another relationship and they're still married.

Both of these women might have had the same amount of sex, quantity-wise. And these are not in the slightest bit "extreme" situations.



87wayz said:


> I respect your opinion but I think men have an inclination to less promiscuous women for biological reasons that run very deep. People can have high sex drives, vorascious apetites, or even dangerous compulsions but we overcome that bc we are not animals.


But the point he was making was that the number of partners tells _nothing_ about promiscuousness. A woman can easily have countless one night stands when she's single but be completely faithful in a relationship.

It's sad that some people still think that women who like sex = ****ty cheaters. Sexism runs very deep.


----------



## Just Lurking (Feb 8, 2007)

*** THREAD ADVISORY ***

This can be discussed without resorting to sexism. Also, this is not the 18+ group -- control it, please.


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

I've experienced the whole spectrum and other factors overwhelmed it. A single number has no meaning without context.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

komorikun said:


> It would be really horrible to have less than 10 sex partners. I mean what if the 1st 5 guys were crap or only so so in bed but you just accepted that as normal and got married, forever destined to crappy sex for the rest of your life. You also wouldn't know what kind of penis you like best. Or what style of kissing is the most enjoyable.


This comment sounds inexperienced. Sex isn't some kind of rubix cube. You can explore sex very deeply with one person or know very little having been with many. I mean, I'm not a noob at all but I don't think my sex just got better in increments. It depended on the compatibility


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

Taija said:


> I wholly agree. The number doesn't tell anything about a person.
> 
> Here are two hypothetical situations:
> 
> ...


I'm not being sexist. This thread started out as an inquiry about standards. It turned into people being defensive.

Also, who said it was a one way street? I talk about women bc that's what I'm attracted to: a male who runs around thirsty having hedonistic sex poses the same threat to a woman, but why would I bring that up in this thread when it doesn't reflect my personal outlook?


----------



## Durzo (Jun 4, 2011)

87wayz said:


> How many sex partners is your cut off in a relationship?
> 
> I think it probably shouldn't be discussed for most people because of the jealousy, but I couldn't date a woman who was brand new - like virgins or been with one person. 8 or so is the cutoff but I like them to have some experience.


:E there is no cut off... I couldn't care less. Could be 2 or 200, doesn't matter to me as I will trust them based on other things not how many people they have had sex with.


----------



## Durzo (Jun 4, 2011)

komorikun said:


> It would be really horrible to have less than 10 sex partners. I mean what if the 1st 5 guys were crap or only so so in bed but you just accepted that as normal and got married, forever destined to crappy sex for the rest of your life. You also wouldn't know what kind of penis you like best. Or what style of kissing is the most enjoyable.


Haha your posts always make me laugh  I should really be stalking your sas profile to see where else you replied for a laugh when I am bored.

Thanks


----------



## phoenixwright (Jun 22, 2011)

I don't judge a girl based on her number. I wish girls were more open to having a greater number and variety of sexual partners if anything. That betters my odds!

In truth, it seems like most men do judge. Men want to get laid. But Part of it is the "challenge" for most men. If it was easy for a guy to get laid, they wouldn't have bragging rights anymore if they do. It's like "wow you banged Angelina? She's ****ed me and a whole bunch of my boys. She's the town ferry. Everyone gets a ride and it's free!"

I'd happily sleep with the town ferry. With a condom of course! (always use a condom outside of a long- term committed relationship. Even lots of long-term partners and married couples use condoms.

I see lots of people outside committed relationships having bareback sex. And it's tempting. But dangerous. Especially for a woman since its easier for them to catch stds from coitus. And lots of boyfriends/girlfriends unknowingly pass on stds to their partners because lots of stds are symptom-less and may even not be detectable in a std test for a period of time after you get it.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

phoenixwright said:


> I don't judge a girl based on her number. I wish girls were more open to having a greater number and variety of sexual partners if anything. That betters my odds!
> 
> In truth, it seems like most men do judge. Men want to get laid. But Part of it is the "challenge" for most men. If it was easy for a guy to get laid, they wouldn't have bragging rights anymore if they do. It's like "wow you banged Angelina? She's ****ed me and a whole bunch of my boys. She's the town ferry. Everyone gets a ride and it's free!"


HA!

But no its kind of sad around here. In the hood you get girls that let a group of dudes use them at a time: its sick.


----------



## phoenixwright (Jun 22, 2011)

87wayz said:


> HA!
> 
> But no its kind of sad around here. In the hood you get girls that let a group of dudes use them at a time: its sick.


I wonder if a guy has ever cried that a woman used him for sex? lol. Why is it always women who complain about it? Why is it that they are the ones who want to hold out after x amount of dates? lol. I thought women wanted sex just as much as men! What's going on?! lol


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

I could give two ****s about how many partners my people has had sex with before me. It doesn't say anything about him. The same applies to women. Plus, considering I'd like to be in a non-monogamous relationship, I doubt he's going to have a "small number."



phoenixwright said:


> I wonder if a guy has ever cried that a woman used him for sex? lol. Why is it always women who complain about it? Why is it that they are the ones who want to hold out after x amount of dates? lol. I thought women wanted sex just as much as men! What's going on?! lol


Read the thread and that should answer your questions: double standard. It's really not that complicated. A woman has sex with 5 guys and she's a ****. A man has sex with 5 women and he's a stud. When it comes to sex, the same standards aren't held for men and women.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

AllToAll said:


> Read the thread and that should answer your questions: double standard. It's really not that complicated. A woman has sex with 5 guys and she's a ****. A man has sex with 5 women and he's a stud. When it comes to sex, the same standards aren't held for men and women.


I don't know where it works like that, but honestly sounds like a bad social circle.
It might be the way popularity works in high school, but anybody even just half-mature knows not to judge differently based on gender like that.. and popularity is overrated any way!

But to answer this...


phoenixwright said:


> I wonder if a guy has ever cried that a woman used him for sex? lol. Why is it always women who complain about it? Why is it that they are the ones who want to hold out after x amount of dates? lol. I thought women wanted sex just as much as men! What's going on?! lol


I'm sure many guys have been used and have been upset by it - that just seems obvious.
But statistically speaking, women do not want casual sex as much as men do and comparing how men and women feel after a one night stand, far more women feel bad about it and worry about being used than men do.
That has no implication on "how many is too many" though as it's a personal preference and says nothing about worth or value, but simply that men and women tend to like different things.
(And this is coming from a man (..male, at least..) who isn't compelled by casual encounters, so not everybody follow the statistical trends.. obviously.)


----------



## Taija (Nov 3, 2008)

87wayz said:


> I'm not being sexist. This thread started out as an inquiry about standards. It turned into people being defensive.
> 
> Also, who said it was a one way street? I talk about women bc that's what I'm attracted to: a male who runs around thirsty having hedonistic sex poses the same threat to a woman, but why would I bring that up in this thread when it doesn't reflect my personal outlook?


Ah, my mistake then. That's not sexist then.

I still disagree with you, though.



87wayz said:


> But no its kind of sad around here. In the hood you get girls that let a group of dudes use them at a time: its sick.


Sick? Sounds awesome to me!  I wouldn't mind doing that someday, as long as my boyfriend's involved, of course (and I ain't no town ferry, either - I've only had sex with 3 people).

Kidding aside, I know what you mean. But if a girl doesn't mind and has fun with it, she should go right ahead. If a guy doesn't feel comfortable sleeping with someone who's been with half the town, that's completely understandable. There's plenty of other girls out there who've had only a few partners, or none.



Milco said:


> But statistically speaking, women do not want casual sex as much as men do and comparing how men and women feel after a one night stand, far more women feel bad about it and worry about being used than men do.


According to what statistics? I'm honestly curious to know. That kind of results might also be pretty skewed, because women tend to say they've slept with less people than they have (because of the social stigma about women having casual sex) and some men might give a bigger number.

I think it's entirely possible that men have more casual sex, but I don't know if it's really because women don't like it as much or feel more guilty.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

Milco said:


> I don't know where it works like that, but honestly sounds like a bad social circle.
> It might be the way popularity works in high school, but anybody even just half-mature knows not to judge differently based on gender like that.. and popularity is overrated any way!


No **** it's a bad system... :roll

That was exactly my point, but that's how it works here in the great ol' nation of the US (and in a great portion of the world).


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

AllToAll said:


> No **** it's a bad system...
> 
> That was exactly my point, but that's how it works here in the great ol' nation of the US (and in a great portion of the world).


I mean.. surely there must be people who accept others for being fun to be around or because you 'click' when together and don't discard others just for arbitrary things like that? I'd sure hope there would be.
But then I haven't really found those here either.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

Taija said:


> Ah, my mistake then. That's not sexist then.
> 
> I still disagree with you, though.
> 
> ...


If you think gettin it in on a mattress on the floor of a traphouse on Linwood at 15 years old is live, then... yeah. This is Detroit, not the Disney channel.

Thank you for realizing I'm not trying to be sexist though


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

Milco said:


> I did actually mean "circle"
> I mean.. surely there must be people who accept others for being fun to be around or because you 'click' when together and don't discard others just for arbitrary things like that? I'd sure hope there would be.
> But then I haven't really found those here either.


I actually edited it to system, though. Although I don't see the difference between cycle and circle in this context.

Of course there are people who don't think this way. In fact, some of them have posted in this thread (I'm talking to everyone who said the # didn't matter).


----------



## Taija (Nov 3, 2008)

87wayz said:


> If you think gettin it in on a mattress on the floor of a traphouse on Linwood at 15 years old is live, then... yeah. This is Detroit, not the Disney channel.
> 
> Thank you for realizing I'm not trying to be sexist though


Well, that has more to do with the bad conditions, then, and not the number of guys. My point was that a lot of girls do like casual sex, or to get gangbanged, or do a lot of other things that might be considered unorthodox, and they shouldn't feel ashamed of it. I don't see anything "Disney channellish" about that.


----------



## missingno (Sep 29, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> Read the thread and that should answer your questions: double standard. It's really not that complicated. A woman has sex with 5 guys and she's a ****. A man has sex with 5 women and he's a stud. When it comes to sex, the same standards aren't held for men and women.


Double Standard is easily explained

If a key opens many locks, it's a master key
If a lock is opened by many keys, it is a ****ty lock

trolling over


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

I would like to have a threesome with two dudes..oh but wait that would be ****ty right?:blank


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

missingno said:


> Double Standard is easily explained
> 
> If a key opens many locks, it's a master key
> If a lock is opened by many keys, it is a ****ty lock
> ...


Cute. We shall take your comments with a grain of salt considering you're of the kind that judges women based of the number of sexual partners (only women, I'm assuming by the charming analogy).



meganmila said:


> I would like to have a threesome with two dudes..oh but wait that would be ****ty right?:blank


****ty? I'd say you're a hardworking woman because that's a lot of work.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

Taija said:


> Well, that has more to do with the bad conditions, then, and not the number of guys. My point was that a lot of girls do like casual sex, or to get gangbanged, or do a lot of other things that might be considered unorthodox, and they shouldn't feel ashamed of it. I don't see anything "Disney channellish" about that.


Yeah, I was referring to gang rape in the city. It sucks. And I find that fantasy to be personally repulsive if I care about the girl. If not, its still repulsive but more acceptable to think about a woman being a complete sex object in that scenario. I've always been rough/aggressive when its just a F buddy but more considerate and slow with my main chick.


----------



## TPower (Feb 3, 2011)

If she has 15+ different partners at my age (22) I would pretty much consider her a ****.


----------



## sean88 (Apr 29, 2006)

For me personally, I start to feel uncomfortable at around 5-7. And I hate that I have to give a defense speech because people will think I'm some ahole. I feel the same way about dudes. Having a penis doesn't make a person any less of a **** in my eyes. My friend clocks his number at about 19 women, and I constantly tell him that he's a ****. I guess I'm just old fashioned. I'm not into casual sex. For me I've always been looking for long-term, loving relationships, and I would hope for the same thing from any girl I'm with. For the record I'm also not a prude. I'm totally open in the bedroom, and would actually prefer a kinky partner.


----------



## phoenixwright (Jun 22, 2011)

meganmila said:


> I would like to have a threesome with two dudes..oh but wait that would be ****ty right?:blank


It's ****ty. But I like ****ty girls! lol. I feel that women are too sexually repressed if anything. If I was gay, I could get laid without any difficult whatsoever. I've already had a sexual offer from a gay dude and gay guys have flirted with me. Men don't give ****. They are straight to the point. Direct. Efficient. Women on the other hand for the most part need things like "connection" and most of the time they require "feelings" and what not. All that stuff is great. But sometimes I just wanna get laid and don't really care to pretend to be interested in what a girl on a date is saying about herself. Sometimes I just want to hit it in the back seat of my car. Wham Bam. Thank You Ma'am. That's not all I want. But sometimes, that will do!

MFM threesomes are really hot. If I was in a relationship, I'd want to do that with my gf for her birthday or something at least once (and naturally I'd want a FMF too. lol). I get turned on by the idea of my sweet, loving girl being "dirty".

Most guys would look down on a girl that would want a MFM though.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

87wayz said:


> This comment sounds inexperienced. Sex isn't some kind of rubix cube. You can explore sex very deeply with one person or know very little having been with many. I mean, I'm not a noob at all but I don't think my sex just got better in increments. It depended on the compatibility


I'm not saying sex gets better in increments. It's possible that your first sex partner will be the most compatible with you. I'm saying that there is a good chance that your first 5 sex partners won't be very good or compatible with you.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

komorikun said:


> I'm not saying sex gets better in increments. I'm saying that there is a good chance that your first 5 sex partners won't be very good or compatible with you.


Yet ur still wrong and still trying to quantify an opinion.


----------



## elvin jones (Dec 12, 2011)

scarpia said:


> How do you know it was really only 14? I think women always under-report and men always over-report the number of partners they've had.


I think it is a good rule of thumb to double the number she gives you. Since women don't count ones who were bad in bed or were a mistake. In reality even doubling is probably a conservative estimate. Tripling the number is a safer bet.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

elvin jones said:


> I think it is a good rule of thumb to double the number she gives you. Since women don't count ones who were bad in bed or were a mistake. In reality even doubling is probably a conservative estimate. Tripling the number is a safer bet.


"She said she only had like 4, 5 n****s, so you know u gotta multiply by 3!"

-J cole


----------



## elvin jones (Dec 12, 2011)

87wayz said:


> "She said she only had like 4, 5 n****s, so you know u gotta multiply by 3!"
> 
> -J cole


Honestly 12-15 is around average for someone in their 20s. I laugh when I hear guys wanting girls who have boned less than 5 guys. It's not going to happen. If she tells you otherwise I would suspect she's lying.


----------



## TPower (Feb 3, 2011)

My girlfriend just turned 19 and had only one guy before me.

I believe her because she's the shy, quiet type.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

phoenixwright said:


> It's ****ty. But I like ****ty girls! lol. I feel that women are too sexually repressed if anything. If I was gay, I could get laid without any difficult whatsoever.


I wanted to link this video to an earlier point and it actually addresses what you say here.

The whole video is well worth a watch (the entire series is really), but the 2 parts most related to the discussion in this thread is:
- 6:00 to 7:50
- 12:37 to 27:55 (though worth just watching the first minute or two)






Slightly NSFW elements, but it's from Norwegian public service television, so it's really not bad.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

phoenixwright said:


> It's ****ty. But I like ****ty girls! lol. I feel that women are too sexually repressed if anything. If I was gay, I could get laid without any difficult whatsoever. I've already had a sexual offer from a gay dude and gay guys have flirted with me. Men don't give ****. They are straight to the point. Direct. Efficient. Women on the other hand for the most part need things like "connection" and most of the time they require "feelings" and what not. All that stuff is great. But sometimes I just wanna get laid and don't really care to pretend to be interested in what a girl on a date is saying about herself. Sometimes I just want to hit it in the back seat of my car. Wham Bam. Thank You Ma'am. That's not all I want. But sometimes, that will do!
> 
> MFM threesomes are really hot. If I was in a relationship, I'd want to do that with my gf for her birthday or something at least once (and naturally I'd want a FMF too. lol). I get turned on by the idea of my sweet, loving girl being "dirty".
> 
> Most guys would look down on a girl that would want a MFM though.


Then I have also read that some women don't need "feelings" to do casual sex..I have seen plenty of those stories. Not all of us are lovey dovey.

Honestly if a guy asked me to do a FMF threesome I would probably say no cause I'm not attracted to girls sexually that much or yes ifff I can not touch her. I don't have to have a threesome..I just saw a MFM threesome in a movie and it was hot


----------



## Tentative (Dec 27, 2011)

None


----------



## saltyleaf (Dec 30, 2011)

komorikun said:


> It's better to have a don't ask, don't tell policy with this subject.


haha exactly.


----------



## Taija (Nov 3, 2008)

elvin jones said:


> Honestly 12-15 is around average for someone in their 20s. I laugh when I hear guys wanting girls who have boned less than 5 guys. It's not going to happen. If she tells you otherwise I would suspect she's lying.


Not quite. I'm about to turn 20 and have only had sex with 3 people. I have no problem with casual sex, but during the last 4 years I've been in two different serious relationships so I've gotten plenty of sex without the need for other partners.

It's true that plenty of women have had more than 15 partners. But situations vary and even the most sexually adventurous people might have only had a few partners and still a buttloads of sex.

Here's an important question, though: How do you define "sex"?

What I mean is, when have you had sex with someone? Does it require penetration? Lesbians (without any tools) obviously can't do that, so is oral sex enough? How about if you've just fooled around naked with a person, touching all over but not going any further? I'd love to know everyone's view on the matter.

I've actually had a foursome of sorts with my boyfriend and another couple (a guy and girl) [To read, highlight the following text, it's kind of adult-oriented] I had no penetrative sex with either of them (except my boyfriend, of course), but there was a lot of kissing, touching and licking all body parts. I gave and received oral sex from the girl, but not the guy, who I only occasionally kissed and gently caressed, never even touching his privates (I found the girl a lot more attractive). Would you consider that as having sex with both of them, or maybe only the girl? I used to feel that neither had fully been my sexual partner (I don't know why, actually - I've always felt that oral sex counts), but now I realize that what I did with the girl counts. So make that 4 partners then?

I've had sex with a girl before (it was my first relationship) and even though there was no penetration whatsoever, I fully considered it sex. I don't feel I lost my virginity to her, though.

I personally believe that in some cases it can be hard to define. For some, only gently kissing and caressing each others' naked bodies can feel like having sex if the passion and lust are so strong it's nearly touchable. Others, on the other hand, don't think oral sex counts.

I think all this is important to note in a discussion about previous partners. The numbers might also vary so much because not everyone has the same idea of what counts.


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

elvin jones said:


> Honestly 12-15 is around average for someone in their 20s. I laugh when I hear guys wanting girls who have boned less than 5 guys. It's not going to happen. If she tells you otherwise I would suspect she's lying.


:|


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

Milco said:


>


I think 26:09 explains why many guys who want a steady relationship are hesitant about having a relationship with a woman who has had many partners in the past.


----------



## Elizabeth419 (Sep 9, 2010)

There's nothing biological about a man's so called preference for women who have had fewer sexual partners. In small scale societies where paternity isn't recognized, there isn't a preference for virgins or women who have had fewer partners. This is found only in staunchly male dominated societies. 
As we progree further away from patriarchal social structures, a woman who is not a virgin before marriage is no longer considerd a ****, and the numbers we're "allowed" to have, have dramatically increased. Nowadays if a 20 year old has 3 sexual partners under her belt it's not seen as a big deal. It might even be preferable to a virgin. However, 50 years ago this would've been good cause for labelling her damaged goods.


----------



## xTKsaucex (Jun 23, 2010)

I would sat at ages 20 (my age) - +8 sexual partners is the cut off and even then that's pushing it.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I don't think I'm the cheating type and I've slept with a lot of guys. I just can't stand being celibate in between relationships and usually I'm single for a year or two between relationships (now I've been single for over 4 years). It's hard to find a boyfriend and takes a long time to find one. That doesn't mean I have low standards. Almost all the guys I have had casual sex with have been very good looking, many of them better looking than my ex-boyfriends.

I'm not really sure why other women don't sleep around between relationships. I guess many have low sex drives and many have also been indoctrinated by the double standard. They think of themselves as worth less if they sleep around. Their whole value relies on how they use what is between their legs. The only reason that I could empathize with, is if they get attached to their sex partners and get their feelings hurt if the guy doesn't want to see them again. That's the part of male sexuality that disgusts me.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

komorikun said:


> I don't think I'm the cheating type and I've slept with a lot of guys. I just can't stand being celibate in between relationships and usually I'm single for a year or two between relationships (now I've been single for over 4 years). It's hard to find a boyfriend and takes a long time to find one. That doesn't mean I have low standards. Almost all the guys I have had casual sex with have been very good looking, many of them better looking than my ex-boyfriends.
> 
> I'm not really sure why other women don't sleep around between relationships. I guess many have low sex drives and many have also been indoctrinated by the double standard. They think of themselves as worth less if they sleep around. Their whole value relies on how they use what is between their legs. The only reason that I could empathize with, is if they get attached to their sex partners and get their feelings hurt if the guy doesn't want to see them again. That's the part of male sexuality that disgusts me.


Gold. Every word of it.
Girls need to understand this (and a lot of the guys on this forum, too).


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Witan said:


> I think 26:09 explains why many guys who want a steady relationship are hesitant about having a relationship with a woman who has had many partners in the past.


I was actually surprised when they said that, because I didn't think there necessarily would be any link.
But I guess there can easily be an insecurity with men if they feel they have to compete with past experiences to "retain" her and that could be part of that biological tendency.



Elizabeth419 said:


> There's nothing biological about a man's so called preference for women who have had fewer sexual partners. In small scale societies where paternity isn't recognized, there isn't a preference for virgins or women who have had fewer partners. This is found only in staunchly male dominated societies.


I wouldn't be so sure. The society and culture we are a part of is of course based on our biology, but it also affects us with guidelines and moral codes to adapt and live up to.
I'm not sure what small scale societies you're referring to exactly, but I wouldn't think modern western societies "staunchly male dominated". We have to acknowledge though, that there still is the same tendency while it might not be as strong as it was 50 years ago.
I'm not so sure female inhibitions and male desire to dominate is purely due to history.
But again, this is in no way an excuse for name-calling or shaming. It's solely about the preferences we have for the people we interact with and form relationships with.


----------



## Amorphousanomaly (Jun 20, 2012)

Don't ask don't tell is the best course here. I know plenty of attractive people that have slept with like, ~30 people. To discount romantic partners based on experience seems silly to me.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

komorikun said:


> I don't think I'm the cheating type and I've slept with a lot of guys. I just can't stand being celibate in between relationships and usually I'm single for a year or two between relationships (now I've been single for over 4 years). It's hard to find a boyfriend and takes a long time to find one. That doesn't mean I have low standards. Almost all the guys I have had casual sex with have been very good looking, many of them better looking than my ex-boyfriends.
> 
> I'm not really sure why other women don't sleep around between relationships. I guess many have low sex drives and many have also been indoctrinated by the double standard. They think of themselves as worth less if they sleep around. Their whole value relies on how they use what is between their legs. The only reason that I could empathize with, is if they get attached to their sex partners and get their feelings hurt if the guy doesn't want to see them again. That's the part of male sexuality that disgusts me.


I guess good looks are the only standard, right? Funny, most of the women around here want to get in your pockets first and I'm not being sexist.

As kids, we had no fathers around so we said dumb **** like

"Money over h***"

And the women had a broken concept of the male-provider archetype from being in broken homes, so they said:

"If he want me he gotta cash me out"

So now, the men treat the women like **** and the women are having sex for a Luis bag and some dominos pizza.

What an *** backward, debauched culture to grow up in.

All of that's not aimed at you, but look at how our generation has no patience. So jaded, vain and materialistic. What happened to patience over instant gratification?


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

Elizabeth419 said:


> There's nothing biological about a man's so called preference for women who have had fewer sexual partners. In small scale societies where paternity isn't recognized, there isn't a preference for virgins or women who have had fewer partners. This is found only in staunchly male dominated societies.
> As we progree further away from patriarchal social structures, a woman who is not a virgin before marriage is no longer considerd a ****, and the numbers we're "allowed" to have, have dramatically increased. Nowadays if a 20 year old has 3 sexual partners under her belt it's not seen as a big deal. It might even be preferable to a virgin. However, 50 years ago this would've been good cause for labelling her damaged goods.


Ey, check this out though: men and women are not the same. Men would ideally like to protect women and I think deep down women would prefer that too.

Nobody is raising these kids because everybody is out her playing capitalism and trying to be the best money maker they can be. Number one cause of divorce is money now. Spouses are competing, hiding assets, backstabbing, cheating and lying more than ever.

Meanwhile, the kids are out here robbing liquor stores, moving kilos, cussing and yelling, shooting up movie theaters and generally ****ing **** up. Daddy moved out to go get some paper and chase down capitalist fantasies and mamas getting her hair done for the club while leveraging her kids as a money making liability.

This comment is panned out to the general state of society today, but I think the innate reason men prefer women who haven't had a ton of sex is based on a biological mentality that runs deep in the blood. Its the reason I'll knock you out if you push up on my wife. Hegemonic, yes, but likely effective in the wild. Jealousy was evolved for this purpose.

I think all of this rhetoric about patriarchy has only made women better capitalists and better in bed. Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ahole. Obviously some "patriarchal" things were unfair, but some traditional ideas have a foundation in our biology.

You can't fight nature


----------



## Taija (Nov 3, 2008)

87wayz said:


> This comment is panned out to the general state of society today, but I think the innate reason men prefer women who haven't had a ton of sex is based on a biological mentality that runs deep in the blood. Its the reason I'll knock you out if you push up on my wife. Hegemonic, yes, but likely effective in the wild. Jealousy was evolved for this purpose.
> 
> I think all of this rhetoric about patriarchy has only made women better capitalists and better in bed. Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ahole. Obviously some "patriarchal" things were unfair, but some traditional ideas have a foundation in our biology.


I really don't agree. You seem to fully believe that these "traditional ideas" are biologically-based without having any sort of proof to back you up. I don't blame you; being raised this way can make you feel like it's just natural, but you should really read more about the matter.

Here's a quote from the wikipedia page about Patriarchy:



> *"Most sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that social and cultural conditioning is primarily responsible for establishing male and female gender roles. *According to standard sociological theory, patriarchy is the result of sociological constructions that are passed down from generation to generation.*"*


During the course of humankind's history, there has been all kinds of socities; patriarchal (male dominated) and matriarchal (female dominated), matrilinear, matrilocal and gynocentric - even egalitarian. So you can't really call it "traditional".

Jealousy is a whole another thing. I don't really see what it has to do with previous partners.

The only reason I can understand (biologically as well as people's opinions) is STDs, but there are ways to prevent that and if you're worried, you can always ask your partner to get tested.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

Taija said:


> I really don't agree. You seem to fully believe that these "traditional ideas" are biologically-based without having any sort of proof to back you up. I don't blame you; being raised this way can make you feel like it's just natural, but you should really read more about the matter.
> 
> Here's a quote from the wikipedia page about Patriarchy:
> 
> ...


Another Wikipedia scholar using a "source" to appear more credible.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

87wayz said:


> Another Wikipedia scholar using a "source" to appear more credible.


Wikipedia is very credible nowadays and their articles have citations detailing the sources for their facts/theories/statements. If this were 5 years ago I could maaaaaybe see your point.


----------



## Taija (Nov 3, 2008)

87wayz said:


> Another Wikipedia scholar using a "source" to appear more credible.


Uhh.. but you didn't give _any_ sources, just made claims. :|

Discrediting all claims just because they're from Wikipedia is an ad hominem and also pretty childish. Wikipedia isn't an absolute truth but it has been shown to be _just as accurate_ as other encyclopedias - and at least in Wikipedia, the facts can be easily checked. The sources for the citations were from a book so I couldn't link you that. I gave you a link to the Wikipedia page so you could have an overall idea and then maybe research the subject more if you're interested.

But if you'd prefer to just try to insult me instead, it shows you really don't care about facts or having a conversation. Very mature.


----------



## phoenixwright (Jun 22, 2011)

Milco said:


> I wanted to link this video to an earlier point and it actually addresses what you say here.
> 
> The whole video is well worth a watch (the entire series is really), but the 2 parts most related to the discussion in this thread is:
> - 6:00 to 7:50
> ...


Amen. I love it how they mention from the survey that ideally Norwegian males want an average of 25 sex partners in their life while Norwegian females on average want 7. It proves my point.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

Taija said:


> Uhh.. but you didn't give _any_ sources, just made claims. :|
> 
> Discrediting all claims just because they're from Wikipedia is an ad hominem and also pretty childish. Wikipedia isn't an absolute truth but it has been shown to be _just as accurate_ as other encyclopedias - and at least in Wikipedia, the facts can be easily checked. The sources for the citations were from a book so I couldn't link you that. I gave you a link to the Wikipedia page so you could have an overall idea and then maybe research the subject more if you're interested.
> 
> But if you'd prefer to just try to insult me instead, it shows you really don't care about facts or having a conversation. Very mature.


Ok, ok u win. I did make some unsubstantiated claims about my worldview, so let me localize my assessment to avoid generalization:

I don't want Keisha from down the street because I know 10 dudes she's been with. (Source?)


----------



## Taija (Nov 3, 2008)

87wayz said:


> Ok, ok u win. I did make some unsubstantiated claims about my worldview, so let me localize my assessment to avoid generalization:
> 
> I don't want Keisha from down the street because I know 10 dudes she's been with. (Source?)


Fair enough. I just usually don't like generalization, but I have no problem with your personal preferences, especially since our environments and backgrounds are different.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

Taija said:


> Fair enough. I just usually don't like generalization, but I have no problem with your personal preferences, especially since our environments and backgrounds are different.


Yeah, definitely. Work is boring today so its all good


----------



## phoenixwright (Jun 22, 2011)

Looking at that Norwegian video, in a study in San Francisco, 28% of gay men have had 1000+ sexual partners and 2% of lesbians have had 100+ sexual partners. 

WoW. Just WoW. Those numbers have to be BS. Otherwise, that's just insane. I don't want 1000+ sexual partners (keep in mind that I have low testosterone levels for a male. So that probably has something to do with that. Other guys on here may think differently). Don't you just get bored of hitting the bars and clubs all the time trying to score a lay? The novelty has to wear off at some point right? If you go out an average of 1-2 nights a week and have 1 per night, that's like 52-104 sexual partners a year. I guess that's feasible. But what if you really enjoy sex with a particular person and want to "repeat"? Or what if you connect with someone on a deep level and want to repeat?


----------



## foe (Oct 10, 2010)

As long as there are no pictures or videos on the Internet, I don't really care. I won't ask about past experiences or even want to know about it.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

phoenixwright said:


> Looking at that Norwegian video, in a study in San Francisco, 28% of gay men have had 1000+ sexual partners and 2% of lesbians have had 100+ sexual partners.
> 
> WoW. Just WoW. Those numbers have to be BS. Otherwise, that's just insane.
> ...


I tried to look up that study when I first saw the series, because it does sound just absurd (and certainly nothing I can identify with :um).
I believe the survey was done in the late 70s/early 80s before the HIV outbreak and awareness, so that's definitely worth noting - these numbers are not from today and cannot be said to be typical for all communities as San Francisco in the 70s really was something special, but it is included to give numbers in an 'extreme' environment that was presumably fairly equally 'liberal' for both men and women.

But yeah, I'd be fine if I could just have 1 for the rest of my life. I don't need to conquer or be with 20 different people, but I know I'm far from the typical male.


----------



## elvin jones (Dec 12, 2011)

Witan said:


> :|


Don't get too discouraged. Just try to not think about it. Because once you find out your girlfriend has had sex with like 30 dudes (a good possibility) you'll never look at her the same way.


----------



## Elizabeth419 (Sep 9, 2010)

Milco said:


> I was actually surprised when they said that, because I didn't think there necessarily would be any link.
> But I guess there can easily be an insecurity with men if they feel they have to compete with past experiences to "retain" her and that could be part of that biological tendency.
> 
> I wouldn't be so sure. The society and culture we are a part of is of course based on our biology, but it also affects us with guidelines and moral codes to adapt and live up to.
> ...


As a society we are less male dominated. We therefore have more female promiscuity. But no society in the Western world is fully and totally liberated yet. Therefore women have not yet reached parity with males sexually. In time we will. The tendency to reject women who have had more sexual partners is becoming more and more uncommon. If you had asked me 5 years ago what I thought of women who slept around, coming from a small town mindset I'd have said she was a ****. But after educating myself, I now engage in shameless casual sex and feel no guilt about it. If it were so ingrained in my psyche to avoid sleeping with too many men, it wouldn't have been so easy for me to begin having casual sex.


----------



## Elizabeth419 (Sep 9, 2010)

87wayz said:


> Ey, check this out though: men and women are not the same. Men would ideally like to protect women and I think deep down women would prefer that too.
> 
> Nobody is raising these kids because everybody is out her playing capitalism and trying to be the best money maker they can be. Number one cause of divorce is money now. Spouses are competing, hiding assets, backstabbing, cheating and lying more than ever.
> 
> ...


 You basically just cited nothing but sociological premises to back up your favour of a biological argument.

I agree that I can't fight nature. But unlike five years ago when I believed that women who slept around were damaged goods, I now have casual sex myself without any guilt. I didn't fight anything, I got an education. And I've had no problems finding boyfriends who respect me. It's society that made me feel guilt about my sexuality in the past, not my blood.


----------



## Valentine (May 17, 2012)

would i be mad if she ****ed the whole east coast? hmm... how can i be mad? given the chance I'd **** the whole east coast.


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

Too many is one more than enough.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Elizabeth419 said:


> As a society we are less male dominated. We therefore have more female promiscuity. But no society in the Western world is fully and totally liberated yet. Therefore women have not yet reached parity with males sexually. In time we will. The tendency to reject women who have had more sexual partners is becoming more and more uncommon. If you had asked me 5 years ago what I thought of women who slept around, coming from a small town mindset I'd have said she was a ****. But after educating myself, I now engage in shameless casual sex and feel no guilt about it. If it were so ingrained in my psyche to avoid sleeping with too many men, it wouldn't have been so easy for me to begin having casual sex.


I'm really not so sure.
In order to know when we're "fully liberated" it's important to know what the premise/foundation is, since we otherwise risk pushing things people don't actually want. We should of course open up for people doing what they want without fear of name-calling, but at least in Northern Europe it seems that women's magazines have been pushing women to enjoy casual sex rather than to abstain from it, yet they still don't want to nearly as much as men.
It's great if you've had some personal change that has been good for you, but I'm hesitant to say that can be applied most other places as well.

Our culture can change us away from our natural, biological tendencies though to some extent and we are of course all wired differently biologically.
But you have to admit that these traits actually would be favourable for survival and reproduction throughout most of history, so these are actually traits you would expect to have been passed on.
Saying that there might be a biological component isn't trying to keep anybody down or 'in place', but simply trying to get a picture of what society would look like when it is "fully liberated", since we tend to judge equality based on whether men and women do something equally much and not based on whether some are being denied what they want to do.


----------



## Peter Attis (Aug 31, 2009)

I'm starting to think that, even if she had "banged the whole eastside," it'd be best for me to just accept that and not question it or anything else about her at all. I don't want to be seen as some misogynist **** shamer.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

Elizabeth419 said:


> You basically just cited nothing but sociological premises to back up your favour of a biological argument.
> 
> I agree that I can't fight nature. But unlike five years ago when I believed that women who slept around were damaged goods, I now have casual sex myself without any guilt. I didn't fight anything, I got an education. And I've had no problems finding boyfriends who respect me. It's society that made me feel guilt about my sexuality in the past, not my blood.


I'm not gonna write you an essay, too busy.

I don't see you citing any sources.

If you were from where I'm from you would understand


----------



## Taija (Nov 3, 2008)

Milco said:


> We should of course open up for people doing what they want without fear of name-calling, but at least in Northern Europe it seems that women's magazines have been pushing women to enjoy casual sex rather than to abstain from it, yet they still don't want to nearly as much as men.
> It's great if you've had some personal change that has been good for you, but I'm hesitant to say that can be applied most other places as well.


How do you know? You keep saying that most women don't want to have casual sex, and when a lot of women here say they do want to (including me), you just say that they aren't in the majority. Just because women haven't had that many sexual partners doesn't mean that they don't _want to. _Just because some women's magazines might say it's okay doesn't mean there still isn't a huge stigma around it; a lot of women are still taught different and a lot of women are still shamed for it. Not to mention that many women who have had casual sex lie to about so they won't like look ****s.



Milco said:


> Our culture can change us away from our natural, biological tendencies though to some extent and we are of course all wired differently biologically.
> But you have to admit that these traits actually would be favourable for survival and reproduction throughout most of history, so these are actually traits you would expect to have been passed on.
> Saying that there might be a biological component isn't trying to keep anybody down or 'in place', but simply trying to get a picture of what society would look like when it is "fully liberated", since we tend to judge equality based on whether men and women do something equally much and not based on whether some are being denied what they want to do.


Did you read what I linked on the last page? Patriarchy isn't biological. There have been plenty of societies that weren't male dominated and they did just fine.

Not to mention that things change. Even if it _was_ a biological tendency, there's no need for it today because having less sexual partners doesn't really help a relationship in any way. Women and men should definitely have equal choices (and if it's allowed, then not be shamed for it or taught what's "right"); then they can choose for themselves what they want to do.


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

if u think society is less male dominated you are just not paying attention. You think because a woman can make middle management and get paid less than a man would make that's "power"?

If women can now guiltlessly go on sexual conquest (which really are not acheivements, dudes will hit anything) that freedom comes at a price.

A lot of people don't care about family because both sexes are just chasing money. A woman feels weak and less empowered if she dedicates herself to raising kids instead of running around getting money and having random sex. If she's dedicated and family focused people say she's weak: my wife gets that all the time because she cooks for us and has no "this guy I ****ed over the weekend" stories. They call her lame, but hell, she works too and she has a strong mind. I ask her for advice all the time


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Taija said:


> How do you know? You keep saying that most women don't want to have casual sex, and when a lot of women here say they do want to (including me), you just say that they aren't in the majority. Just because women haven't had that many sexual partners doesn't mean that they don't _want to. _Just because some women's magazines might say it's okay doesn't mean there still isn't a huge stigma around it; a lot of women are still taught different and a lot of women are still shamed for it. Not to mention that many women who have had casual sex lie to about so they won't like look ****s.


I haven't made studies myself, but in the video I linked in this thread a Norwegian study was mentioned (for example) and many other studies show the same trend.
I'm not sure what you're thinking, but I actually don't have any wish for the numbers to be one way or the other. If women wanted casual sex just as much as men, that'd be fine with me, but from what I can tell that isn't the case. It's not really relevant to the "How many is too many" topic of this thread though, since I'm not arguing this should in any way be used to point finger at people.
The reason I mention women's magazines isn't because those are awesome and I read them all the time, but rather it's because those are often cited as a prominent source of sexism and promoting the stereotypical gender roles. My point was just that they actually do encourage women to do a lot of things and not all of it seems to be catching on.
I don't know how it is in Finland, but girls/women here really aren't being taught differently and they really aren't being shamed for behaviour which would be appropriate for guys.



> Did you read what I linked on the last page? Patriarchy isn't biological. There have been plenty of societies that weren't male dominated and they did just fine.
> 
> Not to mention that things change. Even if it _was_ a biological tendency, there's no need for it today because having less sexual partners doesn't really help a relationship in any way. Women and men should definitely have equal choices (and if it's allowed, then not be shamed for it or taught what's "right"); then they can choose for themselves what they want to do.


I think you're misunderstanding the point here.
A biological explanation is not a justification. Nor did I say that people shouldn't be allowed to do what they want to do - that we should hold people of both gender to the same standards.
But completely denying biology only causes damage.
The point is simply that it's unrealistic to expect men and women to choose the same things at the same rates - biological differences means that won't happen (without being forced).
One clear example of that is how men and women choose educations and jobs very much in line with traditional gender roles in Scandinavia while women in conservative, developing countries choose educations in IT and technology at astounding rates.
The more 'free' we become, the more biology will matter in what choices we make, because we become free to make the choice that resonates the most with us - the one we are most biologically compatible with.


----------



## JGreenwood (Jan 28, 2011)

meganmila said:


> I would like to have a threesome with two dudes..oh but wait that would be ****ty right?:blank


Where do I sign up? lol:b


----------



## Taija (Nov 3, 2008)

Milco said:


> I haven't made studies myself, but in the video I linked in this thread a Norwegian study was mentioned (for example) and many other studies show the same trend.
> I'm not sure what you're thinking, but I actually don't have any wish for the numbers to be one way or the other. If women wanted casual sex just as much as men, that'd be fine with me, but from what I can tell that isn't the case. It's not really relevant to the "How many is too many" topic of this thread though, since I'm not arguing this should in any way be used to point finger at people.
> The reason I mention women's magazines isn't because those are awesome and I read them all the time, but rather it's because those are often cited as a prominent source of sexism and promoting the stereotypical gender roles. My point was just that they actually do encourage women to do a lot of things and not all of it seems to be catching on.
> I don't know how it is in Finland, but girls/women here really aren't being taught differently and they really aren't being shamed for behaviour which would be appropriate for guys.


I wasn't trying to imply that you have something against women having casual sex, sorry if it sounded that way.

I know some studies show that men have had more partners than women and I'm not trying to argue with that (except I do think it's possible those results are skewed because both men and women could be lying about their numbers) - what I don't believe so much is that it's because women just don't like casual sex. Although most people aren't explicitly told it's wrong, there still that kind of air around it. It's not just guys, either; I think girls actually call each other ****s a lot more often.

Then you also have to consider the dangers; it's a lot likelier for a woman to be a victim of violence or sexual abuse than a man, so some might be very afraid to bring a stranger home with them.

I would imagine Finland is a whole lot like Denmark in these kind of things and most people (except the most conservative ones) aren't exactly taught at home that many sexual partners is a bad thing, but it's still rooted deep in the way we talk and act. You see it in media, especially TV shows and movies, as well. "Man*****" has become a common word now, but only recently; no one used to call men who slept around any names. It was only in the late sixties and seventies that people were starting to consider that maybe it's not so bad for a woman to have sex outside of marriage, after all.

All the girls _I_ know are actually a lot more into sex than the guys and seem to have had more partners (my boyfriend just made a note of this yesterday and I realized it's true), but that most likely has something to do with the kind of people we hang out with.

It's great progess, but still not quite there. I have no problem if a guy would prefer that his own girlfriend hasn't had many partners - I'm sure they will find a girl who feels that way, too. It's only when people start talking about how all girls should act that it's a problem.


----------



## Jollygoggles (Mar 3, 2011)

I'm gonna marry a **** u gaiz! 
And she will be my **** princess!
And we will do it. 
do it like savages.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Taija said:


> SNIP


Just given the topic at hand, I wanted to make sure it was clear that I have no more against women having casual sex than when men do it.

But I think you should watch that Norwegian popular documentary show I linked. Not because it'll convince you that things are some specific way, but because I think you might find it interesting still.
There are too many studies referenced and people interviewed to really relay it all here, but one thing they did say was that a study had asked how many partners people wanted over the course of an entire life and girls/women had put 7 as the average while boys/men had 25 as their average.

Social conditioning does do something, but I don't think it's completely wrong that women tend to value stability and emotional security more than men do, while men tend to more value independence and 'promiscuity' in a sense. And that's not to say that either is superior/inferior to the other - just that I really do think there's more to it than just something we've been taught.

On a purely technical note though, there have been some misconceptions about what genetic/biological differences actually mean. Often it is presented as if a genetic bias towards either gender means that all individuals of that gender are better than the other gender at doing something and that's simply not the case.
From the blog for the Norwegian documentary programme (linky - In Norwegian) there was a link to an academic debate between Steven Pinker and Elizabeth S. Spelke on biology in gender roles/differences (linky)
In the case of promiscuity, if there is a gender bias that means men favour casual sex more than women do, for the vast majority of the 'normal' spectrum, men and women can have the exact same preferences. What it means is that as you go further out either extreme, the proportion of the "favoured" gender will increase. It cannot be said that there are none of the "unfavoured" gender at any level, only that they make up a smaller proportion.

Again, none of this has to do with value or what people should be allowed to do. I just find the discussion very interesting and interesting to try to get some sense of what is doing what and how big an effect the different factors have - I'm not trying to argue that everything is biology, just that biology does factor in.


----------



## Elizabeth419 (Sep 9, 2010)

Milco said:


> I'm really not so sure.
> In order to know when we're "fully liberated" it's important to know what the premise/foundation is, since we otherwise risk pushing things people don't actually want. We should of course open up for people doing what they want without fear of name-calling, but at least in Northern Europe it seems that women's magazines have been pushing women to enjoy casual sex rather than to abstain from it, yet they still don't want to nearly as much as men.
> It's great if you've had some personal change that has been good for you, but I'm hesitant to say that can be applied most other places as well.
> 
> ...


 And what would make you think that all women in Norway read women's magazines? Do you think reading a few articles in a magazine or seeing something on tv is really going to vaporize 10,000 or more years of patriarchy? My point is that the more we progress as a society, the more women are allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies. Even though Norway is arguably far more advanced in the sense that you won't get your head cut off for sleeping around, or get **** shamed as much as you would in, let's say, Texas, it's going to take a lot more than just a few decades of cultural changes before the guilt in sleeping around is wiped away. My grandmother only had one her whole life, my mother has had far more, and I'll bet by the time I'm my mom's age I'll have had a lot more than her. If I ever have a daughter, I suspect by the time she's sexually active society will have advanced even further. "Fully liberated" means absolute freedom. The day the word '****' no longer exists as an abusive term is the day we will become liberated.


----------



## Elizabeth419 (Sep 9, 2010)

87wayz said:


> I'm not gonna write you an essay, too busy.
> 
> I don't see you citing any sources.
> 
> If you were from where I'm from you would understand


 I don't see you citing any sources, either. What a marvelous way to back up your claims :clap

What magical kingdom are you from, that I might dip my hand in it's golden reservoir of sexual knowledge?


----------



## 87wayz (Jul 5, 2012)

Elizabeth419 said:


> I don't see you citing any sources, either. What a marvelous way to back up your claims :clap
> 
> What magical kingdom are you from, that I might dip my hand in it's golden reservoir of sexual knowledge?


Detroit


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

Reading this thread has made me realize just how sexually retarded I am :um Before reading this, my threshold for promiscuity was far below the numbers people have been throwing out in this thread :um


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Elizabeth419 said:


> And what would make you think that all women in Norway read women's magazines? Do you think reading a few articles in a magazine or seeing something on tv is really going to vaporize 10,000 or more years of patriarchy? My point is that the more we progress as a society, the more women are allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies. Even though Norway is arguably far more advanced in the sense that you won't get your head cut off for sleeping around, or get **** shamed as much as you would in, let's say, Texas, it's going to take a lot more than just a few decades of cultural changes before the guilt in sleeping around is wiped away. My grandmother only had one her whole life, my mother has had far more, and I'll bet by the time I'm my mom's age I'll have had a lot more than her. If I ever have a daughter, I suspect by the time she's sexually active society will have advanced even further. "Fully liberated" means absolute freedom. The day the word '****' no longer exists as an abusive term is the day we will become liberated.


Well ironically I only mentioned those magazines because they often get mentioned as the culprit who projects these stereotypes onto young girls for example with ideals of beauty and things to live up to there.
There isn't 10000 years of patriarchy to undo. We are alive right now and live in a society that is radically different from what it was even just a relatively short time ago. It is not the fight of women alive today to undo all injustices from history, nor are men alive today responsible for those - none of us are 10000 years old - but there are still problems today and questions we still need to answer and that's what we should be trying to do.

There will never be absolute freedom, because there will always be responsibilities and social pressure to do one thing or another, but hopefully there could be more tolerance and people could be allowed to do what they want without fear of shaming at least.
I don't think that's really that far off, but my point is that I'm not expecting to see women engage in casual sex as eagerly as men - statistically speaking - and so using that as a measure of when society has been "liberated" will create a false picture of continued discrimination.


----------



## jimity (Jan 12, 2011)

Too many??? There is no such thing as too many. I think that it would matter more to the person who had less sex if they find out their partner has had more sex than them. Sex is like facebook these days. Just another popularity contest except it more of a i'm-better-than-u-cos-i-had more-partners or i have better orgasms etc etc....


----------



## JGreenwood (Jan 28, 2011)

Elizabeth419 said:


> And what would make you think that all women in Norway read women's magazines? Do you think reading a few articles in a magazine or seeing something on tv is really going to vaporize 10,000 or more years of patriarchy? My point is that the more we progress as a society, the more women are allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies. Even though Norway is arguably far more advanced in the sense that you won't get your head cut off for sleeping around, or get ***** shamed as much as you would in, let's say, Texas*, it's going to take a lot more than just a few decades of cultural changes before the guilt in sleeping around is wiped away. My grandmother only had one her whole life, my mother has had far more, and I'll bet by the time I'm my mom's age I'll have had a lot more than her. If I ever have a daughter, I suspect by the time she's sexually active society will have advanced even further. "Fully liberated" means absolute freedom. The day the word '****' no longer exists as an abusive term is the day we will become liberated.


Woah. What's with the random Texas hatred? I don't believe "**** shaming" happens there more than anywhere else. They're are a lot of really laid back people in Texas...it's a huge state.


----------



## CrimsonTrigger (Jun 28, 2011)

I don't know. Why do I have to come up with an exact number? Should I really chance leaving a girl who could potentially be the love of my life just because she had a lot of sex? I wouldn't want a girl doing that to me. 

Years ago I would have said I would only go out with a virgin. These days I really don't care as much because it isn't realistic to expect most girls to still be a virgin, whether they had sex once or a million times with several guys. Love is more than the amount of dudes she slept with


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

CrimsonTrigger said:


> Years ago I would have said I would only go out with a virgin. These days I really don't care as much because it isn't realistic to expect most girls to still be a virgin...


This is the point of view that I'm (slowly) moving toward.


----------



## pete24 (Oct 13, 2010)

Witan said:


> This is the point of view that I'm (slowly) moving toward.


Yea, very true guys.

My x was a virgin, n she was 23, hell thats too rare to find.

I was exactly the same as both of you. Always wanted a virgin, but to be fair it was probably just a 1% chance that I would find a virgin.

My x was the only virgin I slept with and to be honest, I think I had gone past the stage of only wanting a virgin before that cause I knew how unrealistic it was.


----------



## Elizabeth419 (Sep 9, 2010)

Milco said:


> Well ironically I only mentioned those magazines because they often get mentioned as the culprit who projects these stereotypes onto young girls for example with ideals of beauty and things to live up to there.
> There isn't 10000 years of patriarchy to undo. We are alive right now and live in a society that is radically different from what it was even just a relatively short time ago. It is not the fight of women alive today to undo all injustices from history, nor are men alive today responsible for those - none of us are 10000 years old - but there are still problems today and questions we still need to answer and that's what we should be trying to do.
> 
> There will never be absolute freedom, because there will always be responsibilities and social pressure to do one thing or another, but hopefully there could be more tolerance and people could be allowed to do what they want without fear of shaming at least.
> I don't think that's really that far off, but my point is that I'm not expecting to see women engage in casual sex as eagerly as men - statistically speaking - and so using that as a measure of when society has been "liberated" will create a false picture of continued discrimination.


 Culture doesn't change that fast. Prior to the women's suffrage movement we were living in a world with 10,000 plus years of patriarchy. We still have a lot of work to undo, since cultural theorists claim, even in the Norwegian documentary posted above, that ancient cultural customs won't just disappear overnight. I never said that men today were responsible for this, women are equally responsible for "**** shaming." But we've only had since the 1960's since women began taking control of their sexualities, and in only a 50 year time span we are beginning to catch up to men sexually in our acceptance of casual sex . There may never be absolute freedom overall in this world, but in this arena I believe there will be.

Anyways, regardless of opinion on this matter I can at least agree with you that a more tolerant society is needed. Whether it's nature or nurture.


----------

