filtherton

I don't think number of partners is important. If anything, i like the idea of a lady with more experience than me because it means that she could probably show me a thing or two. Besides, as long as someone is safe you really have nothing to worry about, unless your the kind of person who can always find something to worry about.

As for the relevance of history, it is only as relevant as you believe it is. I know plenty of people with chemdep problems who were defacto pieces of shit when they were using who seem now to be productive and functional people. People can change.

zen_tom

I was thinking about this on the way into work and thought of a test.

The number is never too high, as long as you can remember their names.

Or am I horribly old fasioned to think that sex ought to be with someone you know reasonably well?

(Ouch, thinking about it, I fail my own test, so maybe it's not so hot)

Averett

nice zen_tom

Our society is so hooked on numbers. This is just another aspect of that. And each individual has their own standards.

Also, don't ask for your partners number if you're not ready for it. Cause it just might be 1 or 100.

__________________
Absence is to love what wind is to fire. It extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great.

shortynickel

too bad my wife would prolly mind or i would be willing to try

anyway...i am not sure if you have noticed yet but ppl on this board wont condem(sp?) you for in this case being with Lots of partners be it 3, 30 or 300...

yall have mentioned that ya take experiences with you after each partner you have been with...well my wife is the only one i have ever been with...so at times i wish i had even one additional partner, cause imo i only can experience things with someone that is just as lil experienced(actually kinda less experienced, in a way) as me...so in a way i am very jealous of ya jill and a great big to ya

DJLaurieB

I just posted something similar in another thread, and sorry if this has been said before here. I don't think anyone should divulge the numbers, especailly the older you get. No good ever comes out of that kind of conversation, someone walks aways feeling insecure, whether it be for being too dirty or too prudish.

I'm a 35 yr old single woman who's never been married. I'm not constantly in relationships, but I enjoy sex. I suppose you could call me a "serial monogamist". I'm not even sure how many guys I've been with at this point in time, not because I'm a dirty whore, but at some point it ceases to matter. What matters is how YOU view the hookups. If you're running around spreading your legs for everyone who asks..... yeah, that could be troublesome. But if you're dating a nice person, and your'e careful, and no harm done for either i.e. cheating, lying, etc........then why not?

The bigger question I guess would be............ what DOES make someone a slut? For men AND women? is it numbers, or is it the way they go about having sex with people? It's such a grey area, I'm sure that could be debated forever with no real defining conclusions. (shrug)

maleficent

Good Lord, we're supposed to remember their names? I remember where I was... But names? Naw - I only remember the good ones...

__________________

lunchbox

DJLaurie, I think the problem with your question is that a lot of people are going to view a slut/man whore differently. I personally think someone who finds someone to fuck for the sport of it to be that way. For example, I know many college guys who go to parties just to find random girls to sleep with, and I think that's dirty and irresponsible and hence a slut. Or the women who don't care to have a relationship. There are girls I know too who will find guys and sleep with them but not be interested in anything more. A ONS is fine once in a while but people who are looking for that all the time, I think have problems and are capable of getting that tag: slut. I don't think people should go into sex essentially eliminating the possibility of a relationship with that person.

__________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

-Douglas Adams

jadedt

As long as you are clean, safe and are tested... don't ask and don't tell. Like most guys, I ask, but I just don't like knowing. We ask anyway, cuz we are STUPID and nosey. We want sex and want to think we are the ONE and awesome. Your having had 100's or 1000's ruins the illusion. Just say "a couple" in the future and both can rest at ease. Just don't slip and mention too many ex's.

tomintroy

I've just learned that my SO had 10 or more one niters (she's 48) and It's bothering the hell out of me as well. and save the "double standard crap", I'm a guy, but I hold myself to the same level of sexual integrety as women and I have never had a one niter. Using the argument that some level of casual sex can be tolerated then any level should be OK. The right number should be age related as well as throwing in a few mistakes of life. I wish I could deal with this new found info from her but I can't stop thinking and feeling bad. I suddenly feel this cheapenss everything about her/me and us. I feel like just a number rather than the special person i am. This feeling I've got now is as strong and negitive as the love was as strong and as positive.

I'm writing because I want to come to terms with my feelings. I've even seen and am continuing counseling. I'm not sure if counceling can help me. Any feedback from this group would be GREATLY appreciated.

ShaniFaye

I wonder how some people would feel if they were asked the number of their partners and were rejected because the number was too low for the person asking

The people hung up on numbers really need to get a clue and look at the relationship as a whole.....what matters is if your partner is with you and you only (unless youre a swinging couple...but then swinging couples dont look down on numbers) who gives a flying turd what they did BEFORE THEY EVEN KNEW YOU.

If sexual integrity is "sacred" to you...then you need to find out what they did before they get to the level of "significant other" with you.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

filtherton

Why does knowing the number of people she's fucked change anything? Is she not the same person whose company you enjoyed before she dropped this little bomb on you? The only thing that has cheapened your relationship is the fact that you can't get past something like this. If the relationship had value to you, you would find a way to come to terms with this. I'm guessing that your relationship is more than a one night stand, so what makes you think that she doesn't think you're special? She's with you, right? I think you need to get over her sexual history, because there are a lot worse things a girlfriend can be than "formerly moderately promiscuous". If you can't deal with it than she is better off without you.

doncalypso

Jillian, I do not know how many people you've been with in the past nor is it my business to know... what you have done in your past is in your past (especially if it happened before you ever met and hooked up with that ex-boyfriend of yours to begin with).

This being said, I have to say that despite how "liberated" society might be, and despite whatever advances the sexual revolution may have brought forward, the double standards still exist when it comes to male versus female sexuality.
Despite the fact that I disagree with the double standards myself, I must admit that I would find it hard to accept if I found out my girlfriend had been with a whole hell of a lot more people than I have. I am currently 22 years old, and thus far the total number of sexual partners I have had is somewhere between 10 and 13 (I have not kept count because I'd rather forget some of the circumstances under which I had sex when I was back in high school). My girlfriend is 21 years old, and if by this age she'd been with 30 or more people I would have had a hard time dealing with this despite my relatively high number of sex partners over the 8 years that I've been sexually active because I'd be afraid of not measuring up to those other guys she'd been with.

Honestly, I think that the sexual revolution and the women's liberation movement failed miserably... Not that I agree with the persisting double-standard that women should remain sexless and "pure" before marriage while men should have free reign to have as much sex as they want as soon as they're capable of achieving an erection, but rather that the sexual revolution was a good concept turned bad--analogous to how Stalin perverted Trotsky's notions of progressist socialism and turned them into hardline totalitarian communism.
What women should have done during the sexual revolution would've been to demand that men adhere to the same rigorous standards that women were being held to. Women should have said "hey... if you want us to remain 'pure' and 'clean' then you should respect us by not going around being manwhores and having sex with so many women while expecting us to be sexless..." or something to that effect. Instead, the message that was sent was "...if men can go out and be pigs and whores why shouldn't we?" and that's where I think things went wrong. So now, both men and women are having random promiscuous sex and not caring for the consequences.

In all honesty, I think that if the number of people a person has slept with by the time they're in their 30s is over 50 or in the triple-digits range then it is just too damned much. Don't get me wrong, I love sex, and honestly I don't think I could ever have enough of it. But if I were to choose between having experienced a whole variety of different partners and sticking to earth-shaking good sex with one or two in the whole time I've been sexually active, I'd choose the latter.
I think that people would be much happier and that there would be much less spreading of STDs if they stuck to fewer sexual partners and really took the time to get to know each other (sexually speaking, that is) so that they'd enjoy good sex rather than hook up with a plethora of different people in a matter of a few years.


I realize that I've been running my proverbial mouth way too long already, so I guess I'll stop my rant now.

And Jillian... maybe you're right that if you posted the exact number of people you'd slept with throughout your sexually active life I would probably pass negative judgment on you (damned double standard again), but your ex-boyfriend had no right to call you names when he knew this information when you two were together and still chose to sleep with you.

Even though you're comfortable with your past you must accept the fact that you will meet men who could be the ideal person for you but will not get involved with you because they don't agree with how many people you've slept with. It is not fair, but that's the harsh reality of life.

__________________
Doncalypso... the one and only Haitian Sensation

doncalypso

Maybe the question should've been "why shouldn't men stick to the same high standards as women?"


Maybe if women refused to date and sleep with manwhores then the men would get a clue and stop sleeping around. I'm a man, and I believe the double standard is wrong... but I don't think the answer to it is for women to become as promiscuous (of not more) than men.

__________________
Doncalypso... the one and only Haitian Sensation

filtherton

The answer is to stop enforcing the double standard.

tomintroy

I can't tell you for sure why this bothers me but it's killing all my feelings toward this woman that I’ve had such a great time with. I also learned that she cheated in most if not all her relationships up till 1990. My own personal history is that I was cheated on in my marriage and could never get over it. Some of that may be the source as well as she may have had many more partners than that. In the 80's she also was quite the partier with cocaine. That seemed to have ended in 1988. So why am I wasting my time if I've so many doubts? I don't want to let go of this one if most of the problem is mine. She's also been single for 20 years after she cheated 3 months into her marriage. I’m trying to cope with this new knowledge, THAT’S WHY I’M WRIGHTING HERE! So save your fucking hostility’s!

shortynickel

hey tomin...have you been with her long? like a month, a year, 10 years??

Lockjaw

I wouldn't feel bad at all because if they are rejecting me because of a low number then I'm pretty certain they likely wouldn't match up to my standards either so it's best things get cut off early. Besides it's you REALLY wanted that person it's a whole helluva lot easier to ADD to a number than go back in time and subtract from it.

Agreed that's why this should be asked early in the relationship as opposed to some folks saying don't worry about it. Ask and if it's too much for your ego...then beat feet before you get too attached.

Lockjaw

Yowza...calm down there cowboy.
But what you should ask yourself and her how dedicated has she been in the relationships she's had SINCE then. If she hasn't had a prolonged relationship since 1990 I'd be more concerned if she was ready for a long term relationship more than about how many folks she's slept with. If she's had a few long term relationships and hasn't cheated in them then likely she has changed and the wild child she once was is gone so the 10 one nighters in the 14 years since she's been married probably isn't that big of a deal. However if she DID cheat during her relationship or if she hasn't had any long termers...then I'd wager it ain't out of her system yet and the ball is now in your court. Regardless though if you intend to stay with her you need to either get over it or move on.

Lockjaw

Yet people here seem to be having a problem with folks who don't even have a double standard and just frown upon too much sexual activity in their opinion. That's not a double standard it's I want somebody that lives up to the standard I have set and am living up to it.

tomintroy

I've dated her 4 months, I just learned of her past. Her last LTR was from 90 to 95, 3 months into that relationship she took a vacation to Tahit and Fucked someone. That seems to be what she's done in every relationship she's had. (Vacation cheating) In her marrige she cheated from Just before their wedding day to 3 months after saying I do.I can't justify my reaction to what I've learned. At an Intelectual level I completely want to let go of this but theirs a pit in my stomach that won't leave. I have taken some time away from her to try and put closer on my attitude, but I'm worried that this break will be hard on her self estem and end her feelings toward me.

freecorndogs

The "double standard" that so many, so often, refer to with such knee jerk predictability is not truly "double" at all. It is actually the same standard, philosophically speaking, for both the man and the woman. It stems from the value society places on success and accomplishment.

You see, a man's sexual innocence has never been a measure of his virtue. Historically, just the opposite has proven true. "Be strong", "Be a MAN", or "I'll make a man out of him yet", or "are you a man or a mouse", or "make something of youself" these historical phrases all stem from the idea that when a baby boy is born, regardless of how adorable he may be at that time, he is expected to not just grow to become an adult. To be truly considered virtuous i.e. "worthy", he has to grow up and be "A MAN". He has to be accomplished. Otherwise, he is just a weak, aimless, slacker. He's not tough, not accomplished, not capable, not a leader. Instead he is thought of simply as kind of a wimpy guy, maybe a nice guy but he's never really put into the category of male archetype that society looks up to as the fearless, virile "WARRIOR". As such, to be a "REAL" man means to be accomplished along the traditional warrior archetype (regardless of how many hours you may actually just sit at a desk and keyboard eating Doritos each day). It is about conquest, setting goals and achieving them, and displaying untiring discipline in the face of any defeat encountered along this path. So, historically, except for a few short periods of time (Victorian age, the 1950s, etc) sexual innocence has been anathema to a man's virtue. To be a MAN meant to have made sexual conquest.

Now I am not suggesting that quantity in excess is a good thing as the "quality" of those conquests must also be considered. Picking up a street hooker is hardly a "conquest". There was no "pursuit", no effort, no "wooing", no "charming", no need to stick by her for any length of time to "figure out" the woman, or any of that ($30 and "hey baby, will you suck me? does not count toward wooing or charm!).

Basically, you could think of it as though when a baby boy is born, he is starting off with a score of "zero". As he accomplishes more and more in life through discipline and hard work, he racks up "points", if you will. With enough points (not just from sex but from everything he achieves/becomes) he eventually will be accepted by society (and himself) as "A MAN". Moreover, he too accepts society that abides by this archetypal social role. They reflect and complement each other. If one fails to a significant enough degree, the other is doomed to fail as well

Then there are little baby girls. Adorable, sweet, innocent. Wonderful little beings just like the boys but the difference is, they are, in many ways, considered perfect little creations. They are already at the peak of their success. They haven't yet become hardened by the cruelties of the world that boys are expected to run headlong into and conquer. They're just born and yet, they already have racked up a huge point tally. The little boys are still trying to accomplish belching and crapping and the girls have them beat hands down simply because they haven't yet tarnished their innocence. So long as they don't become like the boys or, worse yet, like the MEN, they remain "accomplished".

Sure, they can star on the track team, get great grades, go to college, get more great grades, become a brilliant doctor, write some books, etc, etc, etc. That's all fine and, if they were guys, it would "count" tons toward the "point tally". That's not to say it doesn't count toward the woman's tally because it does count...just not as much. You see for women to "get their points", and tus be considered virtuous and "worthy" they have to accomplish one great thing: hold on to that innocence with which they were born. That is their test of discipline. That is wherein their hard work lies. All the other stuff is difficult, but it doesn't test them to the same degree.

You see, it is no accomplishment at all for 90% of woman to go out to a bar, dance club, party, etc and find someone with whom to have sex. There is no "conquest" at all in that act. Basically, all she has to do is raise her hand. It is analagous to a guy picking up a hooker. Aside from some minimal effort to get in the car, drive to the destination, and make his or herself known, it was cheap, easy, and required only that the individual succumb to their desire. It is not in the least bit virtuous as it took absolutely no discipline. Why? Because all the guys are trying to make a "conquest".

This is not to say that prudishness = womanly virtue. On the contrary, women too are sexual beings, and with the ultimate MAN to whose conquest she succumbs, her sexual desires are free reign and explore. This recognition is precisely why it is such an accomplishment for a woman to remain sexually innocent. A grown man who is sexually naive isn't frequently considered "accomplished". In fact people might even start questioning "what kind of a dork is he that he can't 'get' a girlfriend".


On the other hand, in opposition to the feminist notion that being sexually liberal equates to "empowerment", isn't it a greater expression of self discipline and power to be a smart, accomplished, well read woman with classically valued characteristics of grace, presence, beauty, style and charm....and, on top of all that, the steadfast resolve that it would take to maintain sexual innocence in the face of so many attracive qualities? Qualities so sought after and valued both historically and to this day that other women would be humbled and men would be beating a path to her door in hopes of becoming the "victor" of such a worthy conquest?

There is no double standard. It is the same standard. The standard is that society has now and for centuries admired and revered hard work, accomplishment, and discipline. There is no discipline in a woman's promiscuity, just as there is no discipline in a man unable make any conquests in his life or who can only make cheap, easy, "guaranteed" conquests. As more and more women "empower" themselves via sex for sex's sake and the fun of it, they not only erode their own potential to become TRULY accomplished beings but, at the same time they erode the possibility for men to achieve truly significant conquests because the goal is so much easier to reach.

Of course their are many other acts of discipline along the path of one's life and to whittle it all down to sex is to greatly over simplify the matter. But, since that is what this forum is about, the other "stuff" is a bit outside the topic at hand.

For the boyfriends who have found themselves at odds with their love for their SO and the feeling that the rug just got yanked from beneath them, I would hazard it is because they have real depth to the significance they place on a woman's virtue and how it ties in with her degree of discipline. To discover that she has been with numerous other men and performed acts with them that in the boyfriend's heart he feels signified both her deep caring for him through her "sacrifice", and his accomplishing a profoundly important goal (that of having the woman he cares about bestow unto him a gesture of profound intimate significance) shatters his perceived foundation of the social ideal. Achieving that ideal is the ultimate conquest. It is almost like a life purpose. Not that getting laid by virgins is one's true life purpose as I'm sure some would immediately joke, but that within the minds of these aspiring "warriors" there exists somewhat of a template, a rule book, if you will. They got all suited up, studied the rules, and had those rules reinforced through their other male social counterparts. They have been exposed to the stories of "conquest" from those counterparts who gave the playback the next day after they "banged this hot chick" at a party last night. Then finally, after the boyfriend makes that really significant conquest and says, "Hey, she's the one, she is perfect for me and the epitome of the conquest I've been searching for", that's when he finds out that his conquest was nothing more than the equivalent of picking up the $30 hooker on the streetcorner. He realizes that this woman into whom he has invested so much emotional and ideological currency, is really no different than "the hot chick" banging guys at parties for fun on her quest for "life experiences". It erodes not only his good feelings fro her, but also the ideological foundation upon which he views society as being built.

d*d

warriors? virtue? innocence? it's all a bit puerile and lacks any real base in reality. BOTH men and women feel pressure by society to be experienced sexually and it has nothing to do with warrior status. There is a double standard with the way men and women are judged with regard to their sexual attitudes but I would say it stems from the male dominated phase from the start of this century and is a lot better than it used to be as the older sexist attitudes become phased out.

filtherton

The problem is that people think being a slut is a problem. It isn't.

noodles

this is my take on it (and its kind of a compilation of whats already been said):

it depends.

are you looking for sex or a relationship? if you're looking for sex, more partners the better as experience can make a difference. not always, but it usually does. if you're looking for a relationship, a lot of partners will usually indicate the fact that this person isn't looking to stick around. if you're looking for a relationship, you should damn well better figure out what they're looking for (well, you should in both cases, but in this one it is more important for you).

are you worried about diseases/pregnancy? hopefully someone with a high sex count does their best to keep safe. if they don't, i'd bail, unless you're really interested in a relationship and either way i'd do my best to keep myself safe. statistically speaking, the more partners someone has the higher the risk is of them having an std. period. can't really get around that.

i've only had sex with one other person (whom i'm still with) and she's more experienced than i am. i don't have a problem either way to an extent. i'd definitely be worried about someone who has a huge partner count because and only because of the std factor. test results would clear that up and i'd be ok to get it on.