|50+ PartnersPage 3 of 9 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)|
K here is my 2 cents worth. I dated a girl who sprung the same thing on me but her number was in the 100's. I have not reached the double digits yet. Yes I had a major problem with a high number. My feeling is that if you have a high number sex means nothing to you. In my opinion there is nothing more sacred then having sex with someone you love. If you got an outragouse number then guess what, sex is not a big deal to you. If this bothers the guy, then he does not share the same values and morals as his girlfriend. Kick her to the curb, she will eventualy cheat on you, because once again, sex does not matter.
Let me guess what ``outrageously high number'' means. The number of women you've slept with is low enough that sex is special. Exactly how many more partners than you does a woman have to have before you know sex means nothing to her? One? Ten? Being the last person a woman has slept with is a lot more special than being one of the also rans. Methinks ``outrageous number'' means more than a guy would be able to delude himself into believing that the others could have been worse in bed or homlier or had lesser equipment, or... As for me, sex with a woman will always be special, even if she's my 100th, when I reach that number.
Posted: 2/1/2009 8:19:21 AM
|Here's a thought, take it for what it's worth. If we say that a person loses "it" at 16. And sleeps with just one person a month til the age of 40, they will have slept with (24 yrs x 12 months...) 288 people. Now I'm just saying... If you have a relationship with somebody from say age 24-40, and average say 3 times a week. (16 yrs x 12 times a month, 4 wks to a month) you have had sex some 192 times. So while some have had multiple partners, the relationship people have probably had more quality sexual experience. So numbers can be misleading. Given the average sex act is between 7-10 minutes. And the relationship people make more of an effort in things like foreplay and afterplay, to say that quanity equals quality would be a mistake in my view. So if you just have bad sex experience, it doesn't make you any better than those who have had higher quality experience over a similar period of time. I wouldn't worry about the number of partners one has had, I would worry about the habits they have accumulated and how to overcome them more. Bad sex, is bad sex. It's people who are able to be open and express themselves sexually that are worth it. And as long as they are "clean" from a health status standpoint and have a healthy attitude, without personal baggage in reguards to their sexuality, I could care less about the numbers, and care more about having an equally satisfying sexual experience for both of us.|
Posted: 2/1/2009 10:18:50 AM
I'm guessing that everyone who doesn't have a problem with it, has had their fair share of partners.
I've had quite a few less than fifty, and I wouldn't have issue dating someone who'd slept with 50 people, so long as he'd been ethical about it.
Physically, i'm sure the body of someone who has had 50-100 sex partners, is unhealthy. People can get an STD from having sex with 1 person, but 50-100? Come on, and surely not all were using a condom.
Not necessarily. This question also doesn't ask whether people have been tested. Personally, I require testing off all my partners, because it only takes one time with the wrong person to contract something. On the other hand, I have a good friend who's quite promiscuous, and yet a huge stickler for condom use. He gets tested on a regular basis. Given that, he's far less likely to have something than, say, someone who's slept with five people, been careless about it, and never been tested.
Also, don't forget it's about 8 people per year.
I'm not sure what your point is on that one. Is that number of any particular significance?
Morally.. Well let's face it, you have no morals.
That's completely baseless. For instance, my promiscuous friend--we'll call him Sam--sleeps with consenting adults. He is honest, responsible, and ethical. He respects the people he sleeps with, or he wouldn't sleep with them at all. I have a great deal of respect for him and the way he conducts his relationships and interacts with others, because he is so ethical about it. There are people who are immoral in the way they treat people they sleep with, but this doesn't necessarily correlate to number of partners; there are also plenty of people who are complete jerks but have only slept with a couple people. It's completely possible to be an ethical slut.
Posted: 2/1/2009 10:27:20 AM
|Nobody will ever be able to convince me that consensual sex (where both partners are in full posession of their mind and body and in a position to give consent), with birth control and when both people are unattached is wrong... Ever!|
Posted: 2/1/2009 12:50:55 PM
|I think this post will go down in the "comeback" HOF. Ouch... and yet so true!|
Posted: 2/1/2009 1:58:26 PM
What i am saying is that everyone has different morals and values.
But that is NOT what you said. What you said was:
If you got an outragouse number then guess what, sex is not a big deal to you. If this bothers the guy, then he does not share the same values and morals as his girlfriend. Kick her to the curb, she will eventualy cheat on you, because once again, sex does not matter.
Which is complete non-sense. Again, I suugest your notion of ``outrageously high'' means someone whose numbers are larger than yours. I'm also willing to bet that your notion of what that means will increase each time your own numbers increases. If you have a thing against women who had a lot of partners, that's fine, but rationalizing by equating that with things like sex not being a big deal or cheating is only your way of trying to avoid simply stating you don't want a woman who has slept with lots of guys and leaving it at that. If anything, I'd be more inclined to trust a woman who has already satisfied her curiosity.
If one partner has high number and other has low number, there probly is a difference in morals and values.
Only to the extent that the number of partners is a moral and a value. My numbers are far less than some of the women I've dated, but I see nothing wrong with having more partners than I've had, so despite the (rather large, in some cases) disparity, I see no moral value in a partner count. I value things like honesty and integrity since those things are direct measures of a person's character and apply to everything, not just sex.
Your preferences in partner count are fine, but when you start making unwarranted inferences about other things, like honesty and integrity, that is not acceptable. You really ought to look for the real reason that bothers you.
Posted: 2/1/2009 2:03:08 PM
Yep, it's all about male insecurity to women.
Fortunately women are not worried about...
Trying to justify something by pointing out that others do the same thing is a logical fallacy, just like trying to justify stealing because others steal.
Posted: 2/1/2009 2:03:14 PM
That was all my oppinion, hence we all have a voice and different morals. Though morals distinguish between right and wrong. Are you saying it's right to have sex with 100 people?
Sure, as long as it's done carefully and ethically on the part of everyone involved. Why would having sex with 100 people automatically be "wrong"?
That's false logic. Sorry. Whether or not you are tested or not, condoms or not... the biggest risk for acquiring an STD is still multiple partners. Getting himself tested will not prevent him getting an STD! It will just mean he will know sooner...
It also means that he's aware of the risks involved and taking responsibility for them by making sure that he hasn't contracted anything. If he did, he'd be able to deal with it promptly. I'll take that over someone who doesn't value his or my sexual health enough to get tested and use protection any day. And just because you don't believe that some people use condoms every single time, doesn't mean they don't.
Not necessarily... he may or may not be as you portray him. He may just be that way around you. Or he leaves you with that perception. What he's like at other times you really have no way of knowing. You are not with him every time he interacts with a partner. Maybe he just knows how to appear "ethical"...
I'm not incapable of knowing what sort of person a good friend of mine is, thanks.
As for morals.... Hmmm Sorry, to me, "promiscuous" and "ethical" are almost oxy-morons....
Why? No, that's not rhetorical; you have yet to give a factual supporting argument to that.
Yep, it's all about male insecurity to women.
Fortunately women are not worried about... [ list ]
Generally, I'm not. If someone I'm dating isn't happy with me sexually because I or we don't do X, then he can talk to me about it. I hope any partner of mine has had good sex in the past--it means that he's bringing to the relationship a knowledge of what he enjoys, and hopefully some fun tricks I might not have thought of! All my partners have been different, and I've enjoyed my experiences with all of them. If someone is with me, it's because he enjoys being *with me*. Why should his past have any bearing on that?
Posted: 2/1/2009 2:11:29 PM
|It's all relative. Look back at my Chris Rock joke post for previous reference. The bottom line I truly believe is, that people are as loyal as there options. I mean you see guys go to the Playboy mansion and somebody is getting *ucked! If you had movie stars throwing themselves at you, it be pretty ahem "hard", to turn them down. So WHO CARES what somebody does in their bedroom? The only way it becomes my problem is when I decide wether or not to sleep with them. That will require a few questions, and if they are too squeamish or get offended by relaying their history... RED FLAG, bye-bye, I'd rather be free and clean. But if we're both honest with each other, and take precautions in multiple forms of birth/disease control... I see nothing wrong with adult consensual sex. Marriage is a legal definition, and there is even such a thing as common law marriage. How is consensual sex one day before common law status evil, and the next day allright... When it's the SAME two people! People need to think these things through before they judge with a broad brush. Can we let adults be adults anymore???|
Posted: 2/1/2009 3:30:16 PM
|Ah, semantic gymnastics. So then anyone who isn't entirely chaste is immoral?|
Posted: 2/1/2009 4:50:52 PM
|So it took her 50 partners to finally get it right. The guy right now most really be having a ball (excuse the expression).|
Posted: 2/1/2009 6:46:03 PM
|Who cares? I wish i had had that many by 26 lol|
Posted: 2/1/2009 6:49:15 PM
There seems to be two types of people-ones where the numbers matter and ones where the numbers don't matter. It seems to me that its best if they each date within their own kind.
You've over-simplified it. I'd say more like three types of people. (1) Those for whom it's important to wait until marriage for whatever reason; (2) Those for whom numbers don't matter; (3) Those for whom a slut is anyone whose numbers exceed his/her own.
And you're right - they should probably stick to their own kind. For example, I would be in category 2 and I wouldn't date someone in category 3 even if she found me acceptable for having fewer partners than she had. Hypocrisy really bothers me.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but 60 years ago, someone who had more than 1 partner was considered morally questionable.
The difference is that some of us are better at self control than others.
Bullshit. If I wanted to be celibate, I could muster whatever self-control was required. However, it seems rather stupid to waste the only life I get punishing myself for nothing. At least when I'm 80 years old I won't look back on my life and realize I wasted all of the opportunities I had to get the most out of those years until it was too late.
Posted: 2/1/2009 7:10:00 PM
How they use their privates may not change the person, but it is indicative of certain behaviour traits that others may not like. So Incuubus, you're saying that if you met a wonderful woman and she used to be a prostitute, that'd be ok with you? I mean, she was just using her privates and its not changing the person that she is, right?
I can't speak for him, but as for myself - yes I would. I've dated a couple of escorts and to tell you the truth it was a very enlightening experience. I wouldn't think twice about doing it again. Given the choice between any of the escorts I know personally as friends and someone lke you, I'd marry an escort. I'm secure enough to deal with her sexual history, but there's nothing I can do to cure the misanthropy of a person who looks down on others in the way your comment makes obvious you do.
The rest of us are better at self control and/or pleasing ourselves.
In other words, you'd rather go through a carton of batteries on a Saturday night than enjoy the company of a real flesh & blood person? Gee. That makes a lot of sense... How did you ever come up with ``rebel'' as part of your handle? You are as conventional as it gets.
Posted: 2/1/2009 11:46:46 PM
As for morals.... Hmmm Sorry, to me, "promiscuous" and "ethical" are almost oxy-morons..
I believe the word you're looking for is antonym. Oxymoron is a phrase that has opposite meanings
Moral: relating to principles of right and wrong, see also: good, honorable
Do you define your own morals, or do you let others tell you what is right and wrong?
Personally I believe in "Do whatever makes you happy as long as it doesn't harm others". People are going to live their life the way you want regardless of how much you complain
After 50+ partners, do you really think you're going to be even remotely close to being her best lover....? Chances are, she's done everything, with other people.... You only have a 2% chance of being able to rock her world... What will the two of you have together that's uniquely yours...?
In your relationships; do you have to be the best one in bed out of any/all of the previous men??? Sounds like you have an ego problem to me.
If a woman has been with you for 3 years she obviously likes something more than just the sex.
Oh and your logic needs to be more thought out. Its much higher than a 2% chance. If she spent the same amount of time with each of the 50 people it would be a 2% chance. but given that the friend of the OP's has spent 3 years with this guy at 26 I highly doubt she had a previous relationship that lasted even half the length.
So what if she has had 50+ partners. As long as she is clean and has been tested to prove that before the sexual relationship started, it doesn't matter. I'd rather sleep with a woman who had 50 partners and has no diseases over someone who slept with one person and got one.
a whore is a whore, no need to put their gender before their name. Prepare to be ripped apart as a brainless, closedminded primitive by the POF pro-whoring brigade for your view though
Oh yes, because only one side ever bashes the other. It never goes both ways now does it. Right ForumUser0, you wouldn't happen to get offended by anyone's post and post something like this now would you.....
Actually it's more like 4 types(1) Those for whom it's important to wait until marriage for whatever reason; (2) Those for whom numbers don't matter; (3) Those for whom a slut is anyone whose numbers exceed his/her own. (4)People who are to arrogant to realize that their way isn't the only way to see the world, and that their fancy education doesn't change that.
I hardly think the kind of person who pays someone for sex when they can't get it from a mutually consenting partner is is one to talk about what their "willpower" could do as far as sexual urges are concerned, any more than the person who drinks 15 beers every time they drink is one to talk about social drinking. I thought hypocrisy really bothered you, oh brilliant 150IQ genius.
You make it sound like anyone who contradicts your view wants to sleep with as many people as possible. Which thats not the case at all.I've probably had less or the same number as most of you who believe that you shouldn't have many partners.(unless of course you are all celibate) . I've even turned down sex with some people. Not because I didn't want to. but because of emotional reasons of the other person.
Personally, I hope that the guy stays with her. If they lasted 3 years without him knowing that, it shouldn't make a difference now.
Posted: 2/2/2009 12:40:10 AM
Yes! You finally get it! Some people would RATHER not have casual sex. Some people would rather not have strangers touching their body. Some people would rather not risk pregnancy and STDs just to get off with someone who doesn't give two sh-its about them.
Aside from the strawmen you've set up, let'be very clear. I'm twice your age. You haven't the slightest idea how many partners I've had, only that I don't care about someone else's numbers. (It's also rather interesting to see how assumptions like that depend on who's arguing what.) I've never been married, so obviously I haven't made the mistake of getting married to the wrong person. I know for certain that I have no kids and I've never had an STD, so even though I've been dating longer than you've been alive, I've been completely responsible. You should also know from having read my profile, that I'm not misleading anyone about anything. except perhaps to my own detriment to err on the side of caution. Let me know if you find anyone else who you can be certain isn't going to play any games. Now, how well have you done in your love life in the short time you've been at it?
I suppose this is where you tell me I'm threatened by sexuality, like a 16 year old...if other people don't agree with you it must be because they're jealous or not as "enlightened" as you, right?
No, this is the part where I say your arguments here fall quite a bit short of the intelligence for which I gave you credit.
You should probably add another type of person to your list. The man I'm currently seeing has slept with 15xs as many women as I've slept with men, and it doesn't bother me. But if he had slept with 100xs as many people as I have, would it bother me? Yes. You want some reasons?
Not really, but I would like to know the exact number where ``doesn't bother you'' becomes ``does bother you'' and why that exact number is what it is.
Low self esteem, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, hypomania, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, sexual addiction, and most importantly to you: narcissistic personality disorder.
Let me know when you get the credentials to be a psychologist instead of just playing like one on the internet. You'll excuse me if I find it difficult to take your comments about psychological issues related to sex and relationships seriously. In the span of a few short years, you've made life changing decisions, like getting married, getting divorced and having kids which are detrimental to finishing the education you want, while I've been responsible, gone through graduate school and in general not made those mistakes.
In fact, when I was your age, I was still dating (and living with) the girlfriend I started dating at 18.
Being responsible and introspective enough to not lie to myself about what I want is not a psychological disorder.
Posted: 2/2/2009 12:54:11 AM
Were you just dating or were you in a relationship with them? Were they just escorts or were they in fact prostitutes-there is a difference.
I've never made the distinction between dating and a relationship. For some reason, everyone I've dated ends up being a girlfriend from the start. There also is no difference between an escort and a prostitute. If you think there is, you're being naive. The closest thing you could call a distinction in different prostitutes would be streetwalkers, mid range escorts and high end escorts (1000.00/hr and up)
We all have urges and just as with everything else in life, there are possible consequences for acting on them.
So far, my urges, as you put it, haven't resulted in any of those consequences nor have my urges caused me to get married and divorced or have kids who have to be shuffled between parents. Just because I don't denigrate people who have lots of partners doesn't imply anything about me other than I'm not an elitest or a hypocrite.
Posted: 2/2/2009 4:01:03 AM
|They have a 5 letter word that starts with a "W" for gals like her. Oh there is also a 4 letter "S" word as well.|
Posted: 2/2/2009 3:05:20 PM
|I think she should keep her mouth shut, no matter how BAD he wants to know...it's none of his business. Honestly, there is really NOTHING good that can come from this. Regardless of how many she has had...there will ALWAYS be something wrong with the number.|
Posted: 2/2/2009 3:11:29 PM
Abelian....Perhaps I should have read your profile first. Of course someone looking just for sex on here is going to have a different thought process than most/some of the rest of us. Just because you may not have suffered consequences yet, does not mean that further down the road you will not.
Actually, I'd prefer more than that and considerably more is available for a woman who doesn't expect me to be financially responsible for anyone but myself. However, since the majority of women include things like ``well-established,'' and other euphemisms for financial interests that are none of their concern, I set my expectations considerably lower just to ensure no one thought I was kidding when I said I'd be willing to live in my office if necessary. A secure, self-confident woman who is satisfied to take care of her own finances and let me worry about mine, can pretty much have whatever sort of relationship she wants. I'm just being realistic.
I also accept the consequences for whatever I do and live without regret. At least I'll die knowing that I actually experienced life. If someone writes me off for having done any of those things, I'm better off.
But yeah, it would by hypocritcal of someone who is looking for sex on the internet to hold their number of partners against them.
I'm not sure why you and a few others seem to get mixrd up with regard to what I'm criticizing. I think it's perfectly fine for someone to use whatever criteria they feel is appropriate in selecting a partner. I have an issue with those who conflate having a large number of partners with a lack of integrity, lack of character, and any number of other character defects which have nothing to do with how many partners a person has. Misanthropy and closed mindedness are far worse than having sex with any number of partners. Anyone who does that lacks a lot of qualities that I would care about which are more important than how many guys she's slept with. I've also noticed that women usually resort to the ``it's no one's business'' argument to avoid having to actually tell anyone what their numbers are. Had the woman in the original post just refused to say anything or lied about it, most everyone would have stuck up for her (although that doesn't alter reality at all.)
Posted: 2/2/2009 5:39:15 PM
|[quote[ The opposite then comes to mind... if none of those 'character defects' are the reason, then what is...?|
What character defect causes someone to like snow skiing? If it's not a character defect, what is the reason?
Posted: 2/3/2009 1:19:08 AM
No matter what, I have LOVE in my life. What the hell do you have? Hookers? Whoopty-f u c k i n g - doo. You have NOTHING I can't have, so come down off your high horse. But you aren't a narcissist at all, are you?
Thank you for proving my point - in more ways than one, actually.
Posted: 2/3/2009 2:15:59 AM
|I. Thou shalt get out before the sun rises |
II. Thou shouldest never ask "can we see each other from now on?"
III. Thou shalt refrain from referring to our activities as "love making."
V. Thou shalt kiss anything except my mouth.
VI. Thou shalt scream my name often
VIII. Thou shalt not ask me to walk thee to thy car. Don't thou knoweth what it looketh like?
IX. There shall be no "pillow talk."
X. There shall be no cuddling -- ever!
Somewhere in this thread is a booty call?
Posted: 2/3/2009 6:42:36 AM
|I have to agree wtih ISSGOD - A person's past is that -their past. We've all done stupid things. However, if some man had dipped his wick in 50 partners by mid 20's I would be in a clinic somewhere being tested for chlamydia, gonorrhea, AIDS, HIV and hepatitis in a NY minute!!!! |
A young person with that many partners shows lack of self-esteem, morals, values, someone who has no idea what she wants. Maybe confusing the word love with lust - thinks if a man has sex with you he loves you? That is not the case for anybody, male or female! This kind of person needs a therapist before another bed buddy IMO.
Posted: 2/3/2009 8:59:09 AM
Assuming he should just "accept" her numbers because he's a guy is also wrong. If his morals are different than hers, then why should he?????
He shouldn't. That isn't the issue. The issue is the load of crap pop-psychology used to attribute all sorts of character defects to her as a way to justify his preferences as her fault. His preference for a partner with low numbers is not an excuse to trash her.
It' not a case of being "insecure" or a double standard... it's simply, that the guy may have a different outlook than her...
Given the tortured logic used to trash her for his preferences, I'm sure it is the case with most of those who are inventing reasons to justify making it her problem instead of his problem. I'm also sure there are men who can express their preference without trashing someone who doesn't fit his preferences. Those men just happend to be in short supply.
In any case, a half-century ago, this same argument would have surfaced if the number was 1 other partner, havng a child out of wedlock or getting divorced. Either everyone here has low self-esteem and other psychological disorders as a result of doing one or more of those things, or the psychological issues are caused by what arbitrary definition of ``slut'' happens to be in vogue at the time.
Personally, I think that with few exceptions (and you are not one of the exceptions by a long shot), it boils down to a man with an ego that can't survive being seen with a woman who someone would be considered a slut according to his so-called friends. I'd feel like a real luser if I didn't have the backbone to stand up for someone I'm dating and not be intimidated by what some small minded idiots think.
My own G/F has issues... She has a had a lot of partners... I could live with that, in of itself...in fact, I do.... the bigger problems are the issues both resulting from it, and causative of it...
And the fact that you martyr yourself to tolerate her indiscretions are probably the biggest contributing factor. If she had a partner who wasn't intimidated by being seen with her in a public place, her self esteem would probably improve.