# Does it matter to men how many partners a woman has had?



## Rugs

I recently confessed to an old boyfriend that I had been in a sexless marriage for many years. After I said it, I felt highly embarassed. I don't think ha even paid any attention to what I was saying. 

After our phone conversation, I bagan to wonder if the number of sexual partners a woman has had changes a man's view of a woman. 

What is a "comfortable" number for a man?

Men, do you judge women based on their sexual past?


----------



## ConanHub

There are many threads on this topic. It will vary from man to man. I don't care as long as she is a totally committed and loyal woman for me when she comes into my life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Coffee Amore

There's a 32-page thread here about the same topic.


----------



## Abc123wife

Rugs said:


> I recently confessed to an old boyfriend that I had been in a sexless marriage for many years. After I said it, I felt highly embarassed. I don't think ha even paid any attention to what I was saying.
> 
> After our phone conversation, I bagan to wonder if the number of sexual partners a woman has had changes a man's view of a woman.
> 
> What is a "comfortable" number for a man?
> 
> Men, do you judge women based on their sexual past?


Just curious why are you discussing your sex life with an old boyfriend?


----------



## Rugs

Coffee Amore said:


> There's a 32-page thread here about the same topic.


Thank you.


----------



## Lone Shadow

Oh no no no. Why are you discussing your sex life with an ex? For a married person, man or woman, this is way over the line. If I was your husband, and learned about this.... 

Your ex boyfriend WILL start pursuing you now, if he wasn't already. It will be so subtle that you won't even realize what is going on before it's too late, and the next thing you know, you have caused irreparable harm to your marriage.


----------



## unbelievable

Whether the number of her previous partners mattered to me would depend on what I wanted her for. Lots of previous partners might actually be a plus if all I wanted was a roll in the rack. Don't want to depend on an abused high mileage clunker for my daily transportation.


----------



## samyeagar

Rugs said:


> I recently confessed to an old boyfriend that I had been in a sexless marriage for many years. After I said it, I felt highly embarassed. I don't think ha even paid any attention to what I was saying.
> 
> After our phone conversation, I bagan to wonder if the number of sexual partners a woman has had changes a man's view of a woman.
> 
> What is a "comfortable" number for a man?
> 
> *Men, do you judge women based on their sexual past*?


For me, no. I don't. What you describe here however is not your sexual past as you very actively brought it into the present.


----------



## Mr. Nail

To skip your question (stated) and jump back to your question implied, The silence at his end of the line was him thinking, "You dumped me for that?" I wouldn't be tempted to strike it up with you again.
MN


----------



## soccermom2three

Rugs is divorced or divorcing.


----------



## Runs like Dog

not to worry until the low triple digits.


----------



## ankh

*Re: Re: Does it matter to men how many partners a woman has had?*



Rugs said:


> I recently confessed to an old boyfriend that I had been in a sexless marriage for many years. After I said it, I felt highly embarassed. I don't think ha even paid any attention to what I was saying.
> 
> After our phone conversation, I bagan to wonder if the number of sexual partners a woman has had changes a man's view of a woman.
> 
> What is a "comfortable" number for a man?
> 
> Men, do you judge women based on their sexual past?


My wife had just 1 sexual partner . . . ME. Same for me. I know this is very old fashioned but we don't worry about stds, or trust issues or other things.


----------



## Married but Happy

42. It was the answer according to Douglas Adams, so who am I to second guess?

Seriously, more than 42 would probably give me pause and lead to deeper inquiry. I would want to know a great deal about attitudes and values at present versus the past, to ensure compatibility.


----------



## Wolf1974

I don't judge them as bad people if they had a high number or prudish if they have a low number. I only see them as compatible if they don't treat sex cavalierly. And that number could vary some.


----------



## ILuvTheDesserts

The amount of lovers my wife has really doesnt bother me at all .... granted as long as it's not in the hundreds ?!?!? 

It's her past and what makes who she is today thus her experience and little tricks she learned from her ex's is what maes me feel good today !?

With that being said my Mrs has only had two lovers of which I am one of them.


----------



## WifeyRes

I don't think , it should matter how many partners you've been with in the past.

There is always a reason why another person might have more or less partners forinstance most woman who grew up with out a man figure (father) in their lives tend to lose their virginity at an early age and they tend to have more sexual partners.


----------



## Jetranger

So long as she's not herptastic (or some other incurable STD) or traumatized then I'm not worried about her past. We all enjoyed our fun when we were younger, and the girls who were part of that fun deserve to settle and not be judged any more than us guys, right?


----------



## unbelievable

I think most people don't mind riding in a taxi on occasion but few people would choose to own a used one.


----------



## WifeyRes

Jetranger said:


> So long as she's not herptastic (or some other incurable STD) or traumatized then I'm not worried about her past. We all enjoyed our fun when we were younger, and the girls who were part of that fun deserve to settle and not be judged any more than us guys, right?


:iagree::iagree:


----------



## Rugs

Lone Shadow said:


> Oh no no no. Why are you discussing your sex life with an ex? For a married person, man or woman, this is way over the line. If I was your husband, and learned about this....
> 
> Your ex boyfriend WILL start pursuing you now, if he wasn't already. It will be so subtle that you won't even realize what is going on before it's too late, and the next thing you know, you have caused irreparable harm to your marriage.


Neither of us are married.


----------



## SoxFan

So my wife and I have been together since college. We are in our mid 50s now and have been married over 30 years. Back when we met I knew she was in a long term relationship and had been sexually active with this person but I can say that I never had asked or cared about knowing anything else from her past. She has never asked me either as to what experiences I have had previous to her. I guess neither of us cared since we committed to be only with each other going forward.

Sometimes, especially when I read threads like this one, I wonder but after all these years don't see the point in asking now.


----------



## JCD

Rugs said:


> I recently confessed to an old boyfriend that I had been in a sexless marriage for many years. After I said it, I felt highly embarassed. I don't think ha even paid any attention to what I was saying.
> 
> After our phone conversation, I bagan to wonder if the number of sexual partners a woman has had changes a man's view of a woman.
> 
> What is a "comfortable" number for a man?
> 
> Men, do you judge women based on their sexual past?


Okay. 

THIS again!

Let me lay it out to all the ladies. You can yell. You can scream. You can tell us a million times that the only person who matters to a woman is THE GUY SHE IS WITH.

You can repeat this as often as you like.

Considering how often this thread comes us, *YES*, for the most part, numbers matter to a man!

WHY? 

1) Men carry the heavy freight in the case of a woman whose head is turned too easily by another guy. SHE has her own baby. The husband/boyfriend/partner does not. He, historically unknowingly, gets to raise a cuckoo, which is a large amount of wealth, time and effort. So the risk to a man in this is larger than the risk a woman faces.

2) Men are territorial.

3) While a man does not mind a woman being 'free' sexually with him, he is less open to her being free sexually with EVERYONE. (yes, men are hypocrites. So are women)

4) Blatantly honest time, women. I do not want to be the first LTR after some woman has spent her earlier years having her 'brainless fun'. I know a woman who spent her early years doing the 'using men for drinks and vacations' etc, divorced three times and now in her later years, is looking for someone handsome rich and generous to make her retirement complete. 

No thanks  She wonders why men aren't flocking to her (she isn't obvious about this, but she certainly is sending out that vibe. I know because I get her 'girl talk' from my wife)

NOW, the rational side of our brains looks at context.

A girl with a bunch of one night stands, like...LOTS...nah. History tends me to believe that I am not special, just the next in line. While I might spend some time with her, the 'investment' for a LTR? Not so much. And even if she thought I was special enough to want an LTR with me...well, she wouldn't see my investment. So it's doomed from the start. Catch 22.


A woman with a number of 6 month relationships? Again, caution. Because she found some niggling thing to dump each guy after the new boyfriend smell wore off. And I know I am full of 'niggling things'. What makes me any different than these other guys?

A woman with an LTR of years, then a messy break up, a bunch of ONS, and then another LTR...yeah. I can buy that. She knows how to dedicate herself, after she got dumped, she does the 'kid in the candy store' routine, settles down, gets with another LTR. This woman knows what she wants. She knows how to dedicate herself, but she still has a sense of sexuality. And everyone goes a little crazy once in a while. If I ever got divorced, I'd probably do the same thing, so I have not right to judge her.

Again, this is not moralizing. This is my personal thinking. I find nothing morally repugnant about someone eating a box of Ho Hos every day either...but don't expect to be on the draft pick for the NFL. Choices have consequences. And maybe the Detroit Lions will pick up Mr. Ho Ho. Stranger things have happened.

And having this moralizing tone will likely turn off a bunch of wonderful, beautiful, sexually liberated women just looking for 'that right guy'. 

So even my actions have consequences. 

I am okay with that. 


A comfortable number? Depends on the age. At my point in life 10? 20?


----------



## JCD

ILuvTheDesserts said:


> The amount of lovers my wife has really doesnt bother me at all .... granted as long as it's not in the hundreds ?!?!?
> 
> It's her past and what makes who she is today thus her experience and little tricks she learned from her ex's is what maes me feel good today !?
> 
> With that being said my Mrs has only had two lovers of which I am one of them.


Sorry to point this out, but let me translate this: 'I can say this on the cheap because my wife only had two partners.' 

Even if you knew or dated women who had dozens of lovers, you didn't end up marrying them.

This is easy to say in theory. Less so in practice.


----------



## JCD

That being said: I am okay with a bit of willful blindness. I probably would not ask.

However, I would probably ask: is there something in your past that is going to bite me in the ass? 

See, it isn't just sex that can mess you up.

And I would also make it quite clear that if we socialize or meet a former lover, I should, as a matter of honesty and courtesy, be given a heads up.

I recall that one thread where this woman worked ALONE at NIGHT in the SAME ROOM as a man she has a STR with and blissfully left her husband in the dark.

Now he has found out from someone else and he has every reason in the world to have a few hard questions about that...because she wasn't forthright.


----------



## Zouz

If he is worth this will be an incentive to give you pleasure you have never dreamt of; so from my perspective it should be good that you shared it with him .

if he is what he is , he will blame you for not performing well when he fails.


----------



## alexm

ankh said:


> My wife had just 1 sexual partner . . . ME. Same for me. I know this is very old fashioned but we don't worry about stds, or trust issues or other things.


You don't really have to worry about STD's with someone who has had previous partners, either, as long as they've been tested. In this day and age, nobody should be hopping into the sack with someone else if they aren't sure if they are disease-free or not. And protection should be worn anyway, especially the first time with somebody. So what's to worry about?

In terms of trust issues, what makes you think having previous partners reduces any sort of trust? I don't get that statement.

In fact, I'd be less likely to 100% trust somebody who has had NO partners other than me. The likelihood that at some point you or your wife (for example) have wondered what it's like to be with someone else is high. It's completely normal. But if somebody already knows what it's like, has had experience with others, and you are at least "good enough" in bed, then you have less to worry about.

Your sex life may be good, or even great, but neither of you know if it could be better.

That's not to say that having one partner isn't admirable - it is. But stating that you don't, or won't, have trust issues as a result of that fact is... too trusting.


----------



## Abc123wife

SoxFan said:


> So my wife and I have been together since college. We are in our mid 50s now and have been married over 30 years. Back when we met I knew she was in a long term relationship and had been sexually active with this person but I can say that I never had asked or cared about knowing anything else from her past. She has never asked me either as to what experiences I have had previous to her. I guess neither of us cared since we committed to be only with each other going forward.
> 
> Sometimes, especially when I read threads like this one, I wonder but after all these years don't see the point in asking now.


Similar story for us. In knowing my H for 27 years and being married for 24, the discussion of number and past sexual history never came up. I am not sure why. It was only after reading threads on TAM that I got curious and finally asked my H a little about his past and found out his number. It was much lower than I expected! When we met I could tell he wasn't a player and wasn't the type to take sex lightly so I guess I never even cared to know before. And he still hasn't asked me.


----------



## JCD

alexm said:


> In terms of trust issues, what makes you think having previous partners reduces any sort of trust? I don't get that statement.


History may have a predictive element. There are three ways that having a lot of partners can make one question the LTR prospects of a new relationship and this applies to both genders.

1) If his head is turned so easily that he is sleeping with a lot of different women put of curiosity, what is to say that ONE can fascinate him enough to settle down? Some people are too curious

2) If he is so picky that a hundred good female candidates slept with him and he still could not find anyone 'good', what are the chances you will pass whatever relentlessly high bars he has set for his relationship? Some people are too picky.

3) If no one has 'tagged and bagged' him before this, what is it about him that makes him not a suitable partner? It goes both ways. My sister had a friend who has (according to the girl in question) been husband hunting for a long time. She gets into relationships...and they dump her! What do they know that I don't? Maybe this person is a bad partner and could not hold onto a relationship for...reasons.

Now, this is not to say that lightning does not strike. Someone's trash is another man's treasure. 

Ignoring indicators of the past isn't necessarily smart...but it isn't exactly dumb either.


----------



## alexm

Wolf1974 said:


> I don't judge them as bad people if they had a high number or prudish if they have a low number. I only see them as compatible if they don't treat sex cavalierly. And that number could vary some.


:iagree:

It's the attitudes behind ones past that have any sort of bearing on the here and now.

Having an extensive history does not mean somebody will cheat, nor does having a non-existent past mean you won't.

I think we men would PREFER a woman who has had a minimal amount of experience, but that amount is completely subjective, and often falls in line with our own experience. My number is 5. I would prefer my wife was around there. I'm sure she would prefer if my experience matched hers more closely, too. I've also been married once before, she has not. I'm sure she would prefer I had not been.

In the end, it's all the same. We all prefer our experiences closely match those of our partners, if not for anything else than feeling we're not always being compared to somebody else. My wife likely feels (or felt in the beginning) that she was being compared to my ex wife, just as how I felt that I was being compared to any one of her past partners. And you know what? We both probably were, even if neither of us spent a whole lot of time analyzing it. There are some things that my ex wife did better than my current wife, and a whole lot of things that my current wife is better at than my ex. I'm sure that some of her past sex partners were better at X or Y than I am, and vice versa.

Does that mean that both of us sit there and wish we were still with so-and-so? God no.

In the end, it's a big catch-22, anyway. If my wife and I didn't have a lot of (or any) experience prior to each other, then we'd both be worried that the other is wondering what it's like to be with someone else. If we both have a lot of experience, then we'll probably be wondering if we measure up. The latter is true in our case, to a certain degree. I DO wonder if I measure up to others. And I'm sure she wonders if she measures up to my ex wife in many ways. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

In the end, we can't possibly know what we really want, or even need, if we don't have experience to help us figure that out.


----------



## manticore

is weird for me to see that this thread don't reflect the veracity of what is say out there from men or what it has been said in other similar threads about the topic.

Most men out there care about the numbers of men women have had (this is basically true when the man is considering the woman as serious partner), damn it there are even jokes in many movies about it, and it has become a cliche that is even exploited with referencial jokes as parody, as in "mr and mrs Smith" when Angelina confess to Brad pitt the number of persons she had kill and surpass by much the number of persons Brad pitt had kill, and Brad seems greatly affected by it and even says that is not sure about their realtionship anymore (obviously a parody of the situations in which the husband find his wife's has had more bed partners than he and in many cases by a big amount).

Now being honest in all my conversations in real life about the topic the man always says the same, "the lower the better", is not about the number of times the woman has had sex is the number of men who she has allowed to bed her, this topic has also many times came to light in men's conversations (in my case at least). what I mean is a friend of mine directly asked "what do you prefer a woman who has had just 1 partner and has had sex more than 1000 times or a woman that has had 30 partners and just has slept with them once"? everyone responded the same (including me) the 1 partner woman, why? basically it shows commitment and that she is a loyal person the more partners a woman has the more you wonder about her morals and future loyalty

and why is different from men? because men are hunters and women are gate keepers, for the hunter the most it hunts the more prized he becomes while for the gate keeper the best she protects her ground the more she becomes prized.

don't understand why men are taking a posture as it does not matter, when I am sure they know that for most of men out there it does matter, if that were not the case we would not have a ton of threads where the wife has confilcts whe the husband discovers her past sexual life whatver "she was a call girl" "of the husbands discover she was not virgin and even has sex with one of his friends" "or that she was a party girl with an outrageous number of partners" all of them topics we have had here (and many of them we see them once and again).


----------



## alexm

JCD said:


> History may have a predictive element. There are three ways that having a lot of partners can make one question the LTR prospects of a new relationship and this applies to both genders.
> 
> 1) If his head is turned so easily that he is sleeping with a lot of different women put of curiosity, what is to say that ONE can fascinate him enough to settle down? Some people are too curious
> 
> *Ones head can be turned regardless of the # of past partners. In fact, I'd think that just as many, if not more, "no-experience" folks would turn their heads more easily. It's 6 of one, a half dozen of the other. I would be just as concerned that my partner is going to go elsewhere if they had no previous experience. Those people, whether they think so or not, will always wonder what it's like to be with someone else. Not necessarily if they can do BETTER, mind you, just what the experience is like.
> 
> I'm no dummy. My wife has had more experience than I have. To think that she hasn't had one (or more) sexual experiences that blow anything I've done out of the water would be naïve of me. It's possible she hasn't, either, but I sure as hell ain't gonna ask. And we have, at worst, good sex, and more often, great sex. We don't have bad sex. But to think that there's not one encounter, or guy, that she doesn't remember fondly would be stupid of me.
> 
> So I'm either going to be compared to others, or I'm going to have a woman who wonders what it's like to be with somebody else. And the same is true for me. That's life. I'm never going to be the best at X or Y, but I might be the best at A, B and C. Same as her.*
> 
> 2) If he is so picky that a hundred good female candidates slept with him and he still could not find anyone 'good', what are the chances you will pass whatever relentlessly high bars he has set for his relationship? Some people are too picky.
> 
> *Well, I'd assume he wasn't looking for a relationship, only sex. The bars change depending on what one is looking for. In fact, the bars are completely different. You'd have a point if he dated 50 women - without having sex with them - while trying to find a suitable partner. I'd question THAT. The sex is irrelevant.*
> 
> 3) If no one has 'tagged and bagged' him before this, what is it about him that makes him not a suitable partner? It goes both ways. My sister had a friend who has (according to the girl in question) been husband hunting for a long time. She gets into relationships...and they dump her! What do they know that I don't? Maybe this person is a bad partner and could not hold onto a relationship for...reasons.
> 
> *That's not an issue related to sex, that's a relationship thing. That's a whole other thread.*
> 
> Now, this is not to say that lightning does not strike. Someone's trash is another man's treasure.
> 
> Ignoring indicators of the past isn't necessarily smart...but it isn't exactly dumb either.


----------



## always_alone

manticore said:


> and why is different from men? because men are hunters and women are gate keepers, for the hunter the most it hunts the more prized he becomes while for the gate keeper the best she protects her ground the more she becomes prized.


:banghead:

I am so tired of reading this hackneyed and ridiculous justification of hypocrisy. I get that a lot of men have a clear double standard and will cling to it until they die. Fine. Your prerogative to pretend that your past behaviour is no comment on your character while scrutinizing your women's.

But let's stop pretending that there is any biological basis or natural inevitability to it. No other animal bothers their heads about. Indeed it's only those select humans who have certain religious or philosophical inclinations that make them utterly threatened by women's sexuality.

All the excuses to justify why it's okay for men to do what they want, but not women, are just that: excuses. A guy who sleeps around is just as likely to have all the same character flaws attributed to women. 

Plus hypocrisy, if they think women should be held to a different standard.


----------



## Wolf1974

manticore said:


> is weird for me to see that this thread don't reflect the veracity of what is say out there from men or what it has been said in other similar threads about the topic.
> 
> Most men out there care about the numbers of men women have had (this is basically true when the man is considering the woman as serious partner), damn it there are even jokes in many movies about it, and it has become a cliche that is even exploited with referencial jokes as parody, as in "mr and mrs Smith" when Angelina confess to Brad pitt the number of persons she had kill and surpass by much the number of persons Brad pitt had kill, and Brad seems greatly affected by it and even says that is not sure about their realtionship anymore (obviously a parody of the situations in which the husband find his wife's has had more bed partners than he and in many cases by a big amount).
> 
> Now being honest in all my conversations in real life about the topic the man always says the same, "the lower the better", is not about the number of times the woman has had sex is the number of men who she has allowed to bed her, this topic has also many times came to light in men's conversations (in my case at least). what I mean is a friend of mine directly asked "what do you prefer a woman who has had just *1 partner and has had sex more than 1000 times or a woman that has had 30 partners and just has slept with them once"? everyone responded the same (including me) the 1 partner woman, *why? basically it shows commitment and that she is a loyal person the more partners a woman has the more you wonder about her morals and future loyalty
> 
> and why is different from men? because men are hunters and women are gate keepers, for the hunter the most it hunts the more prized he becomes while for the gate keeper the best she protects her ground the more she becomes prized.
> 
> don't understand why men are taking a posture as it does not matter, when I am sure they know that for most of men out there it does matter, if that were not the case we would not have a ton of threads where the wife has confilcts whe the husband discovers her past sexual life whatver "she was a call girl" "of the husbands discover she was not virgin and even has sex with one of his friends" "or that she was a party girl with an outrageous number of partners" all of them topics we have had here (and many of them we see them once and again).


I agree and have a similar view. It also depends on where the number comes from that I could take issue with.

For example two 40 year old women. One married for 17 years and had two sexual partners before marriage, including spouse, then when divorced at 37.....partied hard and had another 12 sexual partners. I am coming in as number 15.

The other woman, same age, never married but a few short relationships here and there of a Year or so. Same number of sexual partners 15. 

The first would probably be someone I couldn't relate to as within the last few years she treated sex as a sport. That's fine if she is ok with that but doesn't mirror to my own philosophy.

Point Is for me it's not just about number but how the number got there?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

manticore said:


> is weird for me to see that this thread don't reflect the veracity of what is say out there from men or what it has been said in other similar threads about the topic.
> 
> Most men out there care about the numbers of men women have had (this is basically true when the man is considering the woman as serious partner), damn it there are even jokes in many movies about it, and it has become a cliche that is even exploited with referencial jokes as parody, as in "mr and mrs Smith" when Angelina confess to Brad pitt the number of persons she had kill and surpass by much the number of persons Brad pitt had kill, and Brad seems greatly affected by it and even says that is not sure about their realtionship anymore (obviously a parody of the situations in which the husband find his wife's has had more bed partners than he and in many cases by a big amount).
> 
> Now being honest in all my conversations in real life about the topic the man always says the same, "the lower the better", is not about the number of times the woman has had sex is the number of men who she has allowed to bed her, this topic has also many times came to light in men's conversations (in my case at least). what I mean is a friend of mine directly asked "what do you prefer a woman who has had just 1 partner and has had sex more than 1000 times or a woman that has had 30 partners and just has slept with them once"? everyone responded the same (including me) the 1 partner woman, why? basically it shows commitment and that she is a loyal person the more partners a woman has the more you wonder about her morals and future loyalty
> 
> and why is different from men? because men are hunters and women are gate keepers, for the hunter the most it hunts the more prized he becomes while for the gate keeper the best she protects her ground the more she becomes prized.
> 
> don't understand why men are taking a posture as it does not matter, when I am sure they know that for most of men out there it does matter, if that were not the case we would not have a ton of threads where the wife has confilcts whe the husband discovers her past sexual life whatver "she was a call girl" "of the husbands discover she was not virgin and even has sex with one of his friends" "or that she was a party girl with an outrageous number of partners" all of them topics we have had here (and many of them we see them once and again).


I read all of these threads.. I do feel the tide is changing.. with modern men.. they are adapting...they have to ~ or they might as well give up sex !..... but with it, they see very little, if any incentive to marry anymore.... and I sure can't blame them...

My husband thinks like YOU manticore...he would not be afraid to say it... but what happens you see.. is ... women get greatly offended (and rightly so if he was a man wh***)...then he will automatically be labeled a "misogynist" like he is trying to control women's sexuality.. how dare him! 

Funny thing is.. sometimes even men who wait will be called things like this.. that is just shouldn't matter to anyone or something is wrong with your sexual views, you would be deemed "*Sex negative*".. a NO NO... 

To each their own ...but we all have our *personal Preferences.*. if a man also feels it's something *very special*.. he has every right to want that in a woman...such a man is not a hypocrite. 

I also feel women are the Gatekeepers.. so old fashioned am I.... I was never one just looking for a "good time", take a pleasure ride.. I wanted the whole package..I wanted marriage...to start our family together ...some things are worth waiting for... I counted this among one of those....

If the man *didn't* care about this... this would bother *me* greatly!...(not what you normally hear!)

Like attracts LIKE.. it can cause some real issues if people carry different sexual values into a relationship.. someone will feel misunderstood.. it's almost like a religion, it's just a part of who we are, how we see the harmony in our world, how we express ourselves sexually is a very BIG THING....I personally could not be with a man who could separate Love & Sex and just walk away..


----------



## JCD

Alexm.

You are missing my point. Let me further clarify.

1) This is not about 'did she ever meet a more handsome or sexually alluring person'. The answer to that is 'yes'. I have met more beautiful and sexually alluring ladies than my wife. So this isn't the issue.

The issue is that some people are just fickle. You have met the type: they start one hobby, put their all into it for a little while, and then, hey, the banjo is passé. Time to start origami! Some folks do that with sex too. This pretty much sums it up.

2) Sex is an 'all in' precursor. There are far too many repercussions emotionally and physically to treat it as 'nothing'. So...on to relationships: yeah, if I was dating a girl and she was not sleeping with me, after a certain point, I would dump her because we do not share the same timing or chemistry. That happens. When a couple DOES sleep together, that last little 'excuse' is gone. It is a relationship milestone.

And this goes back to my fourth point above: if someone tells me, 'I was just having a lot of fun when I was sleeping with those 50 guys, but now I'm not like that anymore. I want a relationship.'

Well...what changed? Are you losing your looks? Did you decide that sex isn't so important? Do you want a meal ticket? And after a few decades of NOT honing the relationship skills, do I really want to be your 'starter husband' as you figure out the skills to actually foster a relationship longer than 'last call'?

Not saying these are deal breakers, but they certainly are data points to determine how much I want to invest and trust.


----------



## TiggyBlue

always_alone said:


> :banghead:
> 
> I am so tired of reading this hackneyed and ridiculous justification of hypocrisy. I get that a lot of men have a clear double standard and will cling to it until they die. Fine. Your prerogative to pretend that your past behaviour is no comment on your character while scrutinizing your women's.
> 
> But let's stop pretending that there is any biological basis or natural inevitability to it. No other animal bothers their heads about. Indeed it's only those select humans who have certain religious or philosophical inclinations that make them utterly threatened by women's sexuality.


:iagree:
Anyone can have all the double standards they want (doesn't mean others will tolerate them being thrust on them, but they're still entitled to have them) but clinging on to outdated theories doesn't validate or give any credence to their double standards (or convince others to tolerate or live by them).


----------



## nanofaan

it matters to me.


----------



## JCD

Since you are blocked, always, I always have to see you when someone quotes you.

Obviously you have done zero research into animal infidelity.

But even so, your point actually falls apart in that you presume hypocrisy on the males actually holding this point.

That you make this presumption is hardly surprising.


----------



## GTdad

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> Anyone can have all the double standards they want (doesn't mean others will tolerate them being thrust on them, but they're still entitled to have them) but clinging on to outdated theories doesn't validate or give any credence to their double standards (or convince others to tolerate or live by them).


The "biology" argument has some merit; it could well be one explanation (among many) for why we do and think the things that we do.

The problem with the biology argument is that most of us don't try to extend it to other areas of our lives. I'll accept the premise that a man's lizard brain isn't interested in much else besides f*cking, killing and sitting around the fire chewing qat.

But most of us recognize that that we can't kill the neighbor with a gravel rake for perceived slights or invasions of our territory, and most of us know that we can't spend our off hours getting f*cked up. Obviously, these are destructive behaviors. I'm not sure we always spend as much discernment in examining our sexual views, "instinct" or not.


----------



## JCD

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> Anyone can have all the double standards they want (doesn't mean others will tolerate them being thrust on them, but they're still entitled to have them) but clinging on to outdated theories doesn't validate or give any credence to their double standards (or convince others to tolerate or live by them).


You have all the rights in the world to go to a job interview in a sweat suit. A dirty sweat suit. With holes. After all, 'fashion' is such a silly, superficial way to view a person's unique qualities. It says nothing about how hard you work, how skilled you are, what you bring to the table. Their views are 'outdated'.

And unless you are Steve Jobs or someone with a positively unique skill set, you won't get the job...

And you are only assuming it is a double standard. As many guys here can attest, they DO believe it is an issue to some extent. But even if your CEO IS some internet maven who wears dirty sweats...he can have all the double standards he wants. You still won't get the job. And of course, you don't have to offer HIM a job either.

So you can scream to the high heavens about how wrong the 'employer' is in the relationship...or you can modify your behavior accordingly.


----------



## JCD

GTdad said:


> The "biology" argument has some merit; it could well be one explanation (among many) for why we do and think the things that we do.
> 
> The problem with the biology argument is that most of us don't try to extend it to other areas of our lives. I'll accept the premise that a man's lizard brain isn't interested in much else besides f*cking, killing and sitting around the fire chewing qat.
> 
> But most of us recognize that that we can't kill the neighbor with a gravel rake for perceived slights or invasions of our territory, and most of us know that we can't spend our off hours getting f*cked up. Obviously, these are destructive behaviors. I'm not sure we always spend as much discernment in examining our sexual views, "instinct" or not.


Sorry...could you please relate the huge downside for preferring one woman over another which is morally comparable to a) murder and b) addiction?


----------



## GTdad

JCD said:


> Sorry...could you please relate the huge downside for preferring one woman over another which is morally comparable to a) murder and b) addiction?


You misinterpret my point; what I was speaking to was using "biology" as an excuse for anything without applying a little critical thought. 

I don't have an issue with anyone's partner preferences as long as we're talking about consenting adult humans, even if I don't understand those preferences and suspect that the person with those preferences doesn't understand them either.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Since you are blocked, always, I always have to see you when someone quotes you.
> 
> Obviously you have done zero research into animal infidelity.
> 
> But even so, your point actually falls apart in that you presume hypocrisy on the males actually holding this point.
> 
> That you make this presumption is hardly surprising.


As usual, you are doing a terrible job of ignoring me. And, as usual, you are commenting on what you presume I've said, rather than what I did say. And, as usual, you won't read this, and so are safe and secure that your judgements shall never be challenged.

But if you had been paying any attention, you might have seen that my comment was directed only for those who *do* hold hypocritical double standards. I have no issue with those who hold themselves to the same standards they apply to others.

And, as for animal infidelity, I challenge you to name one species where the male has multiple partners, but the female doesn't. Female primates do, in fact, have multiple partners, and it doesn't seem to bother he males one bit. Indeed they (males) show a high preferences for the older and more experienced females.

Oh, what's that you say? You can throw a million misinformed barbs out there, but will be damned if you'll actually listen to any reason or evidence that might challenge your view?


----------



## JCD

GTdad said:


> You misinterpret my point; what I was speaking to was using "biology" as an excuse for anything without applying a little critical thought.
> 
> I don't have an issue with anyone's partner preferences as long as we're talking about consenting adult humans, even if I don't understand those preferences and suspect that the person with those preferences doesn't understand them either.


Ah. This borders on insulting. Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## TiggyBlue

JCD said:


> You have all the rights in the world to go to a job interview in a sweat suit. A dirty sweat suit. With holes. After all, 'fashion' is such a silly, superficial way to view a person's unique qualities. It says nothing about how hard you work, how skilled you are, what you bring to the table. Their views are 'outdated'.


The theories some use to validate their views are outdated (and just theories), people are free to have whatever views they want.




> And you are only assuming it is a double standard. As many guys here can attest, they DO believe it is an issue to some extent. But even if your CEO IS some internet maven who wears dirty sweats...he can have all the double standards he wants. You still won't get the job. And of course, you don't have to offer HIM a job either.


I'm not assuming all have double standards, I was only addressing people with double standards and try to use theories to 'explain' why they're views are valid (why they are valid to the person who has them, it doesn't mean others are going to see them as valid).
Even if I fit the every criteria for a man with double standards (and he could he have all the double standards he want's, with all the justifications he want's) he wouldn't fit my first one, so I would have no desire to hire him or be hired by him.



> So you can scream to the high heavens about how wrong the 'employer' is in the relationship...or you can modify your behavior accordingly.


Or find a job better suited for you and take your skill set somewhere else, why bother screaming it obviously wouldn't be the right environment for you.
Kind of difficult with a job analogy since you would be both the interviewer and interviewee.


----------



## JCD

TiggyBlue said:


> The theories some use to validate their views are outdated, people are free to have whatever views they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming all have double standards, I'm only addressing people with double standards and try to use theories to 'explain' why they're views are valid (why they are valid to the person who has them, it doesn't mean others are going to see them as valid).
> 
> 
> 
> Or find a job better suited for you and take your skill set somewhere else, why bother screaming it obviously wouldn't be the right environment for you.
> Kind of difficult with a job analogy since you would be both the employer and employee.



Again, you can SAY they are outdated (though, again, I would read "The Red Queen" which is pretty eye opening about sex evolutionarily speaking). However, IN PRACTICE, IN REALITY and discussing this with ACTUAL MEN, you have consistently heard repeatedly, that these actually are quite current and strongly held views by a large majority of men in a sexually liberal and industrialized country.

In the third world, they are even more strongly held.

So...find your dream job. It might not be as easy as you think.

Slam your head against this if you must. It is probably just as worthwhile for men to slam their head against women's disgust with porn and prostitutes.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Rugs said:


> Men, do you judge women based on their sexual past?


No. I judge a woman based on my experience with her. Her past can be informative as to what to keep an eye on (aware of), but they don't cause me to alter my behavior in judgment of her past (pro or con).

For example, if her number is high I'm still going to date her if I like her, but I know something is off if she's not showing me the high drive that can be reasonably assumed a woman with a high number likely has.

It's like someone telling you they've cheated before. I don't view this as a lifelong branding that dictates they should be forever alone. I do think it should inspire one to keep a good feel for the "heartbeat" of the relationship, or whatever circumstances surrounded their past cheating. I don't believe the fact of someone cheating in the past automatically means they will cheat again in the future anymore than not having cheated in the past means one will not cheat in the future.

I also find no rational validity to double standards on promiscuity.


----------



## TiggyBlue

JCD said:


> *
> So...find your dream job. It might not be as easy as you think*.


I'm already married, I already have found my dream job


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No. I judge a woman based on my experience with her. Her past can be informative as to what to keep an eye on (aware of), but they don't cause me to alter my behavior in judgment of her past (pro or con).


I know you are a hardned and a true single. So a high number doesn't scare you, it might be a good thing, because if you just want to hit it, it probably is a better chance with her having gotten around.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> For example, if her number is high I'm still going to date her if I like her, but I know something is off if she's not showing me the high drive that can be reasonably assumed a woman with a high number likely has.


That would be a deal breaker and should be even if they didn't have a high number. A high number it wouldn't be a big deal for any guy they are feeling at a reasonable level. So your right, if she's not feeling it and a high number, it's more odds for you being better off not wasting your time.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's like someone telling you they've cheated before. I don't view this as a lifelong branding that dictates they should be forever alone. I do think it should inspire one to keep a good feel for the "heartbeat" of the relationship, or whatever circumstances surrounded their past cheating. I don't believe the fact of someone cheating in the past automatically means they will cheat again in the future anymore than not having cheated in the past means one will not cheat in the future.


If your blushing and beautiful debutante has a history of stringing along several men at any one time, lying to all and never being committed, but telling them she are with them, if this is what she's done over the last five years, you can give her a chance to prove how she does people wrong, or you can simply accept this is how this person is at this point in time.

Personally I'm ok, understanding and accepting what "mode" someone is currently ( past 3-5 years ) is living their life. They aren't going to change all that in one day or one week.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I also find no rational validity to double standards on promiscuity.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> I know you are a hardned and a true single. So a high number doesn't scare you, it might be a good thing, because if you just want to hit it, it probably is a better chance with her having gotten around.


I don't define myself as a "true single". If she and I agree the relationship is to be exclusive so be it, but her number isn't dictating my decision to do so. My experience with her and whatever trust she has built with me is the sole determining factor. Where her past does matter, is when circumstance presents itself that would cause many to raise an eyebrow... "yet another GNO babe?" Her past would cause me to raise that eyebrow a bit higher than I otherwise would for a given behavior.



treyvion said:


> If your blushing and beautiful debutante has a history of stringing along several men at any one time, lying to all and never being committed, but telling them she are with them, if this is what she's done over the last five years, you can give her a chance to prove how she does people wrong, or you can simply accept this is how this person is at this point in time.
> 
> Personally I'm ok, understanding and accepting what "mode" someone is currently ( past 3-5 years ) is living their life. They aren't going to change all that in one day or one week.


That's it. I'm just aware of too many people who went through "scandalous" periods and then settled down, too many who cheated and then faithfully remarried for a decade or more since. And I've known many who had low numbers, were faithful for years and years and then poof... cheated.

I don't personally put much stock in the number. I put more stock in other traits I can observe in my time with the woman that reveal "damaged" women (for lack of a better word)... such as constant male attention seeking. These women tend to have a high number, but a high number does not dictate being one of these women. If a man is particularly risk averse, he might reasonably avoid the category entirely. If he himself has a high number though, then I think he's just engaging in hypocrisy based on his own insecurity and selfishness.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't define myself as a "true single". If she and I agree the relationship is to be exclusive so be it, but her number isn't dictating my decision to do so. My experience with her and whatever trust she has built with me is the sole determining factor. Where her past does matter, is when circumstance presents itself that would cause many to raise an eyebrow... "yet another GNO babe?" Her past would cause me to raise that eyebrow a bit higher than I otherwise would for a given behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> That's it. I'm just aware of too many people who went through "scandalous" periods and then settled down, too many who cheated and then faithfully remarried for a decade or more since. And I've known many who had low numbers, were faithful for years and years and then poof... cheated.
> 
> I don't personally put much stock in the number. I put more stock in other traits I can observe in my time with the woman that reveal "damaged" women (for lack of a better word)... such as constant male attention seeking. These women tend to have a high number, but a high number does not dictate being one of these women. If a man is particularly risk averse, he might reasonably avoid the category entirely. If he himself has a high number though, then I think he's just engaging in hypocrisy based on his own insecurity and selfishness.


Beautifully put


----------



## wmn1

Okay, my responses.

To JCD, I agree with pretty much everything you say and your analogies are right on. You are also right that this seems to be an offshoot of another thread. I also agree with you that numbers mean a ton to guys in general, especially ones who are looking for a meaningful relationship. After the last thread last week, I asked 10 of my closest friends and 8 said yes, one didn't really know and one said he didn't care. These are all people with solid moral values. You are right that men carry the heavier weight. Heavy maintenance and hard work. I also agree that I wouldn't want to be in a relationship long term with a woman who was just enjoying the 'wild side'. A recipe for disaster and heartbreak. 

JCD also said this; "A girl with a bunch of one night stands, like...LOTS...nah. History tends me to believe that I am not special, just the next in line. While I might spend some time with her, the 'investment' for a LTR? Not so much. And even if she thought I was special enough to want an LTR with me...well, she wouldn't see my investment. So it's doomed from the start. Catch 22"
:iagree:

and "Again, this is not moralizing. This is my personal thinking. I find nothing morally repugnant about someone eating a box of Ho Hos every day either...but don't expect to be on the draft pick for the NFL. Choices have consequences. And maybe the Detroit Lions will pick up Mr. Ho Ho. Stranger things have happened"
:iagree:


and in JCD's response to Alexm

"And this goes back to my fourth point above: if someone tells me, 'I was just having a lot of fun when I was sleeping with those 50 guys, but now I'm not like that anymore. I want a relationship.'

Well...what changed? Are you losing your looks? Did you decide that sex isn't so important? Do you want a meal ticket? And after a few decades of NOT honing the relationship skills, do I really want to be your 'starter husband' as you figure out the skills to actually foster a relationship longer than 'last call'?
Not saying these are deal breakers, but they certainly are data points to determine how much I want to invest and trust."
:iagree:


Good job JCD


----------



## wmn1

Per Alexm

"Having an extensive history does not mean somebody will cheat, nor does having a non-existent past mean you won't."

This is too general a statement and I am unsure what studies have been done in this area but my $$ is on the one who doesn't have an extensive history to remain loyal in the majority of cases. 

Alexm also said


"I think we men would PREFER a woman who has had a minimal amount of experience, but that amount is completely subjective, and often falls in line with our own experience. " and 

"In the end, it's a big catch-22, anyway. If my wife and I didn't have a lot of (or any) experience prior to each other, then we'd both be worried that the other is wondering what it's like to be with someone else. If we both have a lot of experience, then we'll probably be wondering if we measure up. The latter is true in our case, to a certain degree. I DO wonder if I measure up to others. And I'm sure she wonders if she measures up to my ex wife in many ways. Damned if we do, damned if we don't."
:iagree: completely !!!


----------



## wmn1

Per Manticore

"Now being honest in all my conversations in real life about the topic the man always says the same, "the lower the better", is not about the number of times the woman has had sex is the number of men who she has allowed to bed her, this topic has also many times came to light in men's conversations (in my case at least). what I mean is a friend of mine directly asked "what do you prefer a woman who has had just 1 partner and has had sex more than 1000 times or a woman that has had 30 partners and just has slept with them once"? everyone responded the same (including me) the 1 partner woman, why? basically it shows commitment and that she is a loyal person the more partners a woman has the more you wonder about her morals and future loyalty"


Exactly !!!!!!!! 
:iagree:

per Manticore:

"don't understand why men are taking a posture as it does not matter, when I am sure they know that for most of men out there it does matter, if that were not the case we would not have a ton of threads where the wife has confilcts whe the husband discovers her past sexual life whatver "she was a call girl" "of the husbands discover she was not virgin and even has sex with one of his friends" "or that she was a party girl with an outrageous number of partners" all of them topics we have had here (and many of them we see them once and again). "


I agree completely !!


----------



## Dad&Hubby

always_alone said:


> :banghead:
> 
> I am so tired of reading this hackneyed and ridiculous justification of hypocrisy. I get that a lot of men have a clear double standard and will cling to it until they die. Fine. Your prerogative to pretend that your past behaviour is no comment on your character while scrutinizing your women's.
> 
> But let's stop pretending that there is any biological basis or natural inevitability to it. No other animal bothers their heads about. Indeed it's only those select humans who have certain religious or philosophical inclinations that make them utterly threatened by women's sexuality.
> 
> All the excuses to justify why it's okay for men to do what they want, but not women, are just that: excuses. A guy who sleeps around is just as likely to have all the same character flaws attributed to women.
> 
> Plus hypocrisy, if they think women should be held to a different standard.


This isn't just to you AA, but to some of the male posters on here suffer from the "only one type of person" syndrome where we develop arguments for only one type of mindset.

Why is it that you think men want to have tons of partners and then want women who haven't had a lot...as if that's the only male perspective?

I'm 42 and have had 4 partners (and hopefully only 4 for the rest of my life). Since my teen years, I put a premium on MY sexuality...now some of that was fears of STD's (the joys of growing up in the AIDS decade) but also I've ALWAYS seen sex as an extension of love. Sex, to me, is the physical act of showing your love for your partner. And in turn, it's not something I shared with ONS, short term relationships or FWB's. Sex is something shared, something to show my desires and love for my partner. The funny thing is, because of my attitude, I've always been pretty good at it. I'm also EXTREMELY sexual, both in open mindedness and drive. But that doesn't mean I want to just "spread it around".

I've had PLENTY of opportunities to have "non-love" based sex...but I have zero interest in it. When I was 18 on summer vacation, I let societal definitions of teenage boys creep into my head and I tried to have a ONS. I failed miserably to the point of losing an erection while trying to put on the condom, because I just didn't care about the girl enough. That night had me come to terms with my true desires and want out of sex.

Am I wrong for looking for a woman who has a similar attitude about sex?

If a woman wants to have 5000 sexual partners...fine. It's her right. She shouldn't be chastised for it, she shouldn't be shamed for it....she has every right and ability to do so....BUT she shouldn't expect to not have that looked at as a dating criteria...just like income is or tastes in music, food, anything etc. I wouldn't marry a woman who had a completely different perspective on sex...it's too important in marriage to have that disconnect.

And the same holds true for women judging men. If they don't want an inexperienced man or a man who has had a ton of partners...that's their right as well.


----------



## EleGirl

Dad&Hubby said:


> This isn't just to you AA, but to some of the male posters on here too.
> 
> Why is it that you think men want to have tons of partners and then want women who haven't had a lot...as if that's the only male perspective?
> 
> I'm 42 and have had 4 partners (and hopefully only 4 for the rest of my life). Since my teen years, I put a premium on MY sexuality...now some of that was fears of STD's (the joys of growing up in the AIDS decade) but also I've ALWAYS seen sex as an extension of love. Sex, to me, is the physical act of showing your love for your partner. And in turn, it's not something I shared with ONS, short term relationships or FWB's. Sex is something shared, something to show my desires and love for my partner. The funny thing is, because of my attitude, I've always been pretty good at it. I'm also EXTREMELY sexual, both in open mindedness and drive. But that doesn't mean I want to just "spread it around".
> 
> I've had PLENTY of opportunities to have "non-love" based sex...but I have zero interest in it. When I was 18 on summer vacation, I let societal definitions of teenage boys creep into my head and I tried to have a ONS. I failed miserably to the point of losing an erection while trying to put on the condom, because I just didn't care about the girl enough. That night had me come to terms with my true desires and want out of sex.
> 
> Am I wrong for looking for a woman who has a similar attitude about sex?
> 
> If a woman wants to have 5000 sexual partners...fine. It's her right. She shouldn't be chastised for it, she shouldn't be shamed for it....she has every right and ability to do so....BUT she shouldn't expect to not have that looked at as a dating criteria...just like income is or tastes in music, food, anything etc. I wouldn't marry a woman who had a completely different perspective on sex...it's too important in marriage to have that disconnect.
> 
> And the same holds true for women judging men. If they don't want an inexperienced man or a man who has had a ton of partners...that's their right as well.


I don't think that AA was talking about a guy with your attitude. She was talking about men who have high number and yet have a hypocritical attitude about women who have similar numbers.


----------



## wmn1

Regarding everything Simply Amorous said, 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


I am a traditionalist like you and feel the exact same way. It is a package deal for me and love and sex are tied together.


----------



## wmn1

Wolf1974

"I agree and have a similar view. It also depends on where the number comes from that I could take issue with.

For example two 40 year old women. One married for 17 years and had two sexual partners before marriage, including spouse, then when divorced at 37.....partied hard and had another 12 sexual partners. I am coming in as number 15.

The other woman, same age, never married but a few short relationships here and there of a Year or so. Same number of sexual partners 15. 

The first would probably be someone I couldn't relate to as within the last few years she treated sex as a sport. That's fine if she is ok with that but doesn't mirror to my own philosophy.

Point Is for me it's not just about number but how the number got there? "


:iagree:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Why is having sex associated with loyalty? Perhaps a person with a high count simply had sex with the people they dated and doesn't view sex as some tremendously sacred act.

Just because someone has a high number of past partners, does not mean they were unfaithful to any of them.

If the case is that you feel you're less special because they've had sex with so many other people, couldn't it be said that it's not sex that makes a relationship special? Clearly a judgment call based on how sacred you hold sex to be.

I see a curious contradiction in men's opinions. On the one hand, when asked out of context how sacred sex is, most men tend to lean toward "not very" from all I've heard and read. But on the other hand, in contexts like this, that view changes... most (if threads like this are any evidence) seem to want their women to have a sacred view of sex and thus fewer partners. Just looks like hypocrisy wearing another mask. Or, where I'd put my money, insecurity: that he doesn't hold sex as especially sacred, but her having many partners makes him feel or worry about being inadequate.

Every guy wants to think he's THE guy who rocked her world best, no? If she has fewer partners, he has better odds. Just a thought.


----------



## wmn1

Now my view on this, 

I reflect on this situation as someone would who keeps in shape. 

If you go jogging for miles and work out and maintain your looks, and take pride in your appearance, you are less likely to hook up with someone who eats Chinese food 6 times a week, weighs three times more than you and doesn't take care of themselves. Likewise with sex, why if you are someone who has saved yourself for that special person, why do you want someone who has been passed around as much as Linda Lovelace ???? Sure, there is hardly any expectation that your SO is sex free before you, unless you tapped him/her as a virgin, then you are the only one and should remain the only one. However, since that's rarely the case, I would revert back to what Alex said. You want someone with comparable experience so noone has a one up and both sides are equally happy with their level of experience. Noone can be called a wh***.

To me, the more one has been with people in relationship to age, the more ONS, the more relationships (short term), the greater him/her can compare past experiences, the more the mind may wander and the greater the likelihood of cheating. I know it doesn't always work that way but if some woman has had 100 partners and her BF has had only one or two, she can always compare him and find 10 who may have been better and based on that experience, want more in her relationship than he can provide which could lead to fidelity problems (not to sound like a love novelist). For example, I like to golf, I like history, I like the NHL and dozens of other interests. Let's say she likes none of that. In relation to sex, if I was one who had tons of partners (i.e. interests), and I was told by her (who has one mutual interest lets say the NHL) )to pick just the NHL, then who's mind do you think will have the temptation to wander more to the other interests ??? It's like (to some of these people) going from a buffet at Sizzler Steakhouse to eating a one course meal at your local diner. It is hard to say that because it seems wrong on so many levels but my best three friends are all divorced because their spouses cheated and their spouses went into those relationships with much more experience than them, one was a complete slvt and had 2 boyfriends within a year.

Some may not like that analogy but it holds some merit. 

So being someone who has kept my past experiences clear of ONS and tons of partners, I don't want some sex goddess who has a black book of 100 names to maintain a relationship with. 

If I wanted this in someone, I would stay single, just wrap it tight and go out bang around. It would be just as meaningful.


BTW, not saying people can't change and not saying people in this lifestyle are necessarily bad, but it does matter to me and I would preclude someone who has this kind of history.

If I was single (I am not) and at my age 45, and I had to give a number, I would agree with Alexm about 5-6. And I could care less how many times they did it with those 5 or 6 (because they were in relationships and it's understandable the caveat being that you think you have that special person and then it falls apart which has happened to me at least 4 times. So some experience is understandable IMO) as long as the relationships were LT, they have distanced themselves from those guys and they kept the ONS to zero or bare minimum. That would be my ceiling, not my floor.

Oh and I have all the respect in the world for someone who has very little experience because they were 'saving it' for that special person. That is both admirable and loyal and I like those qualities and tried to be that but fell into the category of someone who felt they had that special person over and over again and didn't)


----------



## Dad&Hubby

EleGirl said:


> I don't think that AA was talking about a guy with your attitude. She was talking about men who have high number and yet have a hypocritical attitude about women who have similar numbers.


Oh I know. She's right to take the stance she does with those type of men..

I'm simply trying to point out that not all men, who do carry this as a standard, do it for the wrong reasons.

That said.....Double standards and hypocrisy are two of my big pet peeves. I can't understand guys who are players but then don't want to marry a female "player". It was good for you...it should be good for your partner. 

The biggest wrong doing is the judgment that comes with it. People need to stop judging others, outside of recognizing what they want (for the right reasons) in a partner. It's like I've said numerous times (on numerous threads about this) find a partner with a similar history and set of beliefs....it truly cuts down on the problems.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

wmn1 said:


> Some may not like that analogy but it holds some merit.


I don't know, maybe for someone. But as someone who has cheated, I can say that no memory of past wild oats played any part in it. Like not even remotely.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Dad&Hubby said:


> I can't understand guys who are players but then don't want to marry a female "player". It was good for you...it should be good for your partner.


Well, kinda apples and oranges and not here. A marriage seeker and a non-marriage seeker. But if he's a player, he isn't looking to get married. Hence, "player". So the analogy doesn't really work. They're technically a great match. They both want sex and the rest is BS.

The thing is, not everyone who has had a lot of partners was "playing". They're going about having ordinary relationships that include sex that may or may not last.

Statistically speaking, I recall the US avg being about 6 weeks before sex. There's also a correlation between number of partners and decline in period of time waited, which may indicate that as we have more partners, we become more comfortable with a new partner more quickly and thus more willing to have sex with them sooner. Which is to say, with every new partner, the waiting period tends to get shorter. Sex with someone new becomes less and less a "scary" or novel thing. 

Regardless, if it only takes 6 weeks on average and the avg break-up time in the US is 6-8 months, it's quite possible to build up quite a number in a rather short period of time (say, by the time you reach your late 20s), depending on how easy/difficult it is for you to get partners - without any sort of socially frowned upon behavior. That the actual avg number of partners is like 5 (forget the exact number, but its pretty close to 5), is more the result of people finding a satisfactory LTR within that pool of attempts. So are we really saying people with a high count are bad because they didn't settle within this time frame, if nothing else?


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> I don't think that AA was talking about a guy with your attitude. She was talking about men who have high number and yet have a hypocritical attitude about women who have similar numbers.


She seems to be selectively looking at the guys who are saying it matters to them and assuming they are full of bs. 

Like this guy and myself, we SAY that this matters...and our numbers are low. There is no hypocrisy. But with her usual broad brush, she is assuming men saying this are hypocrites despite the men saying they have lower numbers than their current spouses.

Haven't done a refined statistical analysis, but they guys saying this aren't sleeping around in general. Granted, who will admit it publically?


----------



## JCD

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Statistically speaking, I recall the US avg being about 6 weeks before sex. There's also a correlation between number of partners and decline in period of time waited, which may indicate that as we have more partners, we become more comfortable with a new partner more quickly and thus more willing to have sex with them sooner. Which is to say, with every new partner, the waiting period tends to get shorter. Sex with someone new becomes less and less a "scary" or novel thing.
> 
> Regardless, if it only takes 6 weeks on average and the avg break-up time in the US is 6-8 months, it's quite possible to build up quite a number in a rather short period of time (say, by the time you reach your late 20s), depending on how easy/difficult it is for you to get partners - without any sort of socially frowned upon behavior. That the actual avg number of partners is like 5 (forget the exact number, but its pretty close to 5), is more the result of people finding a satisfactory LTR within that pool of attempts. So are we really saying people with a high count are bad because they didn't settle within this time frame, if nothing else?


I read somewhere that the oxyontin levels released start to go down after X number of partners. So you get less 'bang for any particular buck' But...it was written on the internet so what is that actually worth? 

But the point remains that there is a real fear, legitimate or not. There is a term, _'jaded'_ which is relevant and not just to women. Do I want a partner who feels that sex is like a handshake?

In my case, no. 

***

I posted these questions before and I never get an answer from the ladies. Let me put them out there again.

1) A man who sleeps with a prostitute once is not a viable partner but I having slept with 100 men am a viable partner because ___________


2) If my current husband LOOKS at a pretty girl is worse show of character than my having done more than looking at other men because ______________________

3) A man who is a player is not a worthy partner. He treats women like a disposable commodity. This is different from my sleeping with a bunch of different men because _____________


So...let's talk about hypocrisy.


----------



## always_alone

Dad&Hubby said:


> I'm simply trying to point out that not all men, who do carry this as a standard, do it for the wrong reasons.


Oh I know. My post was very much in response to a very specific attitude that paints men as naturally "wired" to bag women like so many deer, with zero concern for family, community or connection, and women as gatekeepers, "wired" to keep their legs pressed firmly together, lest she be "soiled" and her head hung like a trophy over fireplace.

It isn't biology or science; it's just a mish-mash of cliches drawn from the history of misogyny.


----------



## manticore

always_alone said:


> :banghead:
> 
> I am so tired of reading this hackneyed and ridiculous justification of hypocrisy. * I get that a lot of men have a clear double standard and will cling to it until they die.* Fine. Your prerogative to pretend that your past behaviour is no comment on your character while scrutinizing your women's.
> 
> But let's stop pretending that there is any biological basis or natural inevitability to it. No other animal bothers their heads about. Indeed it's only those select humans who have certain religious or philosophical inclinations that make them utterly threatened by women's sexuality.
> 
> All the excuses to justify why it's okay for men to do what they want, but not women, are just that: excuses. *A guy who sleeps around is just as likely to have all the same character flaws attributed to women. *
> 
> *Plus hypocrisy, if they think women should be held to a different standard.*


Well while your comment is interesting, it seems to me that you are focused in the equality of the flaws assuming that i think that if women sleeps around is a wh*re while a man who sleeps around is an example to follow .

my analogy of hunter and gate keeper must not be confused with the idea that man "can do" and women "should not".

I just depicted how society works specially our occidental society, where the men in relationships are the ones who do the courtship and womenare the one who aceepts or rejects the advances, that is why the roles and vision of women and men who sleep with alot of partners is different in our society.

but double stadart rules affects not just women it affects also men, as example a woman who is virgin at her 20's may be seem as a person with strong views of about relationships or religion at that is worth to take as live partner, while a man is the same situation is marked normally as a loser or teased to be less of a man.

I for my part don't admire players and I think that they are as prone to cheat as women who have had a big amount of sexual partners.


----------



## EleGirl

Why is it that we seem to have a thread going on this topic about women and the number of sex partners just about constantly. And often it's the same people posting their opinion on this topic over and over. 

Perhaps the moderators should just sticky that last one that was dozens of pages long. I find it odd that some men seem to want to discuss this topic over and over and over and over and over.

.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Why is it that we seem to have a thread going on this topic about women and the number of sex partners just about constantly. And often it's the same people posting their opinion on this topic over and over.
> 
> Perhaps the moderators should just sticky that last one that was dozens of pages long. I find it odd that some men seem to want to discuss this topic over and over and over and over and over.
> 
> .


I am glad you said people, but you generally are pretty fair.

The reason this constantly comes up is because it's a constant worry among women...and men. It is also a double edged sword on defining sexuality.

What is the basic premise? "Do men care how many men I've slept with." 

Some men: No

Some men: Maybe. 

Many men: Yes!

The 'Delightful women who constantly post virulently on this point' : Your feelings are invalid, shaming and wrong! Any man who doesn't cleave to this point of view doesn't deserve a woman in the first place! This is about MY BODY!

And this is true and valid. The sexual controls on women, legal and social did not change all that long ago. So this is very much a hot button issue among women in the West (Women in the East look at Western women, shrug their shoulders in bemusement and lie their asses off)

So they engage in a shaming campaign just as virulent as they feel the men's campaign is to shame promiscuous women. "You are not allowed to judge me at all and you are bad if you do."

Hmm.

And yet...let a post about Porn or Prostitution come up and the majority of women are very vocal about both. A man who may visit a single pro, or admits to a woman before she is 'all in' that he enjoys porn a lot...well...he is not good partner material! He didn't need to sleep with a single person...but somehow these issues tell them EVERYTHING they need to know about the guy and how 'choice' he is. And there is a virulent shaming campaign on the female side on THAT front! (not all women. But it's pretty common)

These 'delightful women' come across just as judgmental, shaming and attempting to define male sexuality as they resent any such controls upon THEIR sexuality from the other gender. Encouragement of sexy clothes? EVIL. Encouragement to put any pressure on a female about sexual acts they might be EMOTIONALLY uncomfortable about? EVIL. A man LOOKS at a woman he fancies while he is with his partner? Smack him hard!

So...I actually like to turn things around. My feelings are valid, MEN get to define their own gender and sexualities, and women who are so judgmental about men judging female sexuality...let me introduce you to Mr. Kettle. You should get on fine.

Personally, I would suggest the moderators run a 'no comment' poll on this issue and porn and sticky it. That way everyone gets to anonymously vote how they feel without justifying it in a PC way.

Women and men can look at the results and make up their own minds instead of attacking the other side (Now excuse me. I have a date with Ms. Pot...)


----------



## Jetranger

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Why is having sex associated with loyalty? Perhaps a person with a high count simply had sex with the people they dated and doesn't view sex as some tremendously sacred act.


:iagree: (the sign isn't big enough)

I really, really wish people didn't see it as the most holy of all things.




> Every guy wants to think he's THE guy who rocked her world best, no? If she has fewer partners, he has better odds. Just a thought.


******* asks a question on your profile which is (paraphrased): "If you get married is it important to you you that it be the most satisfying sexual relationship you have ever had?"

I instinctively said YES... and then thought... yes?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Jetranger said:


> :iagree: (the sign isn't big enough)
> 
> *I really, really wish people didn't see it as the most holy of all things.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> ******* asks a question on your profile which is (paraphrased): "If you get married is it important to you you that it be the most satisfying sexual relationship you have ever had?"
> 
> I instinctively said YES... and then thought... yes?


I really, really wish people would accept that different people have different views...as long as they aren't judgmental with said views.

Look, you may not see sex as a sacred event...fine...that's your call and you have every right to have those feelings...but to others...like myself...I see sex with my wife as sacred. 

I see sex as the ultimate way to show her how much I love her. In one physical act, I can bring her the ultimate in physical pleasures, reach into her mind and answer lifelong curiosities and intrigues, physically connect with her at the most primordial levels...etc. etc....yes it's VERY sacred to me. For me...sex goes hand in hand with love. My body responds to the same levels of love that I feel. I can go multiple times a day with my wife (in my 40's) and yet when I was in my 20's with my first wife (with whom I had a very strenuous relationship) I felt like I might be growing impotent...my body responds with my emotions.

Do I hope my wife finds our sex to be the most satisfying...of course. Again, I married a woman with a similar belief system with sex. Sex and love are linked for her as well....so yes...it's the most satisfying because it's based in pure and great love. Sex without that love isn't something either of us really want's to do.


----------



## JCD

Just to add: I understand the women's motivation to change this meme. After all, what is the point of having sexual license if you get a ticket every time you go for a ride?

Unfortunately, personal male attitudes are immune to legislation.


----------



## JCD

Sacred is a strong word...but important? Sure.


----------



## Jetranger

Dad&Hubby said:


> I really, really wish people would accept that different people have different views...as long as they aren't judgmental with said views.
> 
> Look, you may not see sex as a sacred event...fine...that's your call and you have every right to have those feelings...but to others...like myself...I see sex with my wife as sacred.


That's wonderful. Please tell me where I was being judgmental.


----------



## samyeagar

Jetranger said:


> That's wonderful. Please tell me where I was being judgmental.





> Originally Posted by Jetranger View Post
> (the sign isn't big enough)
> 
> I really, really wish people didn't see it as the most holy of all things.






What do you mean by wishing people did not see things that way? Would you rather them all see it your way? Why do you want them to?


----------



## Jetranger

samyeagar said:


> What do you mean by wishing people did not see things that way? Would you rather them all see it your way? Why do you want them to?


It's judgmental to disagree with viewpoints that differ from your own?


----------



## samyeagar

Jetranger said:


> It's judgmental to disagree with viewpoints that differ from your own?


No, not at all, but it is to wish everybody thought as you do. Issues such as this do not have right or wrong answers. By saying what you did is tantamount to saying that anyone who does not hold your view is wrong. That is judgmental.


----------



## Jetranger

samyeagar said:


> No, not at all, but it is to wish everybody thought as you do. Issues such as this do not have right or wrong answers. By saying what you did is tantamount to saying that anyone who does not hold your view is wrong. That is judgmental.


I said that I really x2 wish they didn't feel that way, because I don't agree with it. Do you take someone disagreeing that far?

This was a yes or no question. I agreed with someone else's reasoning behind their answer.


----------



## treyvion

10, 50, 100, 500, 1000, 4000?

Is there a number which may mean they do not tend to be suitable for monogamy? 

If your swingers it might not matter, or if you don't care if they have indescritions outside of you.

There are some stereotypes about high numbers true of man or woman.

But if they have a high number, and for some odd reason elevated you above the pack in their mind, then it can be a great thing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

JCD said:


> I read somewhere that the oxyontin levels released start to go down after X number of partners. So you get less 'bang for any particular buck' But...it was written on the internet so what is that actually worth?


I don't object on fact, I don't know. But I'm not sure that this gets to my point. My case is based on the length of time one *waits* to have sex, not the length of time one chooses to be in a relationship. I'm not aware of a statistic on the correlation between relationship length as number of partners increases.



JCD said:


> But the point remains that there is a real fear, legitimate or not. There is a term, _'jaded'_ which is relevant and not just to women. Do I want a partner who feels that sex is like a handshake?


I agree it's a real fear. Jaded may or may not apply. It could just be that the person has struggled to find a person they're convinced they'd enjoy spending the rest of their life with. For some people, this decision is a lot more serious than sex... and doesn't mean equating sex to a handshake. Statements like that are just a form of sexual shaming - no healthy person treats sex like a handshake. Perhaps you believe every sexual partner is supposed to be someone you're strongly considering as a life partner, but be aware that not sharing your view doesn't make someone some kind of moral leper. Many people prefer to live a full life while looking for a life partner and their doing so doesn't automatically mean they will love you less or cheat.



JCD said:


> ***
> 
> I posted these questions before and I never get an answer from the ladies. Let me put them out there again.
> 
> 1) A man who sleeps with a prostitute once is not a viable partner but I having slept with 100 men am a viable partner because ___________
> 
> 2) If my current husband LOOKS at a pretty girl is worse show of character than my having done more than looking at other men because ______________________
> 
> 3) A man who is a player is not a worthy partner. He treats women like a disposable commodity. This is different from my sleeping with a bunch of different men because _____________
> 
> So...let's talk about hypocrisy.


Your examples appear to me as setups.

#1 are unlike things. 1 prostitute vs 100 sexual partners? Having 100 sexual partners does not mean one devalued or took advantage of any of them. Most female positions against prostitution is that women believe this is advantage taking out of economic power. They argue that paying a prostitute is indicative of believing a woman can be bought as a thing to be used - which I think is a substantially more compelling moral argument than a woman having sex with a 100 men on equal footing.

#2 is unequal. Hypocrisy is a negative reaction to the same thing you do when its done by others. So the proper analogy to him looking at a pretty woman, is her looking at an attractive man - not doing more than looking.

#3 also portrays unlike things as equals. A player is distinctly different from a man who has had a lot of partners. The key element of being a player is purposefully misleading someone to believe there is greater potential than is actually there. That is to say, "playing" on her hope for more. A woman having had a lot of partners does not mean she has been behaving as a player. As far as women players go - they're actually rarely having sex with the men being played. Sex is the lure for the man's gifts and attention, but she never actually has sex with him... just flirts enough to keep him chasing the carrot. I believe most people find this woman to be just as bad as the male player.

To call out hypocrisy, you have to make the conditions the same.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Dad&Hubby said:


> I really, really wish people would accept that different people have different views...as long as they aren't judgmental with said views.
> 
> Look, you may not see sex as a sacred event...fine...that's your call and you have every right to have those feelings...but to others...like myself...I see sex with my wife as sacred.


Not to call you out or start a personal thing, but were you a virgin when you married?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

samyeagar said:


> What do you mean by wishing people did not see things that way? Would you rather them all see it your way? Why do you want them to?


In terms of the sides being taken in this discussion, I believe the sensitivity is more on the fact that the "more sacred sexers" judge the "more casual sexers" as somehow unfit for a relationship. I don't believe we see the same judgment from the latter group about the former.

We can all agree that the differences in our views of sexuality might prevent a given two people from connecting in the first place, but to declare others unsuitable for relationship by an arbitrary count is not right.

This is why we get so many threads where everything in the relationship seems perfect, and then lo and behold she reveals her number of partners to be above his expectations and poof... he freaks out. What changed? Nothing but his self-confidence. If everything is otherwise great and he had a wonderful connection with her, is her number really the issue, or is his insecurity? The follow on discussion is usually quite telling - as these men typically question their sexual ability, wonder if she thinks about a past "better" partner and what not. It's all good until he doubts himself... and strangely, they never seem to realize that if he's so bad or lesser than her past, why isn't she still with that past guy? This looks like another example of men too closely attaching their sexual performance to their overall worth.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not to call you out or start a personal thing, but were you a virgin when you married?


Nope. I was with my high school sweetheart first...we were together a couple years...felt it was true love then she broke up with me when I went off to college. Then I married my first wife. Then I had a 2+ year long relationship and then I married my current wife.

Those are the 4 women I've been with. Those are the 4 women I, at one stage in my life, felt I was in love with. I was always "in love" before I had sex. I've never talked about pre-marital sex..I'm talking about sex being an act of love.

I have no problem being an open book.

I've stated MY PERSONAL opinions on this matter and what criteria I'VE set for myself. I've also stated that other people's opinions and criteria is also valid. I've never "shamed" someone or said they were wrong for their beliefs, they're just different than my own. 

I learned a lot from my first marriage, and one of the most important things I learned was, if you even REMOTELY care about your partners sexual history (in ANY WAY, low number high number, who it was with, types of sexual partners etc.) then be with someone who shares your same beliefs and feelings about sex.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Dad&Hubby said:


> I have no problem being an open book.


Awesome, thanks! I don't want you to think I'm looking to make a personal jab.

How long did you wait to have sex with the 4? 

If your relationships were less successful, can you see imagine a scenario where you'd have had significantly more partners, yet requiring no change in your personal attitude toward sex?

One of the regrettable tangents of these discussions, is that it often appears that those with higher counts are criticized for being of lesser character (which may or may not be the case, but partner count doesn't really predict), when many simply did not find the "one", or long term relationships as quickly/easily as someone else did. A solid example is a woman who's been played by several men, or otherwise unable to get a guy to commit... this begets a discussion of what is the "proper" waiting period to have sex, and even if we choose some arbitrary period, whether it's possible to still have bad luck dating as such and a high number of partners. Maybe she was picky about whoever would be the "one" and it takes her a while to determine a guy is not it. Maybe some quality most men found annoying, is endearing to someone out there... and harder to find. 

So it seems a bit arbitrary to make much of a stink about number. If a woman has a crazy high number, there's no reason for her to seek an exclusive relationship if she doesn't actually want one. It's rather easy for women to find sex and even open relationships (women all but run swinger culture, for example). So even a woman with a high number out of wild abandon who is now seeking long term exclusivity, would seem to argue that she's tired of what has been, and is legitimately seeking the right long term guy.


----------



## committed_guy

Rugs said:


> What is a "comfortable" number for a man?
> 
> Men, do you judge women based on their sexual past?


No I don't judge her. I have my own past and chances are she does too. 

What does bother me is that she has intentionally lied and hidden her past from me. I wish we had the kind of relationship where we could be open, honest, and accepting of our pasts.


----------



## dbc

" does it matter to a man how many partners a woman has had?" I have thought about this not only now but over the years. to answer your question with my view on the subject , i will say yes it matters to me.
i have been married for 31 years and it still bothers me , hurts me that my wife had others. 
we started dating when she was almost seventeen she was untouched, we broke up, and got back together when she was almost nineteen.
during twelve month or so period she had been with eight guys. yes it matters to me.
yes it still hurts today. yes it matters. at times i wonder what the count would have been if i would have came into her life much later.


----------



## treyvion

dbc said:


> " does it matter to a man how many partners a woman has had?" I have thought about this not only now but over the years. to answer your question with my view on the subject , i will say yes it matters to me.
> i have been married for 31 years and it still bothers me , hurts me that my wife had others.
> we started dating when she was almost seventeen she was untouched, we broke up, and got back together when she was almost nineteen.
> during twelve month or so period she had been with eight guys. yes it matters to me.
> yes it still hurts today. yes it matters. at times i wonder what the count would have been if i would have came into her life much later.


Your just a normal "cave man". We don't like to share our women, and we don't like that anyone else has been with them. Society is making men like yourself feel guilty for being a man.

Your wife was young when she experimented. You have to let it go and trust that she is all yours now. If she really is. I guess if your not sure plant a VAR in the car, so you can either get the truth or piece of mind to stop worrying.

What if she talks of you as a shining light behind your back and would never do anything against you?


----------



## treyvion

Personal said:


> Yes it is easy to rack up some numbers even with those conservative numbers. I have to admit I had no idea most US men and women on average take so long before they have sex.
> 
> I just tried to find some numbers for Australians and all I could find was an Australian dating service survey which suggests of Australians in 2013, 19% would have sex on the first date, 4% on the second, 7% on the third, 6% after a month, 1% after six months, 12% will wait until they're married, while 46% will have sex whenever it feels right (whatever that means) so I suppose 46% would readily have sex on the first date as long as it felt right.
> 
> As for me I was surprised to read that people in the US wait so long, since I have never experienced such waiting. I had sex with my first wife on the night we both met and ended up having 3 years together with her. With my second wife (who I am still with) I had sex with her on our third date and I've had over 18 monogamous years with her. All of the others who I was with for 3-6 months I had sex with them on either the first, second or third date. While all of the rest I had sex with them as well on the day-evening we met or within the next three days after that.
> 
> Except for those who save themselves for marriage, I honestly didn't imagine that people would wait as long as 6 weeks to have sex with someone they're dating.
> 
> I had always presumed that most Western people were perfectly happy to have sex quite readily within the first few days of meeting someone they liked, as has been my experience throughout my sex life.


A lot of players and "real" daters have a "3 date rule". If it's not sex by the 3rd date they are moving along.


----------



## CuddleBug

Rugs said:


> I recently confessed to an old boyfriend that I had been in a sexless marriage for many years. After I said it, I felt highly embarassed. I don't think ha even paid any attention to what I was saying.
> 
> After our phone conversation, I bagan to wonder if the number of sexual partners a woman has had changes a man's view of a woman.
> 
> What is a "comfortable" number for a man?
> 
> Men, do you judge women based on their sexual past?



Would I judge a woman on how many men she has slept with, her past? I would say no but I ask myself, would she like it if I had slept with many many many women before she met me?

If you party it up too much.....you have given yourself away free too many times and why even get married? What's the point?

I had a few ladies and my wifee had one guy. That's it. If I would of slept with 15+ ladies, she wouldn't of given me her time. If she would of slept with 15+ guys, I wouldn't of given her my time. Even 10+ men or women is too much.

I'd want a woman who has some experiences, but not a lot and been around the block so many times, she knows all the houses if you catch my drift. I'd want her to learn to grow with me, her hubby to be and not, been there, done that and she's beyond broken in.....

There's something about trying to save yourself for the man or woman you'd marry instead of having sex with anything that moves.....


----------



## JCD

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't object on fact, I don't know. But I'm not sure that this gets to my point. My case is based on the length of time one *waits* to have sex, not the length of time one chooses to be in a relationship. I'm not aware of a statistic on the correlation between relationship length as number of partners increases.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it's a real fear. Jaded may or may not apply. It could just be that the person has struggled to find a person they're convinced they'd enjoy spending the rest of their life with. For some people, this decision is a lot more serious than sex... and doesn't mean equating sex to a handshake. Statements like that are just a form of sexual shaming - no healthy person treats sex like a handshake. Perhaps you believe every sexual partner is supposed to be someone you're strongly considering as a life partner, but be aware that not sharing your view doesn't make someone some kind of moral leper. Many people prefer to live a full life while looking for a life partner and their doing so doesn't automatically mean they will love you less or cheat.
> 
> Your examples appear to me as setups.


First off, of COURSE these questions are set ups, but they are not unfair set ups. They are taking values which many females seem to hold dear and defend vigorously and juxtapose them to things they are dismissing when men judge them.

To wit: becoming 'jaded'. Many women fear that men, watching porn, will no longer be satisfied with 'normal loving' sex; that seeing Becky BigT!tz will create 'unfair comparisons' for normal women. This from watching some pixels and rubbing one out by hand. 

But somehow actually SLEEPING with a ton of guys will not create any expectations, comparisons, etc. Sleeping with a bunch of different guys will have ZERO effect on her sexuality except 'to make me more skilled for you, honey.' And the only answer as to why this is not the case in women seems to be 'we are emotionally superior creatures who can divorce our past from our present, unlike you men who will ALWAYS think of Becky BigT!tz when you are in the bedroom with us'. And cheating men also trot out the 'she meant nothing to me, it was only sex' argument, trying to argue emotional distance. How much ice does that cut them? The women don't believe the cheater and they don't believe fake sex doesn't create problems.

This seems somewhat (not totally) contradictory and rather self serving (no qualification) 





> #1 are unlike things. 1 prostitute vs 100 sexual partners? Having 100 sexual partners does not mean one devalued or took advantage of any of them. Most female positions against prostitution is that women believe this is advantage taking out of economic power. They argue that paying a prostitute is indicative of believing a woman can be bought as a thing to be used - which I think is a substantially more compelling moral argument than a woman having sex with a 100 men on equal footing.



The way you characterize it, sure. However, I think that there is a lot more going on with a woman than 'oh...he is tacitly and entirely supporting the continual degradation of women because he bought a blowjob once'. I think there is a 'yuck' factor, there is a 'how can you have so little self respect', and there is a 'if you have to pay, you are not worthy of me' aspect. Note, I put no moral qualification on this. 'Paying for sex' could be a man approaching an abusive pimp...or getting a 'lapdance+' from a stripper working her way through college. Wasn't there that one Duke student who got outed as a pro so she could pay her tuition? So while I agree that sex work is degrading in some fashion, so is working as a scuba diver in a blocked up sewer line: it is, in many cases, a self imposed degradation. And blaming a person's economic circumstances on men is a bridge WAY too far!

The point of this is 'one partner' can somehow tarnish a man forever, but a dozen for a women cannot...even when she dated that drug dealer...or that motorcycle gang member when she was 'crazy'. In these cases, we are only supposed to feel sympathy for the woman, but the man...maybe he just had a divorce. Maybe he wasn't self confident. So that brush only paints one way, it seems. And God forbid if I ask specifics like 'did you ever sleep with any criminals'? How dare I judge?!?

Feh.



> #2 is unequal. Hypocrisy is a negative reaction to the same thing you do when its done by others. So the proper analogy to him looking at a pretty woman, is her looking at an attractive man - not doing more than looking.



And again you miss the point. In this case, the women are clearly judging the character of a man by his actions. And his actions are rather tame. Yet he is supposed to be ashamed and accountable for being sexually attracted to another person and should resist any such temptation. So...when one asks the obvious question: How well do YOU resist temptation DEAR? Um...suddenly her ACTIONS have no relevance. I am not allowed to consider this any kind of mark on her relationship portfolio.


And yes, I see that the man is in a relationship. The point remains that fears of a man's self control who is looking somehow is not to be equally questioned when discussing ACTIONS. This is not about shame, but certainly consideration.



> #3 also portrays unlike things as equals. A player is distinctly different from a man who has had a lot of partners. The key element of being a player is purposefully misleading someone to believe there is greater potential than is actually there. That is to say, "playing" on her hope for more. A woman having had a lot of partners does not mean she has been behaving as a player. As far as women players go - they're actually rarely having sex with the men being played. Sex is the lure for the man's gifts and attention, but she never actually has sex with him... just flirts enough to keep him chasing the carrot. I believe most people find this woman to be just as bad as the male player.



You continue to want to define this as narrowly as possible to discredit the point: a player sleeps with a lot of girls. Many women consider his tactics reprehensible, but just the fact that he is NOT offering a 'relationship' is likely just as discrediting.

So...a woman who sleeps with a lot of people in a superficial manner (like a player) somehow should not be judged by the same metric...

Okay.

I happen to agree with all of these points by women...but in all of my examples, the bar used to measure male behavior seems to be rather higher than they want imposed on themselves. To an extent.

I am happy to point this out. Maybe they will cut men a bit more slack. Maybe men need to act a bit better...but again, think about the consequences.

Note that in times past, MEN were also held to those standards. 'Rake' and 'Libertine' were words used frequently to 'c0ck shame' men who behaved badly and they tended to be socially shunned as well, even if they had a lot of money. But there is always a 'fast set', so they weren't totally cut off.

Even kings tended to hide their mistresses to a certain extent in the past.


----------



## JCD

DvlsAdvc8;10798314
So it seems a bit arbitrary to make much of a stink about number. If a woman has a crazy high number said:


> there's no reason for her to seek an exclusive relationship if she doesn't actually want one. [/B]It's rather easy for women to find sex and even open relationships (women all but run swinger culture, for example). So even a woman with a high number out of wild abandon who is now seeking long term exclusivity, would seem to argue that she's tired of what has been, and is legitimately seeking the right long term guy.


And that is one of the worries. She seemed perfectly happy NOT having one...but she wants one 'now'. Why?

I can think of half a dozen motives which have absolutely nothing about me being 'her one true love'.

That is the point of looking at a person's history. If someone lied all their lives, should we assume they have had a personal epiphany or should we think maybe they are still a liar?

But somehow this should not be considered.

I think it is certainly something to have a conversation about. Deal breaker? No. But a potential warning sign?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Awesome, thanks! I don't want you to think I'm looking to make a personal jab.
> 
> How long did you wait to have sex with the 4?


1st 4 months
2nd (1st wife) 4 months
3rd 3 months
4th (current wife) 3 weeks (but I also felt like I fell in love on our first date and knew I'd marry her within 2 weeks LOL)



> If your relationships were less successful, can you see imagine a scenario where you'd have had significantly more partners, yet requiring no change in your personal attitude toward sex?


I'm a serial monogamist and I work at my relationships, but if they were less successful, I'm sure I would've had more partners. My current wife had 10 partners before me because she was "single" longer than I was. But we both have the same attitude about sex. That was the key for me. I didn't have a "cut off" number in regards to partners, but if she had, say 50, as her number....I'd know that our feelings about sex in a relationship wouldn't match. I didn't use the number as a determinant, I used the number as an indicator to what was TRULY important to me, her attitude towards sex.



> One of the regrettable tangents of these discussions, is that it often appears that those with higher counts are criticized for being of lesser character (which may or may not be the case, but partner count doesn't really predict)


I do think that is one of the biggest farces on this discussion board. The number of partners someone has (assuming they aren't the type to lie or play games to get said partners) is completely irrelevant to their character. I had a great friend who was the most honorable guy you could meet. He was attractive and always had women after him. He liked sex, didn't assign love to it's activity and told any partner he was with what his thoughts were. He had hundreds of partners by the time he was in his mid 20's. I didn't begrudge him, that was his thing and he was honest and upfront about it. He did remember every girl he'd been with because they all meant something to him, it was actually impressive the memory he had with it.



> when many simply did not find the "one", or long term relationships as quickly/easily as someone else did. A solid example is a woman who's been played by several men, or otherwise unable to get a guy to commit... this begets a discussion of what is the "proper" waiting period to have sex, and even if we choose some arbitrary period, whether it's possible to still have bad luck dating as such and a high number of partners. Maybe she was picky about whoever would be the "one" and it takes her a while to determine a guy is not it. Maybe some quality most men found annoying, is endearing to someone out there... and harder to find.


My wife somewhat fell into that trap. She couldn't find the right guy until me. As time went on she let her standards drop too (which is totally understandable), but she learned from it. This issue isn't a holier than thou (although many people sure come across that way). The "number" to me, is just an indicator of belief system, but it's also not a be all end all indicator. Of my wife's "10", there's 2 or 3 that goes against her beliefs, but mistakes happen (and yes it's HER who calls them mistakes, not me)



> So it seems a bit arbitrary to make much of a stink about number. If a woman has a crazy high number, there's no reason for her to seek an exclusive relationship if she doesn't actually want one. It's rather easy for women to find sex and even open relationships (women all but run swinger culture, for example). So even a woman with a high number out of wild abandon who is now seeking long term exclusivity, would seem to argue that she's tired of what has been, and is legitimately seeking the right long term guy.


And there's nothing wrong with that. Again, my personal attitude isn't about the number in and of itself. It's what lies beneath. There are plenty of healthy, well adjusted people (because this applies to both genders equally) who have high numbers because they're people who happen to like sex, don't need an emotional bond to have it and have the opportunity to have it. But there are also plenty of people with unhealthy views of sex and relationships who have high numbers for the wrong reasons. There are also people who have VERY low numbers who are just as unhealthy. When I met my wife, my belief was (+/- a few) 1 partner per year during your sexual life is pretty normal. So if my wife had sex with just 1 other guy (she was 29) I'd be worried and if she had sex with 50 other guys, I'd be equally as worried.

I wanted a woman who had my view on sex. Not saying she wouldn't have issues, but at least it minimized the chances of issues that didn't mesh with my own LOL.

I also want to add that openness and honesty are key for me as well. The other reason it's flawed to "just look at numbers" without actually talking is that numbers can be flawed. 

When I met my wife, she had a pretty consistent sex life. She was mostly single for all of her 20's (short term unsuccessful relationships, and 2 sort of long term relationships (as in more than 1 year). She had 10 partners. Now lets say she had been married out of high school to a husband and he was her first. She divorced him and wanted to "explore herself" and had 8 partners in the year before she met me, technically that situation would be 9, 1 better than 10 right...but the 9 is VERY different and much worse (for my attitudes) than the 10. My wife could've had 15 and I would've reacted the same way. She's attractive, loyal, funny, compassionate, very sexual...she's amazing and I'm VERY lucky she didn't find a good guy before me who would've taken her off the market. It wouldn't have been odd for her to have 15 partners or some number in that range.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> And that is one of the worries. She seemed perfectly happy NOT having one...but she wants one 'now'. Why?


For exactly the same reasons a guy might decide that sex is expressing love after years of casual sex devoid of emotional connection.

I assume you agree that these claims too should be subjected to the same disbelief and scrutiny?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Cut for length and key points I wanted to respond to.



JCD said:


> The point of this is 'one partner' can somehow tarnish a man forever, but a dozen for a women cannot...
> 
> the women are clearly judging the character of a man by his actions.
> 
> You continue to want to define this as narrowly as possible to discredit the point: a player sleeps with a lot of girls. Many women consider his tactics reprehensible, but just the fact that he is NOT offering a 'relationship' is likely just as discrediting.
> 
> So...a woman who sleeps with a lot of people in a superficial manner (like a player) somehow should not be judged by the same metric...
> 
> Okay.
> 
> the bar used to measure male behavior seems to be rather higher than they want imposed on themselves.


You understand that it's not the player's "count" that drives the disgust for players right? It's that he maintains a pretense that he's interested in more than sex.

I'm defining things only as narrowly as they MUST be in order to be considered hypocrisy. You must compare the reaction to LIKE things. Acting as a player, and having a lot of partners are two very different things. One does not need to behave as a player in order to have a lot of partners. So I can't accept a charge of hypocrisy in women's tendency to believe their number shouldn't matter while still being disgusted by players. The comparison is totally invalid. At issue re: players is deception, not their partner count. 

The bar on count is the same. They look different to you because you're mixing bars for different things. Deception vs Partner count. Prostitution (dehumanization; whether you or I agree or not, this is how they tend to see it) vs Partner count, etc. See what I'm saying? Quite different things.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

CuddleBug said:


> There's something about trying to save yourself for the man or woman you'd marry instead of having sex with anything that moves.....


This is a terrible characterization imo.

If one has 12 relationships in which they've had sex that's the equivalent of having sex with anything that moves?

What if the woman was crazy about the guy in each of those relationships, only to have been played by a guy who didn't actually want an LTR? She's having sex with anything that moves because she believed him? Having had sex with so many people, she's now some sort of damaged goods? Where is her show of poor character? Trusting to easily? Or if she left any of these relationships... is it poor character of her to realize that a guy she thought was special, isn't?

This kind of thing just honestly blows my mind. "Babe, the first 3 guys were fine... it was the next 10 that make you an unworthy sl*t." Meanwhile, she used the same discretion for the first 3 that she used for the next 10. So if only she found Mr. Right sooner, her character would remain intact?

To my mind, the only folks who should be making this case are those who actually waited to get married before having sex. Otherwise, we're just talking waiting periods, and good fortune that a relationship worked out before your number got too high to make you a bad person. :\


----------



## bandit.45

I prefer a well rounded wh0re. 

I want a woman who can spread her legs like a Romanian gymnast and suck a golf ball through twenty feet of garden hose. 

If she hasn't been passed around like a bowl of peanuts between at least 500 men, I'll have nothing to do with her.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Dad&Hubby said:


> Again, my personal attitude isn't about the number in and of itself. It's what lies beneath. There are plenty of healthy, well adjusted people (because this applies to both genders equally) who have high numbers because they're people who happen to like sex, don't need an emotional bond to have it and have the opportunity to have it. But there are also plenty of people with unhealthy views of sex and relationships who have high numbers for the wrong reasons. There are also people who have VERY low numbers who are just as unhealthy. When I met my wife, my belief was (+/- a few) 1 partner per year during your sexual life is pretty normal. So if my wife had sex with just 1 other guy (she was 29) I'd be worried and if she had sex with 50 other guys, I'd be equally as worried.
> 
> I wanted a woman who had my view on sex. Not saying she wouldn't have issues, but at least it minimized the chances of issues that didn't mesh with my own LOL.


Ok, I can see that strategy. However, we certainly don't see the vile for 1 partnered women that we see for high partner count women. What issues do you think "optimum" partner count avoids? Low count people are low drive? High count people are detached cheaters? I can't agree with conclusions like that. Perhaps there is some correlation, but I think its other factors that actually reveal such things and count by itself is useless, so there's no sense in making anything of it.

The more I dwell on the subject, the more I feel like a lot of things get made up so as to avoid saying "Her high partner count would make me feel insecure about myself." Which is cool, we all have insecurities. But at least saying that, amidst no damning evidence but a count, one is saying "it's not them, it's me... and it would naw at me no matter how perfect we otherwise seem to be."


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Cut for length and key points I wanted to respond to.
> 
> You understand that it's not the player's "count" that drives the disgust for players right? It's that he maintains a pretense that he's interested in more than sex.


:iagree:
Playing the field and playing a person are totally different IMO (whenever I hear player I always think of the latter).

lol rare occasion I completely agree with you


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

lol Tiggy. Stranger things have happened... maybe.


----------



## treyvion

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> Playing the field and playing a person are totally different IMO (whenever I hear player I always think of the latter).
> 
> lol rare occasion I completely agree with you


Playing the field might mean you are playing a whole bunch of people.


----------



## TiggyBlue

treyvion said:


> Playing the field might mean you are playing a whole bunch of people.


Yh it could do but playing the field and playing people doesn't automatically go hand in hand.


----------



## treyvion

TiggyBlue said:


> Yh it could do but playing the field and playing people doesn't automatically go hand in hand.


No it does not, you are right.

One could play the field and be mostly honest indicating they are or possibly will see others, even warn not to get attached because they aren't trying to at this point.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Ok, I can see that strategy. However, we certainly don't see the vile for 1 partnered women that we see for high partner count women. What issues do you think "optimum" partner count avoids? Low count people are low drive? High count people are detached cheaters? I can't agree with conclusions like that. Perhaps there is some correlation, but I think its other factors that actually reveal such things and count by itself is useless, so there's no sense in making anything of it.
> 
> The more I dwell on the subject, the more I feel like a lot of things get made up so as to avoid saying "Her high partner count would make me feel insecure about myself." Which is cool, we all have insecurities. But at least saying that, amidst no damning evidence but a count, one is saying "it's not them, it's me... and it would naw at me no matter how perfect we otherwise seem to be."


The mistake you're making is you want to assign one mentality to every category, just in the opposite way some people who are negative towards high count women are doing and both are wrong.

You're presenting all high count women as, in every other aspect of relationships, being well grounded, with healthy attitudes and mature thoughts.

I would counter that with there are MANY types of mentalities in EVERY group. In high count women, you might find healthy, but you can also find women with poor boundaries, women with an unhealthy need and desire for male validation etc. etc. In low count women, you could again find healthy, but you can also find low drive women etc. Now I fall into, say the middle category (more than 1 or 2 but less than 100 LOL). So my belief is I would have the best chance of finding a match by looking in a similar group. Not that it's fool proof, but after choosing the VERY WRONG woman.....(my first marriage)...I was going to have high standards and stack the deck.

It was just MY OWN criteria that I put in my own personal search that stated, I'd rather be alone than to risk the burdens that come from going into the high and also the super low count pools. Could I have possibly missed an amazing woman...maybe....although it's not like I dismissed any either. I never had to make the choice, so I can't say, beyond a doubt, that high count was a deal breaker for me. It was a criteria I had after my divorce. I happened to find 2 women who met that criteria, so I never was faced with "making the choice".

Insecurity, at least to me, isn't an issue. The only person who can avoid insecurity (if you are insecure) is the man who marries a virgin, otherwise, again if you are insecure, you'll worry about the one guy, the other 5 guys or the other 100 guys....I'm not an insecure man, outside of a small bout of it with turning 40 , which I got past very quickly LOL, and had nothing to do with my sexual performance.

In regards to the "vile for 1 person" comment...I hope you haven't seen vile for ANY person from me. Because that's all I can talk about....myself. But you're right, there's an unfair judgement placed on high number and there shouldn't be. Each person has their own make up, and as long as it's coming from a healthy place...they should live their life with no judgement from others.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Dad&Hubby said:


> The mistake you're making is you want to assign one mentality to every category, just in the opposite way some people who are negative towards high count women are doing and both are wrong.
> 
> You're presenting all high count women as, in every other aspect of relationships, being well grounded, with healthy attitudes and mature thoughts.


Not at all. I specifically addressed that in my earlier posts.  I don't believe count alone is indicative of much of anything in regards to being grounded, healthy or mature. There are unhealthy low counts, and unhealthy high counts... so count isn't really a defining factor. It is exactly because there are so many mentalities amongst the categories that I hold this view. I know so many women who were wild in college and leveled off, found Mr. Right and now have happy long lasting marriages and families. I also know some women who are desperate for new attention and have never been faithful to anyone, and will likely struggle to ever be. Both high count, but dramatically different prognosis, determined by things OTHER than their partner count.



Dad&Hubby said:


> So my belief is I would have the best chance of finding a match by looking in a similar group. Not that it's fool proof, but after choosing the VERY WRONG woman.....(my first marriage)...I was going to have high standards and stack the deck.


I totally accept your belief and right to have it. I'm only saying that partner count isn't very predictive.



Dad&Hubby said:


> In regards to the "vile for 1 person" comment...I hope you haven't seen vile for ANY person from me. Because that's all I can talk about....myself. But you're right, there's an unfair judgement placed on high number and there shouldn't be. Each person has their own make up, and as long as it's coming from a healthy place...they should live their life with no judgement from others.


No, I wasn't targeting you with that, just a general statement about the happy middle you referred to. You don't see anyone questioning the mental health of people who have had only one partner; but have many and people claim to know more about a person and their unhealthy mental state. It's quite clear that it's the high count that has the stigma. Yet, all you really know from this, is that they are sexually liberal people. For most, the same dating/sexual behavior that got a person to 3 gets them to 12 or more... it all just depends on how long before they find or want "the one". The number alone is uselessly uninformative, so freaking out or rejecting someone because of 12 seems similarly pointless to me. And that's not even getting into actual changes of behavior/desire - that someone can have a freewheeling sexual youth and subsequently desire to settle down - as is fairly common (or vice versa!). For men, it's traditionally referred to as "sowing wild oats" and accepted if not expected; practically a rite of passage for many. While anyone may say they're opposed to men "sowing wild oats" too, I think we can all agree the social norm is quite the opposite, and women's exclusion from this is the basis of the generalized hypocrisy being discussed.

It's as if there's a desire to punish people, particularly women, for not arbitrarily withholding their sexuality... even amidst a chorus of men crying that women are prudish or too hard to get! It's crazy. It's as if some think sex is of limited quantity and should be carefully rationed for fear of running out or being worthless. Very strange to me. Is it the same with love? If you've fallen in love many times, is your love suddenly less special? That way of thinking sounds so depressing and constricted to me. Economically, we might say that demand and scarcity determine value and a knee jerk assessment might lead one to believe that having sex or loving freely might be devaluing. But the value of love, and sex, is not lost by someone else having had it. It has not become more plentiful by past giving and thus less valuable. It remains scarce, because previous lovers don't have it anymore. I think love and sex are new and unique to every coupling.


----------



## OhGeesh

Rugs said:


> I recently confessed to an old boyfriend that I had been in a sexless marriage for many years. After I said it, I felt highly embarassed. I don't think ha even paid any attention to what I was saying.
> 
> After our phone conversation, I bagan to wonder if the number of sexual partners a woman has had changes a man's view of a woman.
> 
> What is a "comfortable" number for a man?
> 
> Men, do you judge women based on their sexual past?


High numbers can make insecure men feel more insecure about themelves, conservative men may feel like she is comprimised morals, and freak like me would say "Good she knows how to get down!! Or at least should!"


----------



## treyvion

OhGeesh said:


> High numbers can make insecure men feel more insecure about themelves, conservative men may feel like she is comprimised morals, and freak like me would say "Good she knows how to get down!! Or at least should!"


And a freak like you knows that high numbers are no guarantee at all that someone knows how to get down. 

Cause they might have had abysmal sex with each 500 people that they laid with one or two times each.


----------



## JCD

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Cut for length and key points I wanted to respond to.
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that it's not the player's "count" that drives the disgust for players right? It's that he maintains a pretense that he's interested in more than sex.
> 
> I'm defining things only as narrowly as they MUST be in order to be considered hypocrisy. You must compare the reaction to LIKE things. Acting as a player, and having a lot of partners are two very different things. One does not need to behave as a player in order to have a lot of partners. So I can't accept a charge of hypocrisy in women's tendency to believe their number shouldn't matter while still being disgusted by players. The comparison is totally invalid. At issue re: players is deception, not their partner count.
> 
> The bar on count is the same. They look different to you because you're mixing bars for different things. Deception vs Partner count. Prostitution (dehumanization; whether you or I agree or not, this is how they tend to see it) vs Partner count, etc. See what I'm saying? Quite different things.


I am not sure I buy that. I believe SOME women disdain players for how they act...but others disdain players for their numbers. 

And again, not to be too blunt but a man, ANY MAN, has to 'play a game' to get with a girl. They need to say and do the right things. They need to engage their interest.

In all of nature, the MALES do the mating dance: locking horns, building nests, killing the head lion, showing a really big...tail feather.

The women, to a species, sits on their ass like a spectator and finally says 'yes' to one or another male on display.

Which one takes more effort? I think women REALLY don't like what a player represents: that women can be so shallow and superficial to actually BUY into the shinola the Player sells...and yet they have the notches on their belt to prove things that women perhaps don't want to admit about themselves.

There is a lot for women to hate about players.

And I disagree that players 'only' offer a fake relationship to women, though whatever gets the job done I guess. I am guessing their normal tactics are giving tons of ego buffs, attracting interest, isolation, alcohol with heavy rationalizations and excuses ('This is natural. *Having sex with a lot of people is no big deal.* Your boyfriend/husband doesn't appreciate you.' Now...where have I heard the arguments about 'sex being no big deal' again? Hmm! The 'big numbers girls' sure SOUND like players...), not offering her a wedding ring in a BAR.


----------



## JCD

Oversharing

I am struck by the quote: A Russian and a Communist?

How about 'A Prostitute?"

A partner beyond the pale. Both genders have them.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> In all of nature, the MALES do the mating dance: locking horns, building nests, killing the head lion, showing a really big...tail feather.
> 
> The women, to a species, sits on their ass like a spectator and finally says 'yes' to one or another male on display.


Actually research shows that there is much variation within and between species. The males don't do all of the competing, and females don't do all of the choosing.

Indiscriminate females and choosy males: within- and between-specie... - PubMed - NCBI

The "men hunt" and "women sit on their ass" meme came from presumptions about parental investment that aren't actually true -- and not just for outlying and rare species, but all over the place.


----------



## treyvion

JCD said:


> I am not sure I buy that. I believe SOME women disdain players for how they act...but others disdain players for their numbers.
> 
> And again, not to be too blunt but a man, ANY MAN, has to 'play a game' to get with a girl. They need to say and do the right things. They need to engage their interest.
> 
> In all of nature, the MALES do the mating dance: locking horns, building nests, killing the head lion, showing a really big...tail feather.
> 
> The women, to a species, sits on their ass like a spectator and finally says 'yes' to one or another male on display.
> 
> Which one takes more effort? I think women REALLY don't like what a player represents: that women can be so shallow and superficial to actually BUY into the shinola the Player sells...and yet they have the notches on their belt to prove things that women perhaps don't want to admit about themselves.
> 
> There is a lot for women to hate about players.
> 
> And I disagree that players 'only' offer a fake relationship to women, though whatever gets the job done I guess. I am guessing their normal tactics are giving tons of ego buffs, attracting interest, isolation, alcohol with heavy rationalizations and excuses ('This is natural. *Having sex with a lot of people is no big deal.* Your boyfriend/husband doesn't appreciate you.' Now...where have I heard the arguments about 'sex being no big deal' again? Hmm! The 'big numbers girls' sure SOUND like players...), not offering her a wedding ring in a BAR.


How about women are players too?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

JCD said:


> I am not sure I buy that. I believe SOME women disdain players for how they act...but others disdain players for their numbers.
> 
> And again, not to be too blunt but a man, ANY MAN, has to 'play a game' to get with a girl. They need to say and do the right things. They need to engage their interest.


There's certainly women who don't like a guy simply for the size of his... number (sorry couldn't resist ). But there's nowhere near the degree of social/moral outrage when men are promiscuous as when women are. Look at the words we use to describe each. The female names are barbed and clearly insulting; the male names are tame... some even fall just short of being a trophy. This is because a male getting laid is culturally as practically an accomplishment. "Notches on the bed post" is an expression of this male trophy taking, not something to describe female behavior. Most women don't seem to care about my number. They care about my honesty. In all my dating, I think I've been asked maybe twice... and both were asking in a crooked grin sort of way because they thought I was a slick talker. Like, "you probably do this with all the girls... how many have you been with?"

I would prefer culture to adjust to where women may sleep with who they will when they will without worry about someone's judgment of an arbitrary count, and a man getting laid isn't a high five worthy accomplishment or even a bed post notch.

The "game" of knowing what women typically respond well to is significantly different from applying that knowledge with deceptive intent. One is really just a social skill. The ability to demonstrate value. The other is dishonesty. If you ask women what single thing they hate the most, it's dishonesty. It's one of those funny differences about male and female dating profiles. Women's are chock full of statements like "no liars!" etc. Few male profiles have such statements.



JCD said:


> In all of nature, the MALES do the mating dance: locking horns, building nests, killing the head lion, showing a really big...tail feather.
> 
> The women, to a species, sits on their ass like a spectator and finally says 'yes' to one or another male on display.


I think this is an over reach. While I agree males tend to set the order of dominance amongst themselves, which heavily influences female selection, it's false to think that females do nothing in nature. It varies widely by species. Among females, these are often biological. Note the heat cycle in many species, a process irresistibly attractive to males. Look at grooming behavior among primates (one of the ways many female primates "get in" with a desirable male, is to groom). Look at the effort put into appearance by human males vs females. One can't reasonably say the human male is puts as much effort into his appearance. Some do, most don't. Common lament I hear from women is they wish men would dress better.



JCD said:


> I think women REALLY don't like what a player represents: that women can be so shallow and superficial to actually BUY into the shinola the Player sells...and yet they have the notches on their belt to prove things that women perhaps don't want to admit about themselves.


While I believe both are equally shallow, I can't say I've ever heard of a woman who values her conquests in this sort of trophy sense (ie notches) some men do.



JCD said:


> And I disagree that players 'only' offer a fake relationship to women, though whatever gets the job done I guess. I am guessing their normal tactics are giving tons of ego buffs, attracting interest, isolation, alcohol with heavy rationalizations and excuses ('This is natural. *Having sex with a lot of people is no big deal.* Your boyfriend/husband doesn't appreciate you.' Now...where have I heard the arguments about 'sex being no big deal' again? Hmm! The 'big numbers girls' sure SOUND like players...), not offering her a wedding ring in a BAR.


Actually, women are usually turned off by ego boosting in pickup scenarios. It's not received as genuine. You attract more interest with intelligent, sometimes funny conversation, boldness and sometimes by being an outright pain (mild).

While a guy might be able to convince a naïve woman to have sex with the "natural" speech. This sounds to me more like something a teenager would say. A guy who comes across legitimately genuine, interesting, and fun doesn't have to. You don't have to convince her to be comfortable, she's comfortable because you are... and comfortable means not pressing. The social ability of recognizing the vibe of the situation. I have a high number, and honestly I've rarely initiated a first sexual encounter and I've never had to convince someone it was ok.

As for a man who speaks of a woman's unappreciative husband with intent to sleep with her, that is deceptive.

Curious though, these are all male behaviors you're talking about in that last paragraph. How do male behaviors make "big numbers" women sound like players? How does saying "yes" to a man's seduction, make a woman a player?


----------



## naiveonedave

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Curious though, these are all male behaviors you're talking about in that last paragraph. How do male behaviors make "big numbers" women sound like players? How does saying "yes" to a man's seduction, make a woman a player?


The PUA game is really a game between the PUA and any female he is playing. She is playing along. And she, for the most part, either knows it and plays along or is very naive. For a high count woman, who gets picked up all the time, you could easily say she plays the PUAs of the world, works both ways. She initiates by not refusing.


----------



## CuddleBug

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is a terrible characterization imo.
> 
> If one has 12 relationships in which they've had sex that's the equivalent of having sex with anything that moves?
> 
> What if the woman was crazy about the guy in each of those relationships, only to have been played by a guy who didn't actually want an LTR? She's having sex with anything that moves because she believed him? Having had sex with so many people, she's now some sort of damaged goods? Where is her show of poor character? Trusting to easily? Or if she left any of these relationships... is it poor character of her to realize that a guy she thought was special, isn't?
> 
> This kind of thing just honestly blows my mind. "Babe, the first 3 guys were fine... it was the next 10 that make you an unworthy sl*t." Meanwhile, she used the same discretion for the first 3 that she used for the next 10. So if only she found Mr. Right sooner, her character would remain intact?
> 
> To my mind, the only folks who should be making this case are those who actually waited to get married before having sex. Otherwise, we're just talking waiting periods, and good fortune that a relationship worked out before your number got too high to make you a bad person. :\



I call it for what it is. If a man or woman sleeps around way too much, they have given themselves, freely, so many times, there is no point in getting married anymore. Having sex with 12 or more people........is a......

.....wh0re, man or woman.

I would never, ever, give a woman my time if she's been around the block so many times.....she is beyond broken in and it was all her choice to do so.

Getting married doesn't mean you sleep with 12+ people beforehand.

No one today is a virgin obviously before they get married but we all have moral free will to sleep around or keep that to a minimum and value what marriage is really all about.

If you value marriage, you try and keep that to a minimum or you don't and go around the block many times over....and then why even want to get married? Why?

You've sample so many times, why settle down for one person at that point?

If I would of slept with 12+ women, then met Mrs.CuddleBug, she asked me how many women have I slept with, I told her 12+ women........SHE WOULD OF RUN AWAY!!

Why would I want a woman, wifee to be, to have slept with 12+ guys before me...? I WOULD OF RUN AWAY!!!

You don't have to sleep with everyone you date, right???

Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.....


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

CuddleBug said:


> I call it for what it is. If a man or woman sleeps around way too much, they have given themselves, freely, so many times, there is no point in getting married anymore. Having sex with 12 or more people........is a......
> 
> .....wh0re, man or woman.


That's not calling it for what it is. That's the definition of ignorance. A wh0re is a prostitute, which the vast majority of people with more than 12 partners are not. So why be an @sshole and call people something they're not? A sl*t would be more fair to your indignation for other people's choices, but how is it objectively better to be a prude?



CuddleBug said:


> I would never, ever, give a woman my time if she's been around the block so many times.....she is beyond broken in and it was all her choice to do so.


So the first thing you do on a date is ask how many people she's slept with? lol.



CuddleBug said:


> Getting married doesn't mean you sleep with 12+ people beforehand.


Getting married doesn't mean you sleep with 0-12 people either.



CuddleBug said:


> No one today is a virgin obviously before they get married but we all have moral free will to sleep around or keep that to a minimum and value what marriage is really all about.


Now ask yourself why you keep it to a minimum. It's completely arbitrary. You just pluck a number you're comfortable with out of thin air and then feel self-righteous about it. It's utterly laughable. So on one hand, you claim to "value what marriage is really all about", imply that it's about saving oneself to be given at marriage, but on the other... you admit you yourself, and virtually everyone today does not save themselves. So you're saying marriage is about sharing with "just" 12 people or less. More than 12 and uh oh, I guess we just run outta sex. smh.



CuddleBug said:


> If you value marriage, you try and keep that to a minimum or you don't and go around the block many times over....and then why even want to get married? Why?


So you got married so you could have sex? Of course you didn't. So when you step off the horse for a moment and think about it, you'll realize that people with more than 12 partners get married for the same reason that people with less than 12 partners do.



CuddleBug said:


> You've sample so many times, why settle down for one person at that point?


Why not? How in the world does who you've been with in the past determine whether or not you settle down with one person? Again, this is unbelievably arbitrary. Having been with 11, why settle with number 12? Having been with 1, why settle for number 2? Do you really think marriage is just about getting sex?



CuddleBug said:


> You don't have to sleep with everyone you date, right???
> 
> Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.....


I'm saying it doesn't matter if you do or you don't. If you've had sex with anyone else, then you've given up the bogus moral high road of "saving yourself". Whether you have sex with someone or not should solely be determined by your decision given individual circumstances with that person, not some ridiculous notion of a need to keep your count below some arbitrary number some insecure self-righteous person choses.

Declaring an arbitrary number is just a way that self-righteous people try to have it both ways - not waiting for marriage themselves, but still laying claim to the faux moral superiority of chastity that is derived from saving yourself for marriage and being "special".

A totally silly rationalization to squish together incompatible concepts. It's "I'm still a good and special person... I only had 5." smh.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good afternoon all
People are free to place whatever limits they want on their potential partners, but personally if I were looking for a new partner I would MUCH prefer a slvt to a prude...

I would actually consider a woman who had had many past partners to be a positive thing - it would (often) imply that she was someone who was enthusiastic about sex.


----------



## treyvion

Id rather one who had several or more long term relations which were filled with sex start to finish. Were she is loyal while in a relationship. Id rather that than a bed hopper or one who cant stick to one needing the next flavor of the montg


----------



## Wolf1974

richardsharpe said:


> Good afternoon all
> People are free to place whatever limits they want on their potential partners, but personally if I were looking for a new partner I would MUCH prefer a slvt to a prude...
> *
> I would actually consider a woman who had had many past partners to be a positive thing - it would (often) imply that she was someone who was enthusiastic about sex.[/QUOTE*]
> 
> I hear that thrown out a lot and I'm not diminishing your opinion on it. My x wife only had two sexual partners and I was one of them. I had three, We both loved and enjoyed sex and minimum had it 3 times a week all 8 years of marriage and 3 years dating before. I don't think of someone who enjoys sex as a ****. I want them to enjoy sex and that's what I've personally found. I don't know that low number means the don't enjoy sex. I just think they put a value on it. I do as well, so like you state that's going to be a good Potential partner to me.


----------



## Rooster2014

Rugs said:


> I recently confessed to an old boyfriend that I had been in a sexless marriage for many years. After I said it, I felt highly embarassed. I don't think ha even paid any attention to what I was saying.
> 
> After our phone conversation, I bagan to wonder if the number of sexual partners a woman has had changes a man's view of a woman.
> 
> What is a "comfortable" number for a man?
> 
> Men, do you judge women based on their sexual past?


i guess i am the odd guy out in how i feel. i married my wife on who she is now. And how she is to me. I love her to death. I have never asked her how many men she has had before me. She has never asked me about past women. i just do not need to spend waisted time on this. Whats the difference if you love her or him now today???


----------



## treyvion

Rooster2014 said:


> i guess i am the odd guy out in how i feel. i married my wife on who she is now. And how she is to me. I love her to death. I have never asked her how many men she has had before me. She has never asked me about past women. i just do not need to spend waisted time on this. Whats the difference if you love her or him now today???


Some people found out the hard way that perhaps if someone had a consistent history of cheating or not being able to stay with on person, that is how they prefer to be, so it's good to know.


----------



## Wolf1974

Rooster2014 said:


> i guess i am the odd guy out in how i feel. i married my wife on who she is now. And how she is to me. I love her to death. I have never asked her how many men she has had before me. She has never asked me about past women. i just do not need to spend waisted time on this. Whats the difference if you love her or him now today???


I don't think you're odd just like it how you do. As do I. A big part of intimacy to me is knowing more about my spouse than anyone else on the planet to include sexual history. But I have a close friend who is married and they have never,and will never, discuss such things. That works for them. To me that's mind blowing but so long as you and your other is happy with it no right or wrong answer.


----------



## WifeyRes

Rooster2014 said:


> i guess i am the odd guy out in how i feel. i married my wife on who she is now. And how she is to me. I love her to death. I have never asked her how many men she has had before me. She has never asked me about past women. i just do not need to spend waisted time on this. Whats the difference if you love her or him now today???



:iagree: why does it matter anyway... I do not understand but all I know is that in my marriage my husband is so in love with my past that he is with me.


----------



## treyvion

Would you rather she had 15 boyfriends in highschool and college, and she was rather loyal, but she expiramented and had a healthy sex life with each and every one?

Or would you rather, she had several hundred consumations with several hundred different people. She was usually with 3-5 at a time, and only had 1-5 sessions with most of the guys? She never at any time was able to stay with one person.


----------



## IIJokerII

What matters in this is the nomenclature of the words used to describe certain things that impact ones thinking. Women who were more or are more experienced tend to use the word "Experimented" when they were younger. This hits a nerve since the PIV was unable to satiate her hunger for intimacy or even come close to it. This then starts to get most men to questions what exactly these experiments were per se and if the man is good enough for this particular woman. 

This can also have an impact if the current relationship is lacking or too vanilla compared to the wild child bad girl described. 

I also agree that both men and woman can date without having to fool around but lets be real here, this is rarely what happens as expectations tend to take over. They don't call it wining and dining for nothing.


----------



## treyvion

IIJokerII said:


> What matters in this is the nomenclature of the words used to describe certain things that impact ones thinking. Women who were more or are more experienced tend to use the word "Experimented" when they were younger. This hits a nerve since the PIV was unable to satiate her hunger for intimacy or even come close to it. This then starts to get most men to questions what exactly these experiments were per se and if the man is good enough for this particular woman.
> 
> This can also have an impact if the current relationship is lacking or too vanilla compared to the wild child bad girl described.
> 
> I also agree that both men and woman can date without having to fool around but lets be real here, this is rarely what happens as expectations tend to take over. They don't call it wining and dining for nothing.


Yeah, those expirments could've opened doors which were very aggressive, that no one really needs, but she's done it so much it's the only way she can get her dopamine hit.

Her expiraments were likely stacking different types of men. Cuckholding others, even though she didn't know what that was at the time. Allowing some to be really degrading towards her, and others are bowing to her every whim.


----------



## Wolf1974

treyvion said:


> Would you rather she had 15 boyfriends in highschool and college, and she was rather loyal, but she expiramented and had a healthy sex life with each and every one?
> 
> Or would you rather, she had several hundred consumations with several hundred different people. She was usually with 3-5 at a time, and only had 1-5 sessions with most of the guys? She never at any time was able to stay with one person.


First one I would date. Second one no way


----------



## SimplyAmorous

treyvion said:


> *Playing the field* might mean you are playing a whole bunch of people.


And when my Grandmother used the term "playing the field" ..she'd say this expression on occasion when I was a young impressionable girl.. she never meant "fvcking".. just dating.. getting to know some guys to see how we'd fit emotionally... if our visions of a future aligned...if we wanted / enjoyed the same things. 

Nothing wrong with some Older fashioned Playing the field too.


----------



## Wolf1974

SimplyAmorous said:


> And when my Grandmother used the term "playing the field" ..she'd say this expression on occasion when I was a young impressionable girl.. she never meant "fvcking".. just dating.. getting to know some guys to see how we'd fit emotionally... if our visions of a future aligned...if we wanted / enjoyed the same things.
> 
> Nothing wrong with some Older fashioned Playing the field too.


No. And I wish more subscribed to old fashioned values. They seem to all be married


----------



## treyvion

Wolf1974 said:


> No. And I wish more subscribed to old fashioned values. They seem to all be married


Was alot of mistresses back then though. Thing about it is people wanted what they wanted and didn't accept the costs and effects on people they are supposed to care about.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

just wondering how many guys are like me, in that I would not want to finish 2nd (or lower) in terms my wife's 'sexual chemistry' list for all the guys she has dated. i.e. I have to be #1 in that category, and I am. 

Let me point out now how wierd I am with this, but I think not so wierd that I don't have a large % of guys that are right there with me. I could perhaps accept if she had loved someone before me, more than she does me. i.e. the emotional connection was strongest with the other guy. as long as her sexual connection with me exceeded that with him.


----------



## treyvion

nuclearnightmare said:


> just wondering how many guys are like me, in that I would not want to finish 2nd (or lower) in terms my wife's 'sexual chemistry' list for all the guys she has dated. i.e. I have to be #1 in that category, and I am.
> 
> Let me point out now how wierd I am with this, but I think not so wierd that I don't have a large % of guys that are right there with me. I could perhaps accept if she had loved someone before me, more than she does me. i.e. the emotional connection was strongest with the other guy. as long as her sexual connection with me exceeded that with him.


HAS to be the best sex. Good formula for success. I've had that same thing with a few ladies, the best, the most times, sex acts superseding all those before me pushing them out of their minds.

Then you get ones who won't "allow" that to happen.

Like you I prefer to be the best, the most and sex acts superseding all of those before me. Sorry that's how I am.


----------



## Faithful Wife

My husband and I both have an equal slvt opportunity policy. He's one, I'm one, it's all good.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> My husband and I both have an equal slvt opportunity policy. He's one, I'm one, it's all good.


slvt's with each other though right?


----------



## Buddy400

From the "my not so great past has come up in a bad way" post elsewhere:



TammyAB said:


> I guess what I need is some honest (and anonymous!) advice. Sorry is this is a bit of a ramble – it’s just that I need to get it out.
> 
> Just when I thought that all men were the same (and not in good ways), I met a guy I’ll call Chris. Chris is just so much fun to be with. He’s intelligent, has his act together, is handsome, has a real future,and is just an honest to goodness good human being. We’ve been dating for almost a year and it’s really been the best year of my life.
> 
> I’m old enough and hopefully wise enough to know that nobody is perfect. I’m for sure not. Anyway Chris really doesn’t have any bad traits, but he is a bit on the shy side and is kind of introspective. He’s told me pretty much everything about him which is something that was just not easy for him to do. We’ve shared with each other our hopes, experiences, and dreams for the future.
> 
> Before I met Chris, I went through a phase when I didn’t think or act as I should have. I was a bit casual about relationships and thought I was having a good time. When I started dating Chris, everything was just so different and good in every way. We’ve had the “past loves and not quite loves” conversation. I didn’t lie but seeing that Chris was sensitive in this area, I glossed over some stuff.
> 
> This week he was with a lot of people “somewhere” and he ran into a bunch of guys he hadn’t seen in a while. He told me about it – no big deal. I guess they all relived past war stories and whatever. A couple are married, some are dating. When pics came out, Chris said he proudly showed mine. All good – again no big deal.
> 
> Well yesterday, when we got together he was not himself. I kept asking if he was OK and he kept saying yes. Anyway at some point he threw out a name and asked if I know that guy. It was a guy I was “seeing” when I met Chris. Not a good person at all but I guess I didn’t see that then.
> 
> That guy was part of the group where Cris was earlier this week, so I guess when he saw my photo he recognized me. I guess since then he’s been bragging and mouthing off to whoever will listen that he ”knew” me and that he had done ”such and such” and crap like that. Somehow it got back to Chris.
> 
> When I said he was a guy I met a long time ago and didn’t care for, Chris blurted out and asked if I had sex with that so and so. I was sort of in the headlights and asked him why he would ask me something like that. He then asked me if I had done “such and such” with that a-hole. I think I just said this is crazy where are you getting this. Anyway, we got silent and it was uncomfortable and he left and went back to the office.
> 
> We’re going to get together tonight and I know this is going to hang there. Should I bring it up? What if he brings it up? What do I say and how should I say it? Fact is I was with that guy and we did kind of do a lot of stuff. I hate this. I just so hate this.





TammyAB said:


> I can't believe people here are telling me to leave Chris. I don't want to leave Chris! He has treated me better than any other guy I've ever known. Why would I do that? I love him and he loves me.
> 
> Also, the jerk guy did not tell Chris. He probably mouthed off to people and it got back to Chris.


I didn't want to threadjack that post and it relates to what's being said here.

Regardless of any ideas we may have about how the world "should be", the fact is that in the "real" world, sex is often seen as something that a man "gets" and that a woman "gives". A woman should at least be cognizant of this (it doesn't mean that it's fair, not a double standard, etc.). 

That’s how it *is*. If one wants to pretend this isn’t the case, one must at least be prepared for the possible consequences.


----------



## firebelly1

treyvion said:


> HAS to be the best sex. Good formula for success. I've had that same thing with a few ladies, the best, the most times, sex acts superseding all those before me pushing them out of their minds.
> 
> Then you get ones who won't "allow" that to happen.
> 
> Like you I prefer to be the best, the most and sex acts superseding all of those before me. Sorry that's how I am.


This is why women fake orgasms.


----------



## alexm

nuclearnightmare said:


> just wondering how many guys are like me, in that I would not want to finish 2nd (or lower) in terms my wife's 'sexual chemistry' list for all the guys she has dated. i.e. I have to be #1 in that category, and I am.
> 
> Let me point out now how wierd I am with this, but I think not so wierd that I don't have a large % of guys that are right there with me. I could perhaps accept if she had loved someone before me, more than she does me. i.e. the emotional connection was strongest with the other guy. as long as her sexual connection with me exceeded that with him.


I think we're all like this, but at some point in our lives, we realize we will never truly know this for sure. How can we?

If the woman you're with thinks that you're good in bed, or even great, and she loves you and doesn't want to lose you, then she'll tell you you're the best she's ever had. Duh. Some will even tell us guys that we're awesome even when we're not.

I am confident that my wife and I are great together. Like any couple, she and I both have little things here and there (sexually speaking) that aren't exactly what we like - ie. it's not always perfect. In other words, we have our habits, and it's not always easy to break them. She would probably be the first to say that I'm the best she's ever had, and that may be true, but it may be from a certain point of view, as well.

How will I ever know she didn't have a ONS that absolutely blew her socks off? How do I know the dude she dated for a few years in her early 20's wasn't some sexual Rain Man? I wouldn't, because she sure as hell wouldn't offer up this information, and even if I asked her, she's not going to admit it.

I'll give you a personal example, in reverse. I think my wife is the best sex partner I've ever had, for all of the reasons 2 paragraphs above. However, my ex wife and I started dating when we were in our mid-late teens, and she and I both truly discovered sex together. A lot of firsts, and discoveries, and general abandon. I have very fond memories of those years, and not much of it has to do with the woman I was with, but with the over all youthfulness and discovery about it all. If you held a gun to my head and I had to tell the absolute truth, I'd relive those days happily, from a purely sexual standpoint. Even though the sex with my wife is 1000x better, those were the "glory days", so to speak. And this is how most people base things like this, so to accurately say "you're the best ever" is almost innocuous.

But over all, given the strength of our relationship, our love for one another AS WELL AS our excellent bedroom chemistry, I am confident I am "the best ever".


----------



## treyvion

firebelly1 said:


> This is why women fake orgasms.


Part of it is it does turn her guy on and gets him to come.


----------



## treyvion

alexm said:


> I think we're all like this, but at some point in our lives, we realize we will never truly know this for sure. How can we?
> 
> If the woman you're with thinks that you're good in bed, or even great, and she loves you and doesn't want to lose you, then she'll tell you you're the best she's ever had. Duh. Some will even tell us guys that we're awesome even when we're not.
> 
> I am confident that my wife and I are great together. Like any couple, she and I both have little things here and there (sexually speaking) that aren't exactly what we like - ie. it's not always perfect. In other words, we have our habits, and it's not always easy to break them. She would probably be the first to say that I'm the best she's ever had, and that may be true, but it may be from a certain point of view, as well.
> 
> How will I ever know she didn't have a ONS that absolutely blew her socks off? How do I know the dude she dated for a few years in her early 20's wasn't some sexual Rain Man? I wouldn't, because she sure as hell wouldn't offer up this information, and even if I asked her, she's not going to admit it.
> 
> I'll give you a personal example, in reverse. I think my wife is the best sex partner I've ever had, for all of the reasons 2 paragraphs above. However, my ex wife and I started dating when we were in our mid-late teens, and she and I both truly discovered sex together. A lot of firsts, and discoveries, and general abandon. I have very fond memories of those years, and not much of it has to do with the woman I was with, but with the over all youthfulness and discovery about it all. If you held a gun to my head and I had to tell the absolute truth, I'd relive those days happily, from a purely sexual standpoint. Even though the sex with my wife is 1000x better, those were the "glory days", so to speak. And this is how most people base things like this, so to accurately say "you're the best ever" is almost innocuous.
> 
> But over all, given the strength of our relationship, our love for one another AS WELL AS our excellent bedroom chemistry, I am confident I am "the best ever".


All that matters for you to be the best ever is that she THINKS that you are.


----------



## alexm

treyvion said:


> All that matters for you to be the best ever is that she THINKS that you are.


Or that YOU think you are 

That's what I'm saying - you'll never truly know for sure if what your partner says is 100% true. My wife has never told me I'm the greatest sex partner she's ever had, but she also is very light on the compliments anyway, in general. It's not in her nature to say things like that.

If I were to ask, I'm 99.9% certain she'd say I am, but I won't ask, because what other response is she going to give me? lol "No, honey, you're second best!"

It's just a fruitless quest, imo. We're going to be told what we want to hear, if our partner loves us and doesn't want to hurt our feelings.


----------



## alexm

CuddleBug said:


> I call it for what it is. If a man or woman sleeps around way too much, they have given themselves, freely, so many times, there is no point in getting married anymore. Having sex with 12 or more people........is a......
> 
> .....wh0re, man or woman.
> 
> I would never, ever, give a woman my time if she's been around the block so many times.....she is beyond broken in and it was all her choice to do so.


Aw, come on man. You can't pull a number out of your *** and determine that it's too much and the person is a w***e. And I'm saying this as a guy who's number is a whopping five.

Everybody's maximum is different, I get that. In fact, I think 12 is on the high side, too, but that doesn't (and didn't, nor wouldn't) make me rule out somebody because of it.

I hate the adage "people change", but it's actually relevant. Just because somebody (man or woman) sowed their oats that one year in college, or maybe never settled down until they were 35 doesn't mean they're a w***e, let alone "broken".

Context, man, context. What if the person you meet and fall in love with has had 20 partners, but they've been celibate for the past 5 years? Or been in a LTR for the last 10? What if 17 of those partners all came within a 2 year period when they were 18 or 19, and now they're 32?

I mean, 12 partners COULD be a lot, but then again, they could be spread out over 15 years.

This is neither here nor there, but if I were to judge at all, I would base it more on how many partners one has in short time periods, not the over all number. I've "only" had 5 partners in my life, but I've fooled around with half a dozen more (so I guess some would say my number is actually 11...?) I've always had a buffer in between. I just couldn't be sexually intimate with one girl one week and another the next, even when the opportunity arose.

When my wife (then girlfriend) and I first had sex, I asked her if she had been with anybody recently. 99% of me asking that question was for my protection (std's, what if she was pregnant and didn't know it, etc.) I then asked her if she had been tested since her last partner, for the same reasons. She had been with a guy for 3+ years and they had broken up 8-9 months prior, and she said she hadn't been with anybody since. Fine with me. Had she said she had been with 2, 3, 4 or more guys since, even if the last one was 2 months ago, then yes, I would have judged, like it or not. That is the context I am speaking of. She would have been entitled to her rebound(s), of course, but all the same, not my cup of tea.

Your personal boundaries is the number 12 - which honestly is fine. But to insinuate that somebody is a w***e simply because they've reached that number in their lifetime?

What are you going to do if the Mrs. and you divorce? If she (god forbid) passes away before you? I don't know how old you are, but I will presume that should you find yourself on your own at any point, you will likely either die a lonely man, or you will have to bite the bullet and "settle" for a woman who has had more than 12 partners.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

firebelly1 said:


> This is why women fake orgasms.


Or are honest..(but that also requires the partner to not be insecure).

When my wife and I first started having sex, I didn't expect to be her best. Because there's maybe 0.0001% chance that the best lover you've ever had happens on the first time you're together with that person. The rest of the time it's two people doing things that have worked in the past and also trying to read their partner's reactions.

Best lovers happen over time and through honest and open communication.

My wife didn't fake an orgasm because she had already told me that she has never had any (besides herself) get her to orgasm LOL. She can't O from PIV, only clitoral stimulation and her body is very sensitive so a lover can go from "doing it right" to "pissed off aggravation" in about 2.7 seconds. I was patient and VERY attentive to her body's reactions and learned how to make her O.....needless to say, she's a much happier woman.


----------



## lifeistooshort

nuclearnightmare said:


> just wondering how many guys are like me, in that I would not want to finish 2nd (or lower) in terms my wife's 'sexual chemistry' list for all the guys she has dated. i.e. I have to be #1 in that category, and I am.
> 
> Let me point out now how wierd I am with this, but I think not so wierd that I don't have a large % of guys that are right there with me. I could perhaps accept if she had loved someone before me, more than she does me. i.e. the emotional connection was strongest with the other guy. as long as her sexual connection with me exceeded that with him.


Completely hypothetically, but what if the best sex I ever had was with a douche? I don't think you should marry someone with whom you have poor sexual chemistry, but I don't see why it necessarily has to be the best. There are other considerations in a marriage, as guys who make their decision based on hotness/sex find out. 

In my case I'd say my hb is the best chemistry I've had but what if he and I had awesome chemistry but it just so happened that there might have been better? How is that an issue? Can all of you guys here say that the sex you have with your wife is the best sex you've ever had? If not maybe she should be highly insulted.


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> In my case I'd say my hb is the best chemistry I've had but what if he and I had awesome chemistry but it just so happened that there might have been better? How is that an issue? Can all of you guys here say that the sex you have with your wife is the best sex you've ever had? If not maybe she should be highly insulted.


From a "technical sex" perspective, it's very possible that sex with the husband isn't the best ever. As you said, the douche might have been the best but your husband is the love of your life and a wonderful man.

However, *never tell him that!* I know it seems petty, but why mess with it? You also don't really need a list of everything his ex's did better than you either.


----------



## firebelly1

Well...and best at what? Some guys are better at oral. Some guys are better at using their fingers. Some guys have c*cks that fit just right. So, you might have the equivalent of a "Best of Breed" but maybe what you want to be is "Best in Show." And I'm guessing you'd rather be "Best of Hound" than "Best of Toy"?


----------



## I Don't Know

firebelly1 said:


> Well...and best at what? Some guys are better at oral. Some guys are better at using their fingers. Some guys have c*cks that fit just right. So, you might have the equivalent of a "Best of Breed" but maybe what you want to be is "Best in Show." And I'm guessing you'd rather be "Best of Hound" than "Best of Toy"?


That's true. There are so many variables it's hard to pin it down. I'll just be best at everything so I don't have to worry about it.


----------



## Wolf1974

lifeistooshort said:


> Completely hypothetically, but what if the best sex I ever had was with a douche? I don't think you should marry someone with whom you have poor sexual chemistry, but I don't see why it necessarily has to be the best. There are other considerations in a marriage, as guys who make their decision based on hotness/sex find out.
> 
> In my case I'd say my hb is the best chemistry I've had but what if he and I had awesome chemistry but it just so happened that there might have been better? How is that an issue? Can all of you guys here say that the sex you have with your wife is the best sex you've ever had? If not maybe she should be highly insulted.



Well I agree you shouldn't marry someone with no sexual chemistry but when you are deeply in love with someone that always adds points to the sex and the chemistry as well no?

I was seeing a woman for a few month, bar none gave the best Bjs I ever had in my life. But she was way to jealous and insecure and so we didn't work out. My GF doesnt give them technically as good as this other woman but I love my GF so that mean SO much more to me.


----------



## treyvion

Wolf1974 said:


> Well I agree you shouldn't marry someone with no sexual chemistry but when you are deeply in love with someone that always adds points to the sex and the chemistry as well no?
> 
> I was seeing a woman for a few month, bar none gave the best Bjs I ever had in my life. But she was way to jealous and insecure and so we didn't work out. My GF doesnt give them technically as good as this other woman but I love my GF so that mean SO much more to me.


How good where the BJ's and what made them so good?


----------



## treyvion

treyvion said:


> How good where the BJ's and what made them so good?


My EX had a "powerful" bj. She wasn't too "nice" but we had intense sex.

Her bj was from a power head, so alone the energy and desire would make you harder than normal. Also she had a deep throat action, so your glans would press against her throat, and it would open like a vagina in her mouth.

She would know when you are about to cum and do exactly the right thing, and when you are cumming she would bury it and let it spurt until it pulls away limply. You would not see any remainders of ejaculate, and she would push you over to fall asleep.


----------



## JCD

treyvion said:


> My EX had a "powerful" bj. She wasn't too "nice" but we had intense sex.
> 
> Her bj was from a power head, so alone the energy and desire would make you harder than normal. Also she had a deep throat action, so your glans would press against her throat, and it would open like a vagina in her mouth.
> 
> She would know when you are about to cum and do exactly the right thing, and when you are cumming she would bury it and let it spurt until it pulls away limply. You would not see any remainders of ejaculate, and she would push you over to fall asleep.


TMI.:scratchhead:


----------



## Mr.Fisty

The past doesn't matter too much as long as she didn't sleep with a family member of mine. That would be weird.

My best sex was with this girl who was feisty, jealous, had anger issues, and very vulgar. 

My most stable relationship, the sex was above average.

When I was dating them, I really never compared the two.

As long as the sex was good.

I am confident enough where I just don't care. 

Unless the sex was really bad, I don't tend to reminisce.

Someone is always is going to be better at something than someone else, why bother.

Have fun and explore.


----------



## treyvion

Mr.Fisty said:


> The past doesn't matter too much as long as she didn't sleep with a family member of mine. That would be weird.
> 
> My best sex was with this girl who was feisty, jealous, had anger issues, and very vulgar.
> 
> My most stable relationship, the sex was above average.
> 
> When I was dating them, I really never compared the two.
> 
> As long as the sex was good.
> 
> I am confident enough where I just don't care.
> 
> Unless the sex was really bad, I don't tend to reminisce.
> 
> Someone is always is going to be better at something than someone else, why bother.
> 
> Have fun and explore.


Sweet, this is what it's supposed to be about!


----------



## WifeyRes

Mr.Fisty said:


> The past doesn't matter too much as long as she didn't sleep with a family member of mine. That would be weird.
> 
> My best sex was with this girl who was feisty, jealous, had anger issues, and very vulgar.
> 
> My most stable relationship, the sex was above average.
> 
> When I was dating them, I really never compared the two.
> 
> As long as the sex was good.
> 
> I am confident enough where I just don't care.
> 
> Unless the sex was really bad, I don't tend to reminisce.
> 
> Someone is always is going to be better at something than someone else, why bother.
> 
> Have fun and explore.


:iagree:


----------

