Is there "something wrong" with a guy if he...

i take it you mean 20+ guys at once????

ha ha otherwise who cares and why should you??? are you afraid you'll suffer buy comparison??? does it not mean that after 20 plus, she has finally decided nobody else comes close to you?? kind of a compliment I'd think.

you're over thinking this one way too much!

daveyeh

Some of the posts here are childishly insecure.

You'd think that the girl with 20 previous partners had the 20 c***s in her at the same time.

If you liked to put it about a bit yourself in the past, it's normal to accept that if your partner had too, that it's ok.

Ashbx

paddy1990 wrote: »

Doesn't want his future wife to have had sex with 20+ guys?

I was talking to some friends and this came up and the girls were all saying that any guy who has a problem with it (i threw out 20 as an arbitrary number) all had a complex and had issues and "something wrong" with them.

What was funny to me was that some men agreed with the women. I think there was an element of white knighting going on, as the girl that was the most outspoken is absolutely gorgeous, so some of the lads would have been white knighting in the hopes of keeping any hope alive of something happening between them and her on a drunken night. In fact one guy actually admitted this afterwards lol

Personally I would rather marry a girl with as low an amount of sexual partners as possible, with a virgin being absolutely ideal.

I do agree that majority of men probably don't want their future wives having loads of sexual partners. A virgin however - I think you are hoping too much in this day and age!

But you also need to understand that women are just like men....women have a need for sex too. Women enjoy sex too. And some women do enjoy having one night stands! So if she does have a few partners under her belt, I don't think its fair to think of her any different because of it. At the end of the day, if she is marrying you...then she has chosen you despite how many or little partners she's had in the past.

I suppose its the age old argument of why can a guy have sex with 20+ women and be considered a hero and a woman does it and is considered a slut.

What is your opinion the other way around? I am a woman, and I can certainly tell you, I wouldn't like my future husband to have 20+ sexual partners either!

I do agree with you but I also think it goes both ways!!!

Barely There

Ashbx wrote: »

But you also need to understand that women are just like men....women have a need for sex too. Women enjoy sex too. And some women do enjoy having one night stands! So if she does have a few partners under her belt, I don't think its fair to think of her any different because of it. At the end of the day, if she is marrying you...then she has chosen you despite how many or little partners she's had in the past.

I suppose its the age old argument of why can a guy have sex with 20+ women and be considered a hero and a woman does it and is considered a slut.

What is your opinion the other way around? I am a woman, and I can certainly tell you, I wouldn't like my future husband to have 20+ sexual partners either!

I do agree with you but I also think it goes both ways!!!

It seems like you're contradicting yourself in your post tbh.

I'm curious - If you would consider 20 partners to too much for a potential husband - what would be your 'cut-off number'?

Ashbx

Ashbx wrote: »

I do agree that majority of men probably don't want their future wives having loads of sexual partners. A virgin however - I think you are hoping too much in this day and age!

But you also need to understand that women are just like men....women have a need for sex too. Women enjoy sex too. And some women do enjoy having one night stands! So if she does have a few partners under her belt, I don't think its fair to think of her any different because of it. At the end of the day, if she is marrying you...then she has chosen you despite how many or little partners she's had in the past.

I suppose its the age old argument of why can a guy have sex with 20+ women and be considered a hero and a woman does it and is considered a slut.

What is your opinion the other way around? I am a woman, and I can certainly tell you, I wouldn't like my future husband to have 20+ sexual partners either!

I do agree with you but I also think it goes both ways!!!

more to the point ashbx, do you go both ways?? oh behave!!!!!!:D

Ashbx

Barely There wrote: »

It seems like you're contradicting yourself in your post tbh.

I'm curious - If you would consider 20 partners to too much for a potential husband - what would be your 'cut-off number'?

I suppose I kind of am there! I shouldn't have put the last line in!

At the end of the day, I don't have a cut off point really because everyone is different. I lost my virginity 12 years ago, however I have been with my current boyfriend for the last 11 years so my number of partners is actually very low but im not inexperienced. Someone could have lost their virginity the exact same day as me but because they haven't been in a relationship for a long period could have 30 or 40 partners!

So basically, yes im contradicting myself a bit but I can only speak from my experience. It might bother me for a few days yes but it would never affect my judgement of my boyfriend. It certainly wouldn't make me turn down a proposal or anything of the sort! Like I said in my previous post, if he chooses me then despite all the other partners, im the one he chose!

However, despite my contradiction, my post was to see how people would feel if it was a woman asking about a man's sexual partners? I do feel its very different rules for men and women in this regard and at the end of the day, it really shouldn't make a difference.

Ashbx

rusty cole wrote: »

more to the point ashbx, do you go both ways?? oh behave!!!!!!:D

Ha ha, you certainly have a way of twisting words!

strobe

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if they had a lot of previous sexual partners, unless I had reason to think otherwise I'd just presume they really loved sex, were uninhibited about it, and had been single quite a lot. Which I'd view quite positively if anything.

strobe

strobe wrote: »

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if they had a lot of previous sexual partners, unless I had reason to think otherwise I'd just presume they really loved sex, were uninhibited about it, and had been single quite a lot. Which I'd view quite positively if anything.

yesss H.I.V Positively... ha ha ha

sorry I couldn't resist.. im still in agreement with the girls!

Blacktie.

I think a lot of this fear of a number is a fear of her having had better. Insecurities galore.

Dick phelan

Your choice i guess, but i can't stand hypocrites when lads have this idea of some virgin girl or someone who has had few partners yet go out every weekend trying to pull, Personally unless it was a massive number or a case were the girl lacked self respect for herself would it be an issue for me. If your in your mid 20's the chances of meeting a virgin is very slim, I'm only 20 and i haven't been with a girl who was a virgin since i was one myself. 20 partners really isn't that many if your in your late 20's, someone said 28 chances are they'v been having sex for a decade or more 2 partners a year certainly doesn't make someone a slut or anything close.

Remmy

MagicMarker wrote: »

So someone with the same experience as yourself then?

Understandable.

lost it

Wibbs

Barely There wrote: »

If a girl is in her mid-20's say, and has had two long term relationships which have lasted around 3 years each, then her number is only two, but she'll have had sex way more times and be far more sexually experienced than a similar girl who's had 30 ONS in the same period.

There's just a tad of a gulf between those two hypothetical people. Hell, just on the risk of STD exposure alone the difference is wide. There's also a different mindset going on too. 30 ONS with randomers is a bit different to two long termers. No matter which side one lies on this debate you'd have to see that difference surely?

By the by, I ain't pulling the gender difference here. I'd see the same thing with a bloke running through 30 randomers, compared to another bloke with two long termers. Indeed I'd be slightly more concerned with a bloke at it. Why? They seem to be less good at resetting the mechanism. For all the talk about men being more compartmentalised I have found the opposite as a general thing. And I'm kinda knocking myself here too. I've been that soldier and it was not exactly emotionally healthy and IME I've rarely enough seen examples where such stuff was. Am I more or less emotionally/sexually/psychologically centered because of my bouts of promiscuity? I'd defo say less. Halve the number I'd be better off, quarter it and I'd be a lot better off.

Again personally speaking I reckon age has a lot to do with it. Someone of 18-20 experimenting, "sport fcuking", or even working through the pangs of adolescence fine, but someone in their late 20's, or 30's at the same thing? I'd think ohhhh not such a good bet.

Put it another way, I've yet to meet the woman or man for that matter with a number in the three figures who wasn't more than averagely well fcuked in the head and a very bad bet for anything longterm. They're nearly always novelty junkies, or low level neurotics with a side order of a lack of emotional and social control. Sure they'll often settle down and migrate to the burbs sometime in their 30's and that runs fine for 3 to 4 years, add another few years if kids come along, but after that... I know this particular type of individual and have known a few of them for two decades and it rarely pans out too well. Unless they meet someone with a similar sexual background.

IE, the exceptions to this I have known were and are hypersexual type folks and are like that from an early age. They learn early on how to navigate this internally and externally and more, are good at finding like minded souls. For them it is about the sex, it's not a compensation for something lacking elsewhere in their psyche. They're usually fine, often more fine than the "average" two up two down with 2.7 kids burb dwellers with a sexual need disparity goin on. I've personally very rarely known an "average" couple where one had vastly more experience than the other last more than a few years. Five tops.

Interestingly, to me anyway, what often came out was that the more experienced one became less sexual in the full on long termer and it was the less experienced person complaining about the lack of intimacy after a while. Which I found ironic.

On virgins? OK if you're of a certain age, but over 25/30? Unless they're full on religious folks and that's fine. Whatever floats your boat(but could cause other issues if they don't find an equally religious partner). But otherwise? One extreme of dodginess to the other IMHO.

TL;DR? go for folks who are the average, male or female. Average is easier to deal with, outliers can be cool, but are better off with other outliers as far as a real long termer is concerned. My 3 cents anyway.

Witcher

The One Doctor wrote: »

The idea of finding a virgin is bizarre. Of the two partners I've had so far, including my current girlfriend with whom our baby is due in December, both have been more experienced than me, teaching me a lot in the process.

Why would I want a partner with less sexual experience than I have? it doesn't make any sense. A virgin would make for an utterly crap sexual experience. Would I have my car repaired by someone with no experience of repairing cars? Fuck no.

If your current gf had thought that way you wouldn't be having a kid in December :pac:

Bepolite

Wibbs wrote: »

There's just a tad of a gulf between those two hypothetical people. Hell, just on the risk of STD exposure alone the difference is wide. There's also a different mindset going on too. 30 ONS with randomers is a bit different to two long termers. No matter which side one lies on this debate you'd have to see that difference surely?

By the by, I ain't pulling the gender difference here. I'd see the same thing with a bloke running through 30 randomers, compared to another bloke with two long termers. Indeed I'd be slightly more concerned with a bloke at it. Why? They seem to be less good at resetting the mechanism. For all the talk about men being more compartmentalised I have found the opposite as a general thing. And I'm kinda knocking myself here too. I've been that soldier and it was not exactly emotionally healthy and IME I've rarely enough seen examples where such stuff was. Am I more or less emotionally/sexually/psychologically centered because of my bouts of promiscuity? I'd defo say less. Halve the number I'd be better off, quarter it and I'd be a lot better off.

Again personally speaking I reckon age has a lot to do with it. Someone of 18-20 experimenting, "sport fcuking", or even working through the pangs of adolescence fine, but someone in their late 20's, or 30's at the same thing? I'd think ohhhh not such a good bet.

Put it another way, I've yet to meet the woman or man for that matter with a number in the three figures who wasn't more than averagely well fcuked in the head and a very bad bet for anything longterm. They're nearly always novelty junkies, or low level neurotics with a side order of a lack of emotional and social control. Sure they'll often settle down and migrate to the burbs sometime in their 30's and that runs fine for 3 to 4 years, add another few years if kids come along, but after that... I know this particular type of individual and have known a few of them for two decades and it rarely pans out too well. Unless they meet someone with a similar sexual background.

IE, the exceptions to this I have known were and are hypersexual type folks and are like that from an early age. They learn early on how to navigate this internally and externally and more, are good at finding like minded souls. For them it is about the sex, it's not a compensation for something lacking elsewhere in their psyche. They're usually fine, often more fine than the "average" two up two down with 2.7 kids burb dwellers with a sexual need disparity goin on. I've personally very rarely known an "average" couple where one had vastly more experience than the other last more than a few years. Five tops.

Interestingly, to me anyway, what often came out was that the more experienced one became less sexual in the full on long termer and it was the less experienced person complaining about the lack of intimacy after a while. Which I found ironic.

On virgins? OK if you're of a certain age, but over 25/30? Unless they're full on religious folks and that's fine. Whatever floats your boat(but could cause other issues if they don't find an equally religious partner). But otherwise? One extreme of dodginess to the other IMHO.

TL;DR? go for folks who are the average, male or female. Average is easier to deal with, outliers can be cool, but are better off with other outliers as far as a real long termer is concerned. My 3 cents anyway.

I'm surprised given you mod the forum you do you're so quick to put things in boxes.

OP go for who you love, who you trust and who you are honest with and they with you. It might well be that due to your own personal hang-ups (which you seem to share with many) that counts out sexually aggressive and experienced women. There's nothing weird in what you're looking for, or rather its just as weird as anyone else's particular 'requirements'.

You ultimately won't chose who you fall in love with. I'd highly recommend experiencing as much as life has to offer you while you try and find that person; my advice is the same regardless of whether you're in possession of a penis or vagina.

I'm honestly stunned by some of the opinions in this thread, I don't mean to be disrespectful, each to their own, but if this thread is reflective Ireland is more conservative than I thought.

Honestly is there no one here that just likes sex, likes women who like sex, and is able to put a condom on?

Lone Shark

Surely there's an element of personal taste here has to be allowed? I'm not saying that I agree with the thinking behind picking a number as a line in the sand, but if someone wants to form a long term relationship with someone who has had a low number of partners (allowing of course for the subjective nature of that term), then surely that's their entitlement? No different to somebody who likes their partner to have certain interests, a certain body shape, a certain belief system etc.


Purely on a personal level, and I'm working from long term memory now since I met my wife ten years ago at this stage, I never worried about the number, but it was always important to me that someone was selective - and in fairness, I'd like to think I was myself, so it wasn't a hypocritical double standard. My own number would probably be low by modern standards but it's important to me that I can say in all honesty that I don't regret being with any of the women I was with. They were all good people, different of course but all good people that I enjoyed the company of and that I was fortunate to be with. Of course they didn't all last, but every connection, short or long-lasting, meant something to me at the time and helped make me into the person I am today.

My only criteria would be that any woman I'd be with would have the same view. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with a man or woman who goes out ten weekends in a row and brings home ten different partners, none of which they have any real interest in - just I like the idea that when I'm with someone, we chose each other and really wanted each other's company. Not that it was the best/handiest option available or a marginally better alternative than an empty pillow on the other side of the bed.

J Mysterio

Wibbs wrote: »

Again personally speaking I reckon age has a lot to do with it. Someone of 18-20 experimenting, "sport fcuking", or even working through the pangs of adolescence fine, but someone in their late 20's, or 30's at the same thing? I'd think ohhhh not such a good bet.

Some people are slow starters.

Also, you mention three figures... really? That's just ridiculous. I'm sure there are people who reach that 'number' but I imagine they are very few and far between and i'd say the likelihood that you know 'some people' who reach that figure is very low (let alone one). That would scream Patrick Bateman levels of unwellness for me.

shamrock55

My wife never asked me and i never asked her, we both just knew it was a few, and it was never an issue

DoYouEvenLift

Barely There wrote: »

It's not about openness or honesty. For a lot of people it's about not really caring that much about it in the first place.

No idea how many previous sexual partners my wife's had and she's no idea how many I've had, but neither of us were virgins when we met.

We've been married over 10years and it's honestly never cropped up in conversation. It's irrelevant really who she's been with sexually in the past, I'm far more interested in who she's with sexually in the present - that'd be me .

I've found from previous relationships that people who are obsessed with knowing 'the number' tend to be a bit lacking in self-confidence.

That could be right for some people, but for others, like me, its more for reassurance of knowing I wouldn't be in a relationship and looking to have children with someone who could possibly be an ex-slut that has had multiple threesomes and the like or other crazy sexual activities I personally wouldn't respect. To me, a woman with a lower number shows more self control and isn't that a quality we should all be looking for in potential partners?

Ashbx wrote: »

I do agree that majority of men probably don't want their future wives having loads of sexual partners. A virgin however - I think you are hoping too much in this day and age!

But you also need to understand that women are just like men....women have a need for sex too. Women enjoy sex too. And some women do enjoy having one night stands! So if she does have a few partners under her belt, I don't think its fair to think of her any different because of it. At the end of the day, if she is marrying you...then she has chosen you despite how many or little partners she's had in the past.

I suppose its the age old argument of why can a guy have sex with 20+ women and be considered a hero and a woman does it and is considered a slut.

What is your opinion the other way around? I am a woman, and I can certainly tell you, I wouldn't like my future husband to have 20+ sexual partners either!

I do agree with you but I also think it goes both ways!!!

I could argue regarding this but I'd probably get banned. I understand it's a double standard but one with reason, in my opinion.

J Mysterio

'DoYouEvenLift'... You give the impression that 'you can never be sure what they got up to'... Makes me think that this is a pyschological problem for you. You should know if you can trust someone on instinct if you go as far as wanting to marry them etc.

Hunchback

I, personally, just wouldn't be comfortable seeing a woman who has a high number of previous sexual partners go on to have a kid and then kiss that child with the same mouth that has had multiple, multiple men blow their loads into. I'm saying this because I've experienced it in real life during school when the village bicycle had sex with over 30 people that we know of, its probably well over 50 to be honest, before she was even 18. Nobody respected her or took her seriously because of this. Now she has a child and it's just uncomfortable seeing it. And that's how I feel about a girl I don't even personally know. It'd be a lot worse if I was to be the one ending up with a girl like that, but I wouldn't allow it to happen and put myself through that in the first place.[/QUOTE]

I just think that these type of statements are so offensive. I accept that you might not give a toss if I find your opinions offensive - that is fair enough. However, the double standards when it comes to womens' sexuality is disgraceful. I just can't believe we still stigmatise women this way. And that small town mentality you describe - where people refer to a girl as 'the village bicylce' - actually makes me sick. Not meaning to sound naieve - I accept that there ARE people who ARE this judgmental and small minded - I just don't accept that it has to be this way. Fexxsake like, it's a massively embarrassing thing to be openly this hung up and judgmental

Hunchback

AND, it's nobodies damn business who she has sex with

DoYouEvenLift

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

I, personally, just wouldn't be comfortable seeing a woman who has a high number of previous sexual partners go on to have a kid and then kiss that child with the same mouth that has had multiple, multiple men blow their loads into. I'm saying this because I've experienced it in real life during school when the village bicycle had sex with over 30 people that we know of, its probably well over 50 to be honest, before she was even 18. Nobody respected her or took her seriously because of this. Now she has a child and it's just uncomfortable seeing it. And that's how I feel about a girl I don't even personally know. It'd be a lot worse if I was to be the one ending up with a girl like that, but I wouldn't allow it to happen and put myself through that in the first place.

I just think that these type of statements are so offensive. I accept that you might not give a toss if I find your opinions offensive - that is fair enough. However, the double standards when it comes to womens' sexuality is disgraceful. I just can't believe we still stigmatise women this way. And that small town mentality you describe - where people refer to a girl as 'the village bicylce' - actually makes me sick. Not meaning to sound naieve - I accept that there ARE people who ARE this judgmental and small minded - I just don't accept that it has to be this way. Fexxsake like, it's a massively embarrassing thing to be openly this hung up and judgmental

Lock and key analogy.

Blacktie.

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lock and key analogy.

Stupid analogy.

Penny Tration

If someone prefers to be with a person who has had a low number of sexual partners, fair enough.

But, if the woman is in her late 20s, you'll be hard pushed to find one with little sexual experience.

I will admit, my boyfriend likes that I've only had a handful of sexual partners, but he's been in long term relationships with women who have had high numbers. I think it's just a novelty to him because I'm the only woman he's been with with a low number.

Each person I've been with before my boyfriend was either a virgin or had one previous partner. My boyfriend has had over 50 sexual partners. I prefer being with my high number partner. He's experienced, he's great in bed, happy to experiment a lot more than previous partners, and so on. As for people with a high number being more likely to cheat - I trust him. I don't care how many women he's been with before me. He's with me, he loves me, I have no doubt in my mind about him.

Wibbs

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm surprised given you mod the forum you do you're so quick to put things in boxes.

The mod bit has jack to do with anything really. Mods are caretakers, forum janitors and nothing more.

As for boxes, I was just giving my opinion based on my personal experiences, which I made clear. One can have differing opinions I would have thought, or are we all supposed to fall in behind one fence or other, or whichever fence is "acceptable"?

For all the talk from some of "old fashioned thinking", that's precisely how old fashioned thinking had weight back in the day. It was culturally acceptable and woe betide anyone suggesting otherwise. The sexual revolution turned that on its head and suggested sexual freedom. And that's great, however freedom should go both ways. If someone, male or female wants to marry a virgin for their own reasons then that should be just as acceptable as someone who seeks out a partner with 50 exes. Thats how true freedom from "culturally acceptable" works, or should work.

OP go for who you love, who you trust and who you are honest with and they with you. It might well be that due to your own personal hang-ups (which you seem to share with many) that counts out sexually aggressive and experienced women. There's nothing weird in what you're looking for, or rather its just as weird as anyone else's particular 'requirements'.

You say on the one hand that there's nothing weird with the OP's views, yet on the other attach his "personal hang ups" to the argument. Do you see how that might be seen as both contrary and judgmental?

What I do agree with along with most of us in the thread is I can't abide the hypocrisy when it comes to gender. The "oh as a man I can wear my willie away sowing wild oats but want a virgin wife" stuff. That I can't go along with at all.

You ultimately won't chose who you fall in love with.

Actually BP, I'd kinda disagree. People tend to preselect who they fall for quite a bit, based on childhood and adolescent experiences, cultural influences, social position, education, biological compatibility, personal worldview and relationship history etc. It's a complex interaction I grant you, but it's usually present in selection.

I'm honestly stunned by some of the opinions in this thread, I don't mean to be disrespectful, each to their own, but if this thread is reflective Ireland is more conservative than I thought.

Or people have differing opinions to yours?

J Mysterio wrote: »

Also, you mention three figures... really? That's just ridiculous. I'm sure there are people who reach that 'number' but I imagine they are very few and far between and i'd say the likelihood that you know 'some people' who reach that figure is very low (let alone one). That would scream Patrick Bateman levels of unwellness for me.

You'd be surprised J. Off the top of my head I can think of 2 women and 3 men(in their 40's now) that broke that barrier. I can think of quite a few more who broke the 50 barrier(more women than men in that group). On the other side of the coin I can think of a fair few men and women who are below 10(more men than women).

Maybe there's an age thing going on here J? Being in my 40's myself and knowing others in that age range(few who married young, or were single up to 40), they've simply had more time to rack up such figures. Earlier in the thread someone reckoned their "figure" was around 20 in a two year period, so it's easy enough to see that some folks who tended to not get into very longterm relationships in their 20's and 30's could easily hit three figures if that was their thing. 20 in two years would be 200 in two decades. Of course it's not like a production line. Relationships would reduce the number and not going out so much as the years pass, but you can see how figures of around the 100 mark wouldn't be that odd even though that would be a minority compared to "average".

J Mysterio

Just wow. Thats fècking 'boozed up Brits abroad' Sky 1 levels of promiscuity.

DoYouEvenLift

It's a lot easier for women to hit high numbers than men, so I think it is more common or at least will get more common for women to be the ones with higher numbers than men with this recent sexual revolution.

Blacktie.

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

It's a lot easier for women to hit high numbers than men, so I think it is more common or at least will get more common for women to be the ones with higher numbers than men with this recent sexual revolution.

You do see the flaw in this argument right...

Barely There

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

It's a lot easier for women to hit high numbers than men,

An interesting point, that perhaps partially explains the societal differences in the way the two sexes are treated in the matter of sexual promiscuity.

I would imagine that pretty much any woman would be able to go out on a random night of the week and find some guy who would bring her home for sex. Perhaps I'm wrong, but there's a saying - 'Most men would have sex with most women', that I reckon is broadly true.

The same is not true of men - in fact women can usually smell desperation from a man a mile off and it seems to be a major turn-off for them - so it's harder for a man to hit a high number of sexual partners.

Therefore a man hitting high numbers is seen as an 'achievement', whereas this is not the case with a woman as little effort is required on her part.

reprazant

They are obviously just have sex with each other. Hence their high figures but not yours.

I generally find that people with issues with women having sex is that they are just not having sex with them.

walshb

I don't see what is odd with a man wanting his future wife not to be a "slag". Because this is the label given to women who sleep around. If you had the choice you would likely want her to be a good girl, and not necessarily in that way!;)

walshb

Blacktie. wrote: »

You do see the flaw in this argument right...

Yes, spell it out, because I would think that it's far easier for a decent looking woman to have sex anytime she wants as opposed to a decent looking man. Add in that for the uglier of both sexes.

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Yes, spell it out, because I would think that it's far easier for a decent looking woman to have sex anytime she wants as opposed to a decent looking man. Add in that for the uglier of both sexes.

If all those women are stacking up their numbers and the men aren't who are they having sex with? Is it a small pool of men who happen to be sleeping with them all?

the evasion_kid

eviltwin wrote: »

If all those women are stacking up their numbers and the men aren't who are they having sex with? Is it a small pool of men who happen to be sleeping with them all?

Theres been studies that estimate 20% of men sleep with 80% of women or something to that effect can't post links yet but I'm sure I remember a few links on this study

eviltwin

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Theres been studies that estimate 20% of men sleep with 80% of women or something to that effect can't post links yet but I'm sure I remember a few links on this study

and yet its the women who get judged :rolleyes:

Barely There

eviltwin wrote: »

If all those women are stacking up their numbers and the men aren't who are they having sex with? Is it a small pool of men who happen to be sleeping with them all?

If 90% of the female population slept with 10% of the male population, then most women would have very high numbers and most men wouldn't.

If we're agreed that women can generally 'choose' who to sleep with more than a man can - then it's highly unlikly that women's sexual encounters are going to be evenly distributed around all the men in society

Don't really see where the confusion/contradiction is myself.

Saipanne

I have a paradoxical view. I don't care about the past number, but I never ask and don't want to know. When a girlfriend describes a past encounter it just annoys me. I'm glad that she's lived how she feels, but I just don't want to know.

the evasion_kid

eviltwin wrote: »

and yet its the women who get judged :rolleyes:

You'll find that other women are nearly the worst to slut shame another woman.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

If all those women are stacking up their numbers and the men aren't who are they having sex with? Is it a small pool of men who happen to be sleeping with them all?

Simple: Men's standards when it comes to getting sex are a lot lower than women's.

Another way to put it: I know of no man who has ever turned down sex because he wanted to wait. Women do this plenty.
.

Buona Fortuna

For me it comes down to a simple question.

Do you like pre-marital sex?

In my teens and twentys I feckin l loved it. If it was good enough for me then so what?

We don't sit around comparing notches on the belt on long winter evenings. Hell no not when there's Strictly, and I'm a Celeb on the tele:D

walshb

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Do you like pre-marital sex?

Should that be just sex?

DoYouEvenLift

Edit: thank god there are at least some men who are aware of the situation and understand ITT. Was beginning to think every man on boards was a beta cuckold.

Blacktie. wrote: »

You do see the flaw in this argument right...

No. Spell it out.

Barely There wrote: »

An interesting point, that perhaps partially explains the societal differences in the way the two sexes are treated in the matter of sexual promiscuity.

I would imagine that pretty much any woman would be able to go out on a random night of the week and find some guy who would bring her home for sex. Perhaps I'm wrong, but there's a saying - 'Most men would have sex with most women', that I reckon is broadly true.

The same is not true of men - in fact women can usually smell desperation from a man a mile off and it seems to be a major turn-off for them - so it's harder for a man to hit a high number of sexual partners.

Therefore a man hitting high numbers is seen as an 'achievement', whereas this is not the case with a woman as little effort is required on her part.

I'll more than likely go off on tangeants here but I want to get my point across so I don't care anymore.

Exactly. Hence why I think a lower number relates to better self control which is an ideal trait for anyone to have, not just women. They also say 20% of the men are sleeping with 80% of the women, which is believable if you know any men who are considered the top 20-10% lookswise as they're usually the ones who find it easiest to regularly pull. Now, consider the average man and his process of trying to do the same. He can't rely solely on looks. He HAS to compensate by having various other desirable points including personality. He can go out week after week and drop his standards and preferences time after time before he'll finally find someone and then repeat the process. The average man would be better off trying to form actual relationships instead of being someone trying to needlessly exert themselves to compete with men more attractive than them for women who simply want the more attractive man.


Even then, the average man has to be the one to put in the effort of contacting the girl, asking her out, taking her on multiple dates which he'll usually have to pay for, wine and dine her etc. before he even gets a chance to get sexual. Meanwhile, that same girl could easily have been in a club last week, or even in the off time she isn't dating her prospective partner, giving it up to another man and having a one night stand where she was basically used by one of the top 20% men who literally do not care about her and women they have one night stands with and toss aside for the average man to pick up the scraps. It's perfectly fine for women to have one night stands just as it is for men just as long as the women understand that the men they're doing it with see them as literally nothing else but a sexual object for their pleasure and the next morning and thereafter want absolutely nothing to do with the woman. I know some guys actually pull, bring the girl back and after they're done just kick the woman out. If the woman thinks she's a winner or achieved something to be proud of in that situation then she's an idiot. She was just used. And the thing is this won't put them off continuing to repeat the same process, being used by men in different leagues and tossed aside until she realises she has to settle with guys in a lower league and along comes average Joe who wines and dines her for multiple dates before probably even getting a kiss.


Women who partake in multiple one night stands also need to understand that men are perceived as "legends" for doing this as it takes actual effort and they're confident about it. I've explained the effort it can take for some men above and now I'll explain the issue with confidence. A man with a high number can be more desirable for a lot of women as it shows he obviously has something going for him to have attracted previous the number partners he has. Even then, they should also realise that he has more than likely been one of the men to purely use women and toss them aside without a second thought about the other human being and their feelings. A man with a high number will be confident about it, totally. You can shame him about it and degrade him about it but he will not care but even if he does he will just disregard it laugh it off as haters gonna hate. A woman with a high number will try to appear confident about it but in reality, any bit of shame or degradation about it will reveal they at least feel a bit guilty about it, otherwise why would they get emotional about something they enjoy doing? Many women with high numbers will get defensive or lie about it and dekude themselves into thinking the reassurance is that the man is insecure or some other bullsh!t to make themselves feel better.


In order for a woman to "pull" or "score" a man, they pretty much just have to choose who on any given day as the majority of men will sleep with any woman, i.e. closing time at any club where you'll see men leaving with girls who are honestly below their league. This is hypergamy. If you are a woman and above 4 or 5 or definitely above on a scale of attraction, you can sleep with basically ANY man you choose to by just being there. You don't have to do anything. You just have to be available and consent and the man will more than likely do all the work in the bedroom also. That's why a woman is accomplishing nothing and is considered easy when sleeping with multiple men but a man has to go through a whole lot of trouble to do the same. And even with this, its definitely more common for women to have higher numbers than men, yet they'll claim that men are the players?...lol.

keane2097

It seems there are nearly as many incorrect assumptions about men here as there are about women.

"the majority of men will sleep with any woman"

FFS, what a load of rubbish.

walshb

keane2097 wrote: »

It seems there are nearly as many incorrect assumptions about men here as there are about women.

"the majority of men will sleep with any woman"

FFS, what a load of rubbish.

Few beers and mens standards are almost non existent. Sure, there will be fussy men, just like women, but seriously, let's not pretend they are in any way comparable. On average men will rarely refuse a chance to have sex. Women refuse much more.

DoYouEvenLift

keane2097 wrote: »

It seems there are nearly as many incorrect assumptions about men here as there are about women.

"the majority of men will sleep with any woman"

FFS, what a load of rubbish.

Have you never seen the inside of a club past 2am and towards closing time? It's quite a sight.

keane2097

walshb wrote: »

Few beers and mens standards are almost non existent. Sure, there will be fussy men, just like women, but seriously, let's not pretend they are in any way comparable. On average men will rarely refuse a chance to have sex. Women refuse much more.

Citation needed. Absolute rubbish IMO.

Men in general probably have lower standards than women but the idea that the majority (i.e. 51% of men) would sleep with practically anyone is laughable.

Barely There

keane2097 wrote: »

It seems there are nearly as many incorrect assumptions about men here as there are about women.

"the majority of men will sleep with any woman"

FFS, what a load of rubbish.

For one thing you shouldn't put quotation marks around something you're not directly quoting, and for another you should offer some reasons or point to some studies as to why you think the proposition is "rubbish".

Other than that - great post.

DoYouEvenLift

keane2097 wrote: »

Citation needed. Absolute rubbish IMO.

Men in general probably have lower standards than women but the idea that the majority (i.e. 51% of men) would sleep with practically anyone is laughable.

Are you a man?

keane2097

Barely There wrote: »

For one thing you shouldn't put quotation marks around something you're not directly quoting, and for another you should offer some reasons or point to some studies as to why you think the proposition is "rubbish".

Other than that - great post.

It's a direct quote actually, but tytyty for the advice.