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

Wompa1

beks101 wrote: »

This is the most "what the fcuk?" thread I've read on boards in a long time.

I couldn't tell you the last time someone in the real world asked me my 'number', be it a boyfriend or a friend or even a random idiot on a night out. I wasn't aware I had to keep a live tally. Should I also have a list with names, places, marks out of ten etc?

I've had sex with people I've simply been attracted to and/or I've had strong feelings for over the years. All of those experiences, even the totally crap ones, have thought me things about myself, my preferences, my sexuality, what makes me comfortable and what is personally sexually fulfilling.

Doubt I could have learned those things or come to a place of openness and absolute self-confidence in my sexuality by sitting at home with my 'will power' or my 'master lock' (it's called a fcuking vagina, lads, and is designed for sexual intercourse just like your penis is, among other functions),

I don't have a pig's notion how many women my boyfriend has slept with, nor would it occur to me to ask. All I know is he has a healthy sexual appetite, is open and adventurous, has a keen interest in my orgasm but values sex as an intimate means to get closer to me and not just a sport - a value I've also developed over the years.

To try to summarize all of that which defines a human being's sexuality, attitude and appetite for sex, the morality of their character and their relationship 'value' using a number is more than a little autistic.

Not necessarily...A persons actions speaks to their character. If I go to the bookies three times a week and drink every night, a lady might see me as a relationship risk. If I f**ked hundreds of women, a lady might also see me as a relationship risk. It's risk taking behavior...it's simple statistics.

If you've had s*x with 4 or more guys in your life time, even if they used a condom, odds are you've got HPV (Unless they were virgins). It'll be less of a problem going forward with girls getting the vaccine, hopefully they come up with something for men too but right now that's where we stand. My own generation is likely riddled with it, we were promiscuous bunch. Unfortunately, many women will never find out they actually have it and some will develop cervical cancer from it....

That's part of the risk, obviously without using protection the risks increase ten fold though even with say a condom, if the guy has any sort of yoke on him at all, it won't cover all of it. Also, some disease can be spread to the guy from the ladies vaginal fluids...

Removing pregnancy and STD's from the equation. There's so many crazy f*ckers in the world. Men and Women, so at the same time you put yourself at risk in that sense. A date is in a public place, you get to know each other. A f*ck is in one of your places. For a man or a woman to partake in that kind of risk taking behavior either suggests they are not aware of the risks or they are and they are willing to take the risk. If the later, what else will that person take risks with and how could that present itself in your relationship. Also, if s*x is not an intimate action to them, you'd imagine to many promiscuous singles, that might translate into the fact that cheating in a relationship is not such a big deal.

With all of that said. I'm not interested in how many guys my girlfriend banged. I'm not interested in telling her how many girls I've banged. I'm putting my faith in the fact that even if she was promiscuous that she has changed now and trust that if she says she's committed to our relationship that she is. That's all that should really matter, there's a trust. BUT as per the above, it's always possible if she has been promiscuous that risk taking behavior may present itself in other ways...part of the fun is finding out!

beks101

Wompa1 wrote: »

Not necessarily...A persons actions speaks to their character. If I go to the bookies three times a week and drink every night, a lady might see me as a relationship risk. If I f**ked hundreds of women, a lady might also see me as a relationship risk. It's risk taking behavior...it's simple statistics.

If you've had s*x with 4 or more guys in your life time, even if they used a condom, odds are you've got HPV (Unless they were virgins). It'll be less of a problem going forward with girls getting the vaccine, hopefully they come up with something for men too but right now that's where we stand. My own generation is likely riddled with it, we were promiscuous bunch. Unfortunately, many women will never find out they actually have it and some will develop cervical cancer from it....

That's part of the risk, obviously without using protection the risks increase ten fold though even with say a condom, if the guy has any sort of yoke on him at all, it won't cover all of it. Also, some disease can be spread to the guy from the ladies vaginal fluids...

Removing pregnancy and STD's from the equation. There's so many crazy f*ckers in the world. Men and Women, so at the same time you put yourself at risk in that sense. A date is in a public place, you get to know each other. A f*ck is in one of your places. For a man or a woman to partake in that kind of risk taking behavior either suggests they are not aware of the risks or they are and they are willing to take the risk. If the later, what else will that person take risks with and how could that present itself in your relationship. Also, if s*x is not an intimate action to them, you'd imagine to many promiscuous singles, that might translate into the fact that cheating in a relationship is not such a big deal.

With all of that said. I'm not interested in how many guys my girlfriend banged. I'm not interested in telling her how many girls I've banged. I'm putting my faith in the fact that even if she was promiscuous that she has changed now and trust that if she says she's committed to our relationship that she is. That's all that should really matter, there's a trust. BUT as per the above, it's always possible if she has been promiscuous that risk taking behavior may present itself in other ways...part of the fun is finding out!

I judge people as I find them.

It's entirely possible for someone who fcuked around during their single youth to be a wonderful committed partner in a relationship. It's also possible for someone who cheated in the past to devote themselves resolutely to one person if they so choose. Some people learn by doing, sometimes by doing wrong. And some people never learn.

When I met my boyfriend the sexual chemistry was like a smack in the face, it would've been laughable to deny it. But I wanted more and didn't want to fall into bed before more emotional intimacy had developed. No bother to him. When it got down to it and ever since he's never been anything but sexually responsible, safe and concerned for both of our physical and mental well-beings. Condoms or screenings and pill and nothing less was acceptable to either of us.

If he's fcuked left right and centre for the thirty years prior to me meeting him, good enough for him. Doubt it's the case knowing the guy as I do and how his brain ticks, but it wouldn't bother me very much. All I need to know now is that he's responsible, healthy, open, honest, confident and adventurous sexually, and not hung up on his or my past.

RDM_83 again

beks101 wrote: »

This is the most "what the fcuk?" thread I've read on boards in a long time.

I couldn't tell you the last time someone in the real world asked me my 'number', be it a boyfriend or a friend or even a random idiot on a night out. I wasn't aware I had to keep a live tally. Should I also have a list with names, places, marks out of ten etc?

I've had sex with people I've simply been attracted to and/or I've had strong feelings for over the years. All of those experiences, even the totally crap ones, have thought me things about myself, my preferences, my sexuality, what makes me comfortable and what is personally sexually fulfilling.

Doubt I could have learned those things or come to a place of openness and absolute self-confidence in my sexuality by sitting at home with my 'will power' or my 'master lock' (it's called a fcuking vagina, lads, and is designed for sexual intercourse just like your penis is, among other functions),

I don't have a pig's notion how many women my boyfriend has slept with, nor would it occur to me to ask. All I know is he has a healthy sexual appetite, is open and adventurous, has a keen interest in my orgasm but values sex as an intimate means to get closer to me and not just a sport - a value I've also developed over the years.

To try to summarize all of that which defines a human being's sexuality, attitude and appetite for sex, the morality of their character and their relationship 'value' using a number is more than a little autistic.

I'm sure this post will garner a lot of thanks particularly by the woman on this thread, BUT cant you see the dichotomy of your argument, your basically saying that MY SEXUAL PAST SHAPED ME ME INTO THE PERSON I AM TODAY AND HOW I ACT IN A RELATIONSHIP but also saying MY PAST IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, PERSON I EXPECT TO GET TO KNOW AT THE MOST INTIMATE LEVEL POSSIBLE AND BE COMPLETELY HONEST WITH ME.

RDM_83 again

Actually Beks your a hypocrite, you do judge peoples relationship suitability on their sexual past. What you don't like is people judging you on your past.

Mod snip

Ps before you pull the stalker card whenever you gave that post I was certain you'd replied in that thread with something different

Edit:Perhaps hypocrite is a bit harsh but it definitely indicates the issue i mentioned earlier that posters in these types of threads don't seem to be aware of the value judgements they make while critising others for being judgemental

Alf Veedersane

Wompa1 wrote: »

With all of that said. I'm not interested in how many guys my girlfriend banged. I'm not interested in telling her how many girls I've banged. I'm putting my faith in the fact that even if she was promiscuous that she has changed now and trust that if she says she's committed to our relationship that she is. That's all that should really matter, there's a trust. BUT as per the above, it's always possible if she has been promiscuous that risk taking behavior may present itself in other ways...part of the fun is finding out!

Allll of me
Loves
Allll of this.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I've asked people in the past, and been asked. Moreso because I was curious rather than to judge. What's done is done after all. It wouldn't be worth causing a fight over, it wouldn't matter that much.

Penny Tration

EdenHazard, not to be cheeky, but matches on tinder mean nothing.

When I was doing online dating, i got more than 50 messages a day. I'm no stunner. I'm short and chubby. I have an attractive face, that's about it. And yes, I had full body shots on my profile.

If you're not interested in casual sex, I'd wonder why you're on tinder, which is primarily a hook up app?

beks101

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Actually Beks your a hypocrite, you do judge peoples relationship suitability on their sexual past. What you don't like is people judging you on your past.



Ps before you pull the stalker card whenever you gave that post I was certain you'd replied in that thread with something different

Edit:Perhaps hypocrite is a bit harsh but it definitely indicates the issue i mentioned earlier that posters in these types of threads don't seem to be aware of the value judgements they make while critising others for being judgemental

That's a bit unfair, don't you think? Pulling up a post I wrote more than a year ago without adding any of the context of the thread at the time in order to personally attack me? Nothing better to be doing?

And actually no, I'm not saying "my past is none of your business". I've talked about ONS and flings and fcuk buddies and sexual adventures quite openly with my OH and vice versa. I'm saying "the sum of my very worth as a woman and as a sexual being cannot be accurately depicted via a number".

But feel free to trawl through my post history and find some more evidence to use as ammunition against me, I've been posting since 2008, knock yourself right out.

skallywag

It's probably not fair to hold someone accountable for what they may have written some time back, people should be given the freedom to adapt and change anyway over time. Jeez, in my own case I could respond completely differently depending on whether I've eaten lunch yet or not :-)

Mike747

A friend of mine is seeing a girl aged 24. She told him she's had 40 previous sexual partners. For me that is a deal breaker. I don't care if I'm being an evil slut shamer,that's just too much.

This thread is the usual mix of angry women, politically correct robots and white knights. As others have said there is a 'correct' opinion that the majority of posters will express, while a few dissenters will give more realistic views.

Ave Sodalis

Mike747 wrote: »

A friend of mine is seeing a girl aged 24. She told him she's had 40 previous sexual partners. For me that is a deal breaker. I don't care if I'm being an evil slut shamer,that's just too much.

This thread is the usual mix of angry women, politically correct robots and white knights. As others have said there is a 'correct' opinion that the majority of posters will express, while a few dissenters will give more realistic views.

It's not so much people's preferences that people have a problem with, it's the degrading comments directed towards woman who sleep with multiple men.
Also, realistic? I don't see how accepting that women like sex as much as men is unrealistic.

Mike747

sup_dude wrote: »

It's not so much people's preferences that people have a problem with, it's the degrading comments directed towards woman who sleep with multiple men.
Also, realistic? I don't see how accepting that women like sex as much as men is unrealistic.

The less sexual partners a woman has had the more attractive I'll find her. Is that fair or logical? No, but the world isn't fair.

I don't know why this is. I suspect there's an evolutionary aspect to it.

Blacktie.

Mike747 wrote: »

The less sexual partners a woman has had the more attractive I'll find her. Is that fair or logical? No, but the world isn't fair.

I don't know why this is. I suspect there's an evolutionary aspect to it.

I suspect a cultural aspect.

Barely There

Mike747 wrote: »

The less sexual partners a woman has had the more attractive I'll find her. Is that fair or logical? No, but the world isn't fair.

I don't know why this is. I suspect there's an evolutionary aspect to it.

And how do you know how many sexual partners a woman has had?

Mike747

Mike747 wrote: »

The less sexual partners a woman has had the more attractive I'll find her. Is that fair or logical? No, but the world isn't fair.

I don't know why this is. I suspect there's an evolutionary aspect to it.

And before I'm banned for the crime of sexism, I also think it's better for men to get into a ltr asap.

Mike747

Barely There wrote: »

And how do you know how many sexual partners a woman has had?

I find women tend to very frank about these things.

Ave Sodalis

Mike747 wrote: »

The less sexual partners a woman has had the more attractive I'll find her. Is that fair or logical? No, but the world isn't fair.

I don't know why this is. I suspect there's an evolutionary aspect to it.

Which is fine. Personally, I think it's silly but it's up to you. But if you, like nearly everyone else, seen the woman with more sexual partners as somehow disrespectful of their bodies, have less self control more likely to cheat and basically less of a human being, then there would be more backlash. Or, alternatively, if you go out and ride all around you and it's a deal breaker if a woman does, then there's also going to be a problem.

Alf Veedersane

Mike747 wrote: »

I also think it's better for men to get into a ltr asap.

I disagree.


I wouldn't have appreciated what a good long-term relationship should be without the several short-lived relationships.

Barely There

Mike747 wrote: »

The less sexual partners a woman has had the more attractive I'll find her. Is that fair or logical? No, but the world isn't fair.

I don't know why this is. I suspect there's an evolutionary aspect to it.

Just a follow up question on this.

Why does the number of partners matter so much.

If Girl A has had three long terms partners, she'll have had sex a lot of times, probably 100's of times in a lot of different ways.
Girl B with 40 ONS will have had sex 40 times - probably a lot of those times the actual sex will have been pretty ordinary.

Not to be crude, but Girl A's had a lot more dick in her than Girl B - she's probably experimented a lot more sexually than Girl B because couples in a long-term relationship are going to be more comfortable with each other sexually.

I don't get in this scenario why Girl A is consider relationship/wife material, but Girl B isn't?

Mike747

sup_dude wrote: »

Which is fine. Personally, I think it's silly but it's up to you. But if you, like nearly everyone else, seen the woman with more sexual partners as somehow disrespectful of their bodies, have less self control more likely to cheat and basically less of a human being, then there would be more backlash. Or, alternatively, if you go out and ride all around you and it's a deal breaker if a woman does, then there's also going to be a problem.

From what I've seen women with very high lay counts tend to have drug/alcohol or mental health issues. Those with more 'average scores' are a lot more stable.

Alf Veedersane

Mike747 wrote: »

From what I've seen women with very high lay counts tend to have drug/alcohol or mental health issues. Those with more 'average scores' are a lot more stable.

What's the sample size for the former?

Mike747

Barely There wrote: »

Just a follow up question on this.

Why does the number of partners matter so much.

If Girl A has had three long terms partners, she'll have had sex a lot of times, probably 100's of times in a lot of different ways.
Girl B with 40 ONS will have had sex 40 times - probably a lot of those times the actual sex will have been pretty ordinary.

Not to be crude, but Girl A's had a lot more dick in her than Girl B - she's probably experimented a lot more sexually than Girl B because couples in a long-term relationship are going to be more comfortable with each other sexually.

I don't get in this scenario why Girl A is consider relationship/wife material, but Girl B isn't?

Do you really need an answer to that? 40 different dicks, far higher chance of having a std? You don't think that's off putting?

You'd have no problem with a guy whose ****ed dozens of girls before you?

High mileage is not attractive.

Mike747

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

What's the sample size for the former?

The samples size is my personal experiences and the experiences of my friends.

Alf Veedersane

Mike747 wrote: »

The samples size is my personal experiences and the experiences of my friends.

That's not a size.

What's the number?

Penny Tration

Mike747 wrote: »

Do you really need an answer to that? 40 different dicks, far higher chance of having a std? You don't think that's off putting?

You'd have no problem with a guy whose ****ed dozens of girls before you?

High mileage is not attractive.

Lots of people don't have a problem being with a guy with plenty of previous partners. My boyfriend has slept with about 10 times my number. I don't care. He's disease free and eager to please.

Mike747

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

That's not a size.

What's the number?

What you're attempting to do is discredit my opinions and observations by attacking me for not using a scientific method.

This is a common tactic used on Boards when someone expresses an unpopular opinion.

You must understand that everyone in this thread is going on their own experiences.

Alf Veedersane

Mike747 wrote: »

What you're attempting to do is discredit my opinions and observations by attacking me for not using a scientific method.

This is a common tactic used on Boards when someone expresses an unpopular opinion.

You must understand that everyone in this thread is going on their own experiences.

Settle down, Mary-Jane. I'm not trying to 'discredit' or attack.

But if you're going to suggest that women who have a 'high' number have drug, alcohol or mental health problems then you have to qualify it.

That's all. There's no need to get precious about it.

If I said "50% of the women that gave me blowjobs were rubbish at it" it creates a different impression to "2 of the 4 women that have given me blowjobs were rubbish at it".

It's just better to indicate the size of the brush you're going to tar with, that's all.

Your opinion is your opinion but the statement is a little bit sweeping.

Mike747

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Settle down, Mary-Jane. I'm not trying to 'discredit' or attack.

But if you're going to suggest that women who have a 'high' number have drug, alcohol or mental health problems then you have to qualify it.

That's all. There's no need to get precious about it.

If I said "50% of the women that gave me blowjobs were rubbish at it" it creates a different impression to "2 of the 4 women that have given me blowjobs were rubbish at it".

It's just better to indicate the size of the brush you're going to tar with, that's all.

Your opinion is your opinion but the statement is a little bit sweeping.

And if its sweeping what of it? It's what I've seen in real life. I don't have to justify it to you or anyone else.

Alf Veedersane

Mike747 wrote: »

And if its sweeping what of it? It's what I've seen in real life. I don't have to justify it to you or anyone else.

You're very angry

I wasn't asking you to justify your opinion. Just qualify it.

Mike747

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You're very angry

I wasn't asking you to justify your opinion. Just qualify it.

I shall conduct a nationwide survey on the relationships between substance abuse, mental health and promiscuity. When my work is complete I will get back to you.

desertcircus

Mike747 wrote: »

What you're attempting to do is discredit my opinions and observations by attacking me for not using a scientific method.

This is a common tactic used on Boards when someone expresses an unpopular opinion.

You must understand that everyone in this thread is going on their own experiences.

That's how argument works! Your case is badly lacking, and it was pointed out. That's what's MEANT to happen.

Alf Veedersane

Mike747 wrote: »

I shall conduct a nationwide survey on the relationships between substance abuse, mental health and promiscuity. When my work is complete I will get back to you.

It'd probably just be easier to say "I know of X instances where the woman had a number greater than Y and the majority/they all/<insert number> had drug/alcohol/mental problems".

It would be less time consuming than a national survey.

But if you want to do a nationwide survey, contact the CSO and they might give you funding.

Mike747

desertcircus wrote: »

That's how argument works! Your case is badly lacking, and it was pointed out. That's what's MEANT to happen.

Earlier a poster said 'lots of people have no problem with men who've slept around a lot'. So should I demand she provides raw data to back up her claim of 'lots of people'? Of course not.

In this type of thread we're all going on our life experiences

desertcircus

Mike747 wrote: »

Earlier a poster said 'lots of people have no problem with men who've slept around a lot'. So should I demand she provides raw data to back up her claim of 'lots of people'? Of course not.

In this type of thread we're all going on our life experiences

If you think that claim is suspect, ask for evidence. I think your claim is riddled with confounding problems that make it valueless as a statement about the topic, so I ask for evidence.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - Attack the post not the poster

desertcircus

Honest question - was that directed at me?

desertcircus

Mike747 wrote: »

From what I've seen women with very high lay counts tend to have drug/alcohol or mental health issues. Those with more 'average scores' are a lot more stable.

To attack the post:

There are several issues with the above that make it impossible to rely on it as a factual claim. In no particular order:

1. There's no mention of the sample size, so we can't tell whether the disparity is the effect of random chance.
2. We're talking about a self-selecting group, which magnifies the potential for inaccurate conclusions.
3. Confirmation bias is a strong possibility, as people see what they expect to see and miss conflicting evidence.
4. No mention is given to the possibility that some women may lie about the number of prior sexual partners they've had.
5. Women with fewer sexual partners may be less open about their mental health or intoxicant consumption: if this is systemic, it renders the results null and void.

I suspect there are other problems, but the above should be sufficient to explain why I don't think the poster's stated experience is sufficient to support an assumption that can be extended to women in general, or especially a single woman in particular.

Lux23

If you fall for someone, you won't care who they have been with.

I think having a list of wants in a partner is naive, it doesn't work like that. Having said that I would be more jealous if my boyfriend had had a long term relationship with serious baggage than multiple sexual partners. One night stands and casual sex means nothing, it is just something to do until the right person comes along.

Pawwed Rig

Lux23 wrote: »

If you fall for someone, you won't care who they have been with.

Not really true as this thread has shown. It can be a big issue for some people. I would have to admit I would be turned off by someone with what I considered to be a high number of previous partners.
There are many traits that different people dislike that others do not have an issue with.

skallywag

I would be turned off myself.

It's not something that I have made a conscious decision on, and there may not even be any real logic behind it, it's just something that's intrinsic somehow.

Ave Sodalis

Mike747 wrote: »

From what I've seen women with very high lay counts tend to have drug/alcohol or mental health issues. Those with more 'average scores' are a lot more stable.

So you can claim that woman with a high number of men have some sort of problem but if someone challenges that, they're unrealistic and your posts dismiss and even have angry tones. Yet woman can't get angry at you for saying they have problems or they're just being typical?
I don't have a drug or alcohol problem, in fact I don't do either. Nor do I have mental health issues and yet, according to this thread, I've a high number. I have to say, in my own experiences, girls with mental health issues, as you put it, tend to cling to men and become freakishly controlling over them.

herisson

I really couldnt give a flying fcuk if my furture husband has slept with a load of women.

As long as i get along with him, i really dont care.

sbsquarepants

paddy1990 wrote: »

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

Eh, no thanks. Give me someone who knows what they are doing, over some prude who has protected her "special gift" or some such bollox every single time.

DoYouEvenLift 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.

If I was you I'd move, sounds like you're surrounded by fúckwits.
Actually stay where you are, seems like the right place for you.

herisson

Mike747 wrote: »

From what I've seen women with very high lay counts tend to have drug/alcohol or mental health issues. Those with more 'average scores' are a lot more stable.

So women who have a high score have mental issues?

That is absolutely ridiculous statement to make.

What about men? Does the same go for them if they have a high score?

Some women actually like having a lot of sex. Some with the same partner, some with different. Alcohol/drug/mental issues, dont always come into play here.

sbsquarepants

It's typical catholic guilt bolloxology is all it is. Man or woman - you loose nothing by having sex with someone - you haven't given anything away, no more than if you'd gone for a nice stroll in the park. All you've done is have a (hopefully) nice time with another person - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, nothing at all. Anyone who thinks there is just plain wrong.

paddy1990

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Actually Beks your a hypocrite, you do judge peoples relationship suitability on their sexual past. What you don't like is people judging you on your past.



Ps before you pull the stalker card whenever you gave that post I was certain you'd replied in that thread with something different

Edit:Perhaps hypocrite is a bit harsh but it definitely indicates the issue i mentioned earlier that posters in these types of threads don't seem to be aware of the value judgements they make while critising others for being judgemental

OWNED

Good post.

If Beks found out her BF has been with 50 escorts in the past would she have a problem with it? Seems like her argument is to disregard this post because she wrote it a year ago? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Viper_JB

herisson wrote: »

So women who have a high score have mental issues?

That is absolutely ridiculous statement to make.

What about men? Does the same go for them if they have a high score?

Some women actually like having a lot of sex. Some with the same partner, some with different. Alcohol/drug/mental issues, dont always come into play here.

Yep, some crazy immature drivel being touted out here, sexual history shouldn't matter really, in my experience the more experience the better and people who have been through a few relationships and have lived a little have a much better picture of what they actually want in life.

ongarboy

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Not really true as this thread has shown. It can be a big issue for some people. I would have to admit I would be turned off by someone with what I considered to be a high number of previous partners.
There are many traits that different people dislike that others do not have an issue with.

I can appreciate why some people would be put off by that or why it may be an issue but what I'm getting from the thread and particularly from what OP said is that it's ok for themselves to sleep around but not their prospective partner. I've an issue with the double standards of that attitude, not the number of sleeping partners.

Alf Veedersane

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Not really true as this thread has shown. It can be a big issue for some people. I would have to admit I would be turned off by someone with what I considered to be a high number of previous partners.

I'm asking this as a genuine question but do people really ask early on? Is it something that you would have to know?

I don't mean you, per se.

skallywag

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'm asking this as a genuine question but do people really ask early on? Is it something that you would have to know?

I think that young people are much more likely to ask / want to know that more mature folk. Personally I would have no interest in knowing any more, though may have acted differently when I was a young pup.