Oldest virgin you know?

conorhal

eviltwin wrote: »

What is the fascination with the numbers of previous partners someone has had? Its no one's business. All I care about is that my sexual partners are disease free and respectful, beyond that I couldn't care less if they slept with 10 or 100. There is nothing wrong with someone having an active and varied sex life. More power to them.

Well, for starters, it doesn't say much for their suitability as a long term partner, the likihood they won't cheat or that they don't suffer from some underlying psychological condition and a gaping void (if you'll pardon the pun) in their lives that they are filling with sexual encounters in the manner an addict might with drugs or alcohol.
I know it's not popular to 'judge' peoples choices these days, but people are descering and judgemental by nature, and rightly so.

eeguy

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well it makes perfect logical sense.......with all these young ladies giving up the cock for Lent, there's obviously a lot more to go around.... :P

#gay4lent

uch

conorhal wrote: »

Well, for starters, it doesn't say much for their suitability as a long term partner, the likihood they won't cheat or that they don't suffer from some underlying psychological condition and a gaping void (if you'll pardon the pun) in their lives that they are filling with sexual encounters in the manner an addict might with drugs or alcohol.
I know it's not popular to 'judge' peoples choices these days, but people are descering and judgemental by nature, and rightly so.

I'd rather a lady that's had a hundred mickey in her than one that's had a hundred syringes of gear

Lisa Kudrow remained a virgin until she got married at the age of 31.

I knew a lad who was very religious and was adamant that people shouldn't have sex until they get married, but he married at 21, so lost his virginity early.

My friends best friend is a virgin at 30. She's not very good looking and isn't a nice person so who knows when she'll lose it.

Gravelly

Otto Stale Comma wrote: »

My friends best friend is a virgin at 30. She's not very good looking and isn't a nice person so who knows when she'll lose it.

Back in my day, it was the ugly girls that saw action first. The pretty ones knew they could afford to hold out.

Grandeeod

eviltwin wrote: »

What is the fascination with the numbers of previous partners someone has had? Its no one's business. All I care about is that my sexual partners are disease free and respectful, beyond that I couldn't care less if they slept with 10 or 100. There is nothing wrong with someone having an active and varied sex life. More power to them.

I see your point coming up a lot in the personal issues forum. Personally, I believe that any individual has the right to decide if a potential partners sexual exploits in the past are a deal beaker. The bottom line is that some people will not be comfortable if that potential partner has had a lot of sexual partners. So when I hear, "its no one's business", I think, well it is a persons business, if they are uncomfortable with it and want a long term relationship.

Specialun

somesoldiers wrote: »

Don't know but a female friend of the wife has slept with > 100 fellas! Is that a record?

Can you pm me her number 😀

osarusan

My granny.

myshirt

Gravelly wrote: »

Back in my day, it was the ugly girls that saw action first. The pretty ones knew they could afford to hold out.

That one is as old as time. It has been immortalised in the 'Fat Chicks do More Stuff' t-shirt that all the young and hip guys are wearing these days.

eviltwin

Grandeeod wrote: »

I see your point coming up a lot in the personal issues forum. Personally, I believe that any individual has the right to decide if a potential partners sexual exploits in the past are a deal beaker. The bottom line is that some people will not be comfortable if that potential partner has had a lot of sexual partners. So when I hear, "its no one's business", I think, well it is a persons business, if they are uncomfortable with it and want a long term relationship.

That's true but it's unfair to brand anyone a slag or surmise they must have 'issues' because they have a prolific sex life.

eeguy

eviltwin wrote: »

That's true but it's unfair to brand anyone a slag or surmise they must have 'issues' because they have a prolific sex life.

Exactly.

Sex is the best thing in the world. Why would you judge someone because they do it a lot?

Grandeeod

eviltwin wrote: »

That's true but it's unfair to brand anyone a slag or surmise they must have 'issues' because they have a prolific sex life.

Whenever this aspect of relationships comes up, I never assume its about a man slut, slag or anybody having issues because they have a prolific sex life. No branding for me. I believe its about a lifestyle choice. Some people, not me in particular, but I have met some that have an issue with it and do make decisions based on it. I think that is fair enough and is absolutely their business if they are making a relationship decision.

Grandeeod

eeguy wrote: »

Exactly.

Sex is the best thing in the world. Why would you judge someone because they do it a lot?

Yep. Sex is bloody great. But we must respect that some people, even in this day and age, still think that rampant promiscuity is not for them or a characteristic they want in a potential partner. Nothing to do with religion either. Perhaps just a different moral belief.

Ben Gadot

Otto Stale Comma wrote: »

My friends best friend is a virgin at 30. She's not very good looking and isn't a nice person so who knows when she'll lose it.

Either that girl is way too open or your circle consists of sad cases gossiping about each other.

eeguy

Grandeeod wrote: »

Yep. Sex is bloody great. But we must respect that some people, even in this day and age, still think that rampant promiscuity is not for them or a characteristic they want in a potential partner. Nothing to do with religion either. Perhaps just a different moral belief.

100% agree, but if a person has an issue with a potential partner's past, they must realise that the issue is with themselves and not with a person who has exceeded some arbitrary "limit" of sexual encounters.

That is to say, if a person thinks someone is a slag for sleeping around, I believe they're a prude for having that opinion in the first place. It's funny how some people will defend a woman's right to her body when it comes to abortion, but has no problem calling them names if they're promiscuous.

Donald Trump

eeguy wrote: »

eviltwin wrote: »

That's true but it's unfair to brand anyone a slag or surmise they must have 'issues' because they have a prolific sex life.

Exactly.

Sex is the best thing in the world. Why would you judge someone because they do it a lot?

I don't think the issue is the number of times or the frequency with which they do it, but rather with the frequency with which they change partners.....there is a difference between someone having sex say a total of 1000 times spread across 3 previous partners (no pun intended) and another person having had 500 one-offs. Lets be frank, most people would consider the first as someone much more preferable to be in a relationship with. The second would probably be perceived as  the reliable drunken-end-of-the-night-option if you haven't otherwise pulled.

Most people like to work and have a job to go to. If you are an employer looking to fill a vacancy and you get three applicants. All three are the same age and have the same education and have worked in the same industry for about the same amount of time. Applicant A has worked for the same employer for the last 15 years. Applicant B has worked for 3 different employers, each for about 5 years. Applicant C has gone through about 150 different employers in that time.

Lets be honest. You're going to steer clear of C. Because there is something up there. They might be very good at their job, but unless you know that you will definitely only have need for them for a few weeks, you're not going to put in any effort.

Donald Trump

Specialun wrote: »

somesoldiers wrote: »

Don't know but a female friend of the wife has slept with > 100 fellas! Is that  a record?

Can you pm me her number 😀

I heard that her number is currently at 126 and rising

Donald Trump

blue note wrote: »

I know of a guy who reached 100 women. My female friend told me. She was utterly disgusted by it.

I'd like to say I wouldn't judge, but a part of me in both cases thinks that's an awful lot. I can see easily how you'd get to that number if you weren't in relationships, but for some reason it doesn't sit well with me. I think if most people are honest about it they would judge a bit if they heard someone was into 3 digits.

I know what you mean. Usually a second one does the trick. Although it depends on the size of the fingers..............plus if a lady has had 100 fellas, she might even be needing 4 digits to get any effect :pac:

eeguy

Donald Trump wrote: »

I don't think the issue is the number of times or the frequency with which they do it, but rather with the frequency with which they change partners.....there is a difference between someone having sex say a total of 1000 times spread across 3 previous partners (no pun intended) and another person having had 500 one-offs. Lets be frank, most people would consider the first as someone much more preferable to be in a relationship with. The second would probably be perceived as  the reliable drunken-end-of-the-night-option if you haven't otherwise pulled.

But your analogy only holds up if you're choosing partners based on sexual history, and you have some arbitrary number in your head as to what's acceptable and what's not.
Personally I'd prefer to have zero knowledge of what my gf's have been up to before me. I cant think of a single reason why I'd need to know that info.

So for all I know I could have been with a girl who had 100 notches on her bedpost or only one. It had no impact on the relationship either way.

Grandeeod

eeguy wrote: »

But your analogy only holds up if you're choosing partners based on sexual history, and you have some arbitrary number in your head as to what's acceptable and what's not.
Personally I'd prefer to have zero knowledge of what my gf's have been up to before me. I cant think of a single reason why I'd need to know that info.

So for all I know I could have been with a girl who had 100 notches on her bedpost or only one. It had no impact on the relationship either way.

Fair enough. But that's just you and your opinion and you are quite entitled to it. However, there are people who do put an emphasis on it and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Donald Trump

eeguy wrote: »

But your analogy only holds up if you're choosing partners based on sexual history, and you have some arbitrary number in your head as to what's acceptable and what's not.

The analogy with the employer? I didn't say it was the only criteria. I was pointing out that the "unusual" person might be eliminated from your consideration.

Do you know any person, male or female, who could have banged another 100 humans and walked away as if nothing ever happened? No crazy baggage or issues - emotional or otherwise?

eeguy wrote: »

Personally I'd prefer to have zero knowledge of what my gf's have been up to before me. I cant think of a single reason why I'd need to know that info.

The fact that you (and a lot of other people) would prefer not to know, means that the answer to the question might cause them some difficulty were you/they to know it. Preferring not to know is different that not caring.

eeguy wrote: »

So for all I know I could have been with a girl who had 100 notches on her bedpost or only one. It had no impact on the relationship either way.

Similar to above, what you don't know can't hurt you in some respect.

Gravelly

I'm not a gynaecologist, but I'm guessing if a woman had had enough Dick to make a handrail for the Great Wall of China, then you'd probably know.

clairewithani

Men are so unknowledgable about women's bodies. Sigh!

eeguy

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm not a gynaecologist, but I'm guessing if a woman had had enough Dick to make a handrail for the Great Wall of China, then you'd probably know.

What's the physiological difference between a woman having sex 100 times with one person and 100 times with 100 people?

I mean, most people in relationships are riding hundreds of times a year, so it's not hard to hit 2 or 3 thousand sessions over the course of a decade.

Donald Trump wrote: »

The fact that you (and a lot of other people) would prefer not to know, means that the answer to the question might cause them some difficulty were you/they to know it. Preferring not to know is different that not caring.
Similar to above, what you don't know can't hurt you in some respect.

Not really. I'd equate it to her not telling me about previous emotional stuff with exes. I just think it's weird to talk about relationship history with your current squeeze.

nhunter100

clairewithani wrote:

Men are so unknowledgable about women's bodies. Sigh!

Sigh... if only women told men what they liked instead of assuming every guy was f**king Keith Barry.

Gravelly

eeguy wrote: »

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm not a gynaecologist, but I'm guessing if a woman had had enough Dick to make a handrail for the Great Wall of China, then you'd probably know.

What's the physiological difference between a woman having sex 100 times with one person and 100 times with 100 people?

I mean, most people in relationships are riding hundreds of times a year, so it's not hard to hit 2 or 3 thousand sessions over the course of a decade.

100 dicks would not make a handrail for the Great Wall of china - that thing is huge.

Grandeeod

clairewithani wrote: »

Men are so unknowledgable about women's bodies. Sigh!

Ideally you should have quoted the post above yours because it contained the usual sexist slant that men continue to perpetuate.

clairewithani

nhunter100 wrote: »

Sigh... if only women told men what they liked instead of assuming every guy was f**king Keith Barry.

I was talking about the twit who thought men would know if women had sex with a lot of men. A woman could have sex with one man a hundred times or with a hundred men once and he would not know. A woman's age, weight, giving birth and the number of births changes a woman's body not the number of times she has sex.

nhunter100

clairewithani wrote:

I was talking about the twit who thought men would know if women had sex with a lot of men. A woman could have sex with one man a hundred times or with a hundred men once and he would not know. A woman's age, weight, giving birth and the number of births changes a woman's body not the number of times she has sex.

Would have been a help if you quoted it, but thanks for proving my point about Keith Barry. :-)

clairewithani

nhunter100 wrote: »

Would have been a help if you quoted it, but thanks for proving my point about Keith Barry. :-)

I am talking about physical changes in a woman's body. You are talking about wishes and desires.. I didn't prove your point about Keith Barry. You proved my point about knowing Jack **** about women's bodies.

nhunter100

This is why it's usually a good idea to use the quote you are responding to in your post, it avoids confusion and misunderstanding. Bye.

clairewithani wrote:

I am talking about physical changes in a woman's body. You are talking about wishes and desires.. I didn't prove your point about Keith Barry. You proved my point about knowing Jack **** about women's bodies.

clairewithani

nhunter100 wrote: »

This is why it's usually a good idea to use the quote you are responding to in your post, it avoids confusion and misunderstanding. Bye.

Ah don't go. You did make a good point. Just quoted wrong post.;)

maryishere

Beyondgone wrote: »

The Pope.

Last time he was in Galway, the 2 main lads on he stage with him would have been thought to be virgins too...Bishop Eamonn Casey and Fr. Cleary. Turns out both of them had children.

Gravelly

clairewithani wrote: »

nhunter100 wrote: »

Sigh... if only women told men what they liked instead of assuming every guy was f**king Keith Barry.

I was talking about the twit who thought men would know if women had sex with a lot of men. A woman could have sex with one man a hundred times or with a hundred men once and he would not know. A woman's age, weight, giving birth and the number of births changes a woman's body not the number of times she has sex.

You hurt me when you talk like that Claire. I thought we agreed there'd be no arguing in front of the children.

clairewithani

maryishere wrote: »

Last time he was in Galway, the 2 main lads on he stage with him would have been thought to be virgins too...Bishop Eamonn Casey and Fr. Cleary. Turns out both of them had children.

Which was a lot less shocking than what came to light about other priests

Donald Trump

clairewithani wrote: »

nhunter100 wrote: »

Sigh... if only women told men what they liked instead of assuming every guy was f**king Keith Barry.

I was talking about the twit who thought men would know if women had sex with a lot of men. A woman could have sex with one man a hundred times or with a hundred men once and he would not know. A woman's age, weight, giving birth and the number of births changes a woman's body not the number of times she has sex.

You've obviously never seen my humongous willy, or my massive hands!

(photo PM'd)

Donald Trump

eeguy wrote: »

Not really. I'd equate it to her not telling me about previous emotional stuff with exes. I just think it's weird to talk about relationship history with your current squeeze.

It's not just from talking with her. Other people may know and you may too. The man who posted, posted about his missus' friend. I'm sure that if he knows, then all his mates know and most people who are in the same circle as the lady in question.

Maybe you meet that girl, maybe you start going out with her. It's going well and then you start to hear rumours and snide remarks. You learn through drunken remarks from eejits down the pub that every fella within a 10 mile radius claims to have been up on her or got his lad sucked by her. Yeah, it shouldn't matter to you. You are in love with her and committed to her blah blah blah. But it will.

And I'd say it's the same for the ladies. You meet a nice fella. You get on well. Then you hear he's basically gone around and tried to throw his lad into anything and everything indiscriminately that moved over the last 10 years within a 10 mile radius. It might take the shine off him (no pun intended....well maybe a little)

Arghus

My parents. They're really old.

Donald Trump

Arghus wrote: »

My parents. They're really old.

As a wise old sage once remarked

Some Famous Fella wrote:

Up da bum
No harm done

However there is the school of thought that is still "counts". I guess that's subjective and down to individual interpretation though

Mutant z

Seriously why even ask a question like this.

So Lonely

Me. I'm 52. Pls send help.

Donald Trump

So Lonely wrote: »

Me. I'm 52. Pls send help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEaKX9YYHiQ

Donald Trump

Mutant z wrote: »

Seriously why even ask a question like this.

The OP hasn't seen a naked lady let and wants validation from internet world telling him that he's not the only one

clairewithani

clairewithani wrote: »

Men are so unknowledgable about women's bodies. Sigh!

Did all men make this statement?

eeguy

Donald Trump wrote: »

Maybe you meet that girl, maybe you start going out with her. It's going well and then you start to hear rumours and snide remarks. You learn through drunken remarks from eejits down the pub that every fella within a 10 mile radius claims to have been up on her or got his lad sucked by her. Yeah, it shouldn't matter to you. You are in love with her and committed to her blah blah blah. But it will.

Personally, and this is totally my own preference mind, I love being with girls who have been with a few lads.
There's nothing worse than being with a girl who doesn't know her way around a c*ck. Same way a girl wouldn't like a lad who's afraid to touch her, I love a girl who's confident and willing to take charge. Been with too many women who just lie there and give the weakest BJs and HJs going.

Donald Trump wrote: »

You've obviously never seen my humongous willy, or my massive hands!

(photo PM'd)

Still waiting on that photo, for comparison like! My hands are fairly big and chubby, so I've already proven that assumption wrong:(\

Optimalprimerib

Every village has the old bachelor/cat lady that never seen the need to get married. Chances are they could be virgins.

But I really don't care, when I had sex I didn't suddenly become cool, when the op did, he/she didn't suddenly grow up.

Gravelly

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

But I really don't care, when I had sex I didn't suddenly become cool.

I did.

But that was mainly because it was November and I was outside with no clothes on.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

sbsquarepants

blue note wrote: »

No they're not! Ask a girl if it would bother her if a guy had slept with 100 women. The vast majority will be majorly put off by it!

Possibly - the majority of blokes would call him a legend though.
It's a bullshít double standard, simple as. Some people like casual sex, some people don't, that's really all there is too it. It's no different to liking or disliking anything else.

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm not a gynaecologist, but I'm guessing if a woman had had enough Dick to make a handrail for the Great Wall of China, then you'd probably know.

No you're certainly not, and not very likely to ever be either!

Vaginas are perfectly suited to taking dick - it doesn't actually damage them at all. You'll understand what I mean once you see one for yourself

Jobs OXO

Gravelly wrote: »

I did.

But that was mainly because it was November and I was outside with no clothes on.

Sounds like fast and sexy times !