Average number of sexual partners in a lifetime?

BBFAN

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Surely you'd only forget if youve had a lot of partners or youve had sex that you dont want to remember.

Bit of both.

Hector Bellend

pickarooney wrote: »

One partner a month for 10 years isn't a huge number.

120 sexual partners is way above average I'd say.

I'm 41 and have not even had sex with a quarter of that amount

wakka12

pickarooney wrote: »

One partner a month for 10 years isn't a huge number.

I would say one new partner a month is a lot unless you are a college student going to parties/clubs

pickarooney

Hector Bellend wrote: »

120 sexual partners is way above average I'd say.

I'm 41 and have not even had sex with a quarter of that amount

It's above average because most people either get into relationships or go through extended dry spells but for a long time single person it's really not strange.

yassal

Think I'm in the minority but I'm male and in my mid 30s and I've only had 2.

I had opportunities in my teens but I didn't have particularly strong feelings for the people in question.

The 2 people I have been with I was in love with and that was important for me.

In the period between number 1 and number 2 I was heartbroken and never slept with anyone to try fill the void

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

There's probably no way to get hard data on this but living in a world with Dating Apps, contraception and no real social pressure to get married, should basically allow any person to have as many as they want.

I can't see it being easier 50 years. So I'd imagine that the average for Irish people is growing higher and higher all the time.

Gimme A Pound

yassal wrote: »

Think I'm in the minority but I'm male and in my mid 30s and I've only had 2.

I had opportunities in my teens but I didn't have particularly strong feelings for the people in question.

The 2 people I have been with I was in love with and that was important for me.

In the period between number 1 and number 2 I was heartbroken and never slept with anyone to try fill the void

I am mostly the same, although i have had short-term partners occasionally - but i much prefer having more than just a physical connection. It isnt a fashionable point of view but sex is a big deal to a lot of people.

Day Lewin

More than the number of fingers on both hands.
Stopped counting. But I don't think I've accounted for all the toes yet.
Depends, too, on what you mean by "sexual partner"
Just any P2V?

Fr_Dougal

pickarooney wrote: »

One partner a month for 10 years isn't a huge number.

It would be a bit strange not to have at least a couple of relationships over a period of 10 years. Generally, if you’ve gotten to the sex part, it takes about 3 months to decide whether a new relationship is going to work or not.

Throw a couple of those in every year and you would be having a new partner every week or so. It sounds like fun, but it would get jading very quickly.

Your Face

All I know is I've had more hot dinners.

Cienciano

Do gloryholes count?

sbsquarepants

Hector Bellend wrote: »

120 sexual partners is way above average I'd say.

I'm 41 and have not even had sex with a quarter of that amount

Yea but you're a Bellend Hector:D

yassal wrote: »

I had opportunities in my teens but I didn't have particularly strong feelings for the people in question.

The 2 people I have been with I was in love with and that was important for me.

I think you've got 2 basic types of people - those who would only sleep with someone they have a deep connection with and those who would get up on a crack in the pavement.

In my younger days I was very much the latter. I wouldn't have much of an idea what the actual number is down to several factors namely -

A - not keeping a proper count in the first place.
B - having a shockingly bad memory for people, even people I've "apparently" slept with.
C - lot of drunken or drug fuelled hook-ups where your guess as to what happened is as good as mine. I have woken up beside quite a few strangers over the years - it was bad enough asking their names, it seemed rude to ask what we got up too!

B & C are very likely connected:D

Anywho - I've been monogamous for well over a decade so my average is dropping like a stone!

sbsquarepants

Cienciano wrote: »

Do gloryholes count?

They count double cos you get danger points.

Obviously you go in hoping for a Huberman but you could get a Doberman - who knows, it's the luck of the draw!:D

I don't know if these things actually exist outside of porn - but it's a braver man than me who'll stick his langer through one, I can tell you that much!

Gimme A Pound

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Yea but you're a Bellend Hector:D



I think you've got 2 basic types of people - those who would only sleep with someone they have a deep connection with and those who would get up on a crack in the pavement.

Well (and im not saying you're denying this btw) there are a lot of in between folk too, like those of us who prefer having that connection but would occasionally be happy with just fancying the person and nothing more developing out of that.

ardinn

Hector Savage wrote: »

How was the STD result ?

All good

neonsofa

ardinn wrote: »

I'd safely say well over 150 - Im 35 now, but remember my first std test (no issue just get one every year) I was about 24/25 and had named 72 people on a piece of paper, named!

Was there a particular reason for this? Just curious!

scopper

I'm in the 40+ group. It is a weird experience if you try to remember who and you get these ah, dang, remember x or y moments.

As a teen I would be amazed I managed to sleep with such a number, but in this day and age if you have a couple of quite social years in your life you'll be around that figure.

Galwayguy35

4

3 of them were relationships and the 4th a reckless load when on hols.

some of ye must be total ridebuckets by the number of sex partners ye had.

SharpshooterTom

troyzer wrote: »

Yeah but they don't have to know? I think being a virgin later in life is being de-stigmatised so I doubt women care that much.

I'm not sure that's true, women by in large much prefer experienced men, particularly after a certain age, and there's been polling data to back this up, i.e. to at least 50% of women would not date a virgin after a certain age (e.g. 25 or 30 etc). Nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is.

You say its being de-stigmatised but there's still lot of unfortunate stereotypes of older virgin men/lifelong bachelors, i.e. "in the closet" "euphemism for being gay", and that's something we have to live with.

BBFAN

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I'm not sure that's true, women by in large much prefer experienced men, particularly after a certain age, and there's been polling data to back this up, i.e. to at least 50% of women would not date a virgin after a certain age (e.g. 25 or 30 etc). Nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is.

You say its being de-stigmatised but there's still lot of unfortunate stereotypes of older virgin men/lifelong bachelors, i.e. "in the closet" "euphemism for being gay", and that's something we have to live with.

That's probably true of the majority Thomas, but I'm a firm believer that there's someone for everyone out there.

For every male virgin out there I'm sure there's a female virgin. Women have the same issues getting into relationships and meeting the right person as men do.

Corb_lund

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I'm not sure that's true, women by in large much prefer experienced men, particularly after a certain age, and there's been polling data to back this up, i.e. to at least 50% of women would not date a virgin after a certain age (e.g. 25 or 30 etc). Nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is.

You say its being de-stigmatised but there's still lot of unfortunate stereotypes of older virgin men/lifelong bachelors, i.e. "in the closet" "euphemism for being gay", and that's something we have to live with.

I think its safe to say that a reasonable woman would much rather have someone sexually inexperienced rather than a 21st century slag. You get experienced, practice makes perfect. I can't see someone being able to unpick the thought processes of sleeping with such a disgusting number of people as some here say they have.

Stick true to yourself, you can obviously help yourself with gym, change of scenery interest, but that's only to develop yourself. There is no pressure. Anecdotal experience incoming, but the people from the Christian union at my university who got married (and waiting for it as well) all seem to be far more rounded and happy now..(not saying you're religious but same boat)

SharpshooterTom

BBFAN wrote: »

That's probably true of the majority Thomas, but I'm a firm believer that there's someone for everyone out there.

For every male virgin out there I'm sure there's a female virgin. Women have the same issues getting into relationships and meeting the right person as men do.

Females virgins are statistically rarer than male virgins, at least according the US government health website (CDC) which has surveyed this.

I don't believe "there's someone for everyone" I believe some people (like me) have personalities that are simply too incompatible to be in a successful healthy relationship. I have few friends as well (no female friends) so thats points to someone who doesn't "do" human interaction all that well.

So would I say there are people who are meant to be alone? Yes.

suicide_circus

Cienciano wrote: »

Do gloryholes count?

any hole is a goal

suicide_circus

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Females virgins are statistically rarer than male virgins, at least according the US government health website (CDC) which has surveyed this.

I don't believe "there's someone for everyone" I believe some people (like me) have personalities that are simply too incompatible to be in a successful healthy relationship. I have few friends as well (no female friends) so thats points to someone who doesn't "do" human interaction all that well.

So would I say there are people who are meant to be alone? Yes.

nothing is "meant to be". 99% of everything is pure chance.

SharpshooterTom

suicide_circus wrote: »

nothing is "meant to be". 99% of everything is pure chance.

I meant that in a wider context including those who are constantly in unhappy or failed relationships, not just loners/virgins.

Relationships aren't for everyone, not everyone is suitable to be in them. Its my belief that I am not hence why I have resisted.

Kimbot

Kimbot wrote: »

68

and you'll owe her one?

professore

Wow I feel bad with 1, my wife. Different times in the late 80s though when even condoms were illegal, and pregnancy was a real risk.

ive had a number of average sexual partners alright.

and thats being kind to them

Wibbs

BBFAN wrote: »

That's probably true of the majority Thomas, but I'm a firm believer that there's someone for everyone out there.

There really isn't but with the numbers involved it seems there is.

For every male virgin out there I'm sure there's a female virgin. Women have the same issues getting into relationships and meeting the right person as men do.

Relationships maybe, sex no. It's a plain fact that for most dating interactions women are the choosers, men do the running to be chosen. Sure we all know women who are more open to doing the pursuing, but they're a minority overall. Women™ in general simply have more choice. There are far fewer average women who are virgins at say 30 than average virginal men at 30. In my own life I can't recall any women of around that age that were in danger of having "Returned Unopened" on their grave stone, but I knew two or three men who were. Looking at the same bunch of people in my wider circle the women on average had more notches on their bedposts on average. The most notches with one exception were the men in the group. Ditto for the least.

suicide_circus wrote: »

nothing is "meant to be". 99% of everything is pure chance.

Well... it is, and it isn't SC. It is pure chance when it comes to random advantages a person has. Being born "good looking" and/or having a more developed social skill set is mostly chance(the country and culture you're born into is 100% chance and affects outcomes in a big way), but those that have those too have more "pure chances" than those who don't. Some people are more attractive than others, some are less, most are somewhere in the middle. Goes for sociability too. A person of above average looks and sociability is more "meant to be" than one who who has below verage looks and sociability. We're not quite the blank slates, all possibilities are open to us, it's all random that some seem to think. For me they're nearly as deluded as the "there's someone for each of us" people.

PistolsAtDawn

Pherekydes wrote: »

3.1415926...

Cream 3.1415926...

Sunny Disposition

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I've read that a lot of women find a guy who's uses prostitutes more offputting than being a virgin.

That’s not the way to go for sure and certain. If you are still a virgin in your 30s it’s not necessarily a problem, but it might be worth examining your social life and interactions with people a little bit and maybe making a few adjustments. Getting to 100 or whatever isn’t at all important, but it is nice to have a relationship with someone you like.

It’s definitely attainable too btw, really not as big a deal as you might build it up to being when your confidence is at rock bottom.

gmisk

Wibbs wrote: »

It's a plain fact that for most dating interactions women are the choosers, men do the running to be chosen.

I am a gay man...so double the running?