Womens attitudes to previous sexual encounters see mod note post #1

h.bolla

LordNorbury wrote: »

I haven't met one single Irish girl who has been with 500 men, I don't think anyone else on thread would have bumped into one either...

Yeh I would have said that too a few months ago. Boy was I wrong!

Aurora Green

lavinia hathaway wrote: »

And some people don't want to deal with the repercussions of their partner's previous sexual preferences, especially when it results in a trip to an STI clinic.

And some people like strawberry ice cream.

Aurora Green

py2006 wrote: »

Who actually said this?

Btw there is a difference between somebody who enjoys having lots of sex (who doesn't) and the individual been discussed here.

The person I quoted said it.

py2006

Aurora Green wrote: »

The person I quoted said it.

Not exactly, I think they were referring to the more extreme as opposed to somebody who enjoys sex.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mokuba

I don't know, I find quite a lot of women are pretty promiscuous in their 20's, going from encounter to encounter, relationship to relationship and then in their 30's it's a crazy dash to the altar with the one person who just all of a sudden happens to be the one. (Disclaimer Alert - not all women are like this. Also some men are too.) Think there is a lot of settling that goes on and to be honest I'd be a bit paranoid considering how much the man gets annihilated in divorce court (when divorce is much more common and is initiated by women more often than men), and how few rights fathers have on the whole.

A woman having 500 sexual encounters would without question make her a complete no-go for me in terms of anything other than sex. Too many people think they can do whatever they like and not live with the consequences. If you want to have sex with 500 people, that's fine - don't expect me to want to be with you long-term afterwards.

Her history definitely my business because the majority of people aren't likely to change so quickly. Sure you might get 1 or 2 who really change but for a lot of people they are the exact same people, they never change. I like to know the kind of person I am dealing with and the past is definitely not the past when men get so viciously stung in divorce court and family law. Would find it very hard to believe that her past tendencies just vanished.

World is gone way too PC for its own good. You are entitled to sleep with whomever you like but the way things are at the moment, don't expect to find a partner easily if you do. Don't expect the OP, or many posters here, or me, to stick around after finding out. I wouldn't see a woman with 500 sexual encounters as a positive role model for my child. Actually laughed at some of the ridiculous comments in this thread. She lied, either by omission or flat out and lied about something that would indicate some very troubling patterns for a LTR.

fergus1001

Mokuba wrote: »

I don't know, I find quite a lot of women are pretty promiscuous in their 20's, going from encounter to encounter, relationship to relationship and then in their 30's it's a crazy dash to the altar with the one person who just all of a sudden happens to be the one. (Disclaimer Alert - not all women are like this. Also some men are too.) Think there is a lot of settling that goes on and to be honest I'd be a bit paranoid considering how much the man gets annihilated in divorce court (when divorce is much more common and is initiated by women more often than men), and how few rights fathers have on the whole.

A woman having 500 sexual encounters would without question make her a complete no-go for me in terms of anything other than sex. Too many people think they can do whatever they like and not live with the consequences. If you want to have sex with 500 people, that's fine - don't expect me to want to be with you long-term afterwards.

Her history definitely my business because the majority of people aren't likely to change so quickly. Sure you might get 1 or 2 who really change but for a lot of people they are the exact same people, they never change. I like to know the kind of person I am dealing with and the past is definitely not the past when men get so viciously stung in divorce court and family law. Would find it very hard to believe that her past tendencies just vanished.

World is gone way too PC for its own good. You are entitled to sleep with whomever you like but the way things are at the moment, don't expect to find a partner easily if you do. Don't expect the OP, or many posters here, or me, to stick around after finding out. I wouldn't see a woman with 500 sexual encounters as a positive role model for my child. Actually laughed at some of the ridiculous comments in this thread. She lied, either by omission or flat out and lied about something that would indicate some very troubling patterns for a LTR.

+1 do what you like but there are repercussions for how you handle yourself in any manner sexual professionally ect

If the girl expects to be in a long term relationship then yes her past is to be shared as I would share mine with her, basic foundation of a solid relationship

Buzz Killington the third

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't know why people get so hung up on it and use it as a way of judging the character of a person, we are all more than the sum of our sexual history aren't we?

Because shows the difference between some who sees sex as intimate and someone who sees sex as just an activity. A lot of people want someone to share the intimacy of sex, not just see it in the same light as playing a game of football.

eviltwin wrote: »

Do what makes you happy once you are safe about it and doing it for the right reasons.

Again the safe argument doesn't justify the action and as stated by the OP, she wasn't safe about it.

Saipanne

Mokuba wrote: »

I don't know, I find quite a lot of women are pretty promiscuous in their 20's, going from encounter to encounter, relationship to relationship and then in their 30's it's a crazy dash to the altar with the one person who just all of a sudden happens to be the one. (Disclaimer Alert - not all women are like this. Also some men are too.) Think there is a lot of settling that goes on and to be honest I'd be a bit paranoid considering how much the man gets annihilated in divorce court (when divorce is much more common and is initiated by women more often than men), and how few rights fathers have on the whole.

A woman having 500 sexual encounters would without question make her a complete no-go for me in terms of anything other than sex. Too many people think they can do whatever they like and not live with the consequences. If you want to have sex with 500 people, that's fine - don't expect me to want to be with you long-term afterwards.

Her history definitely my business because the majority of people aren't likely to change so quickly. Sure you might get 1 or 2 who really change but for a lot of people they are the exact same people, they never change. I like to know the kind of person I am dealing with and the past is definitely not the past when men get so viciously stung in divorce court and family law. Would find it very hard to believe that her past tendencies just vanished.

World is gone way too PC for its own good. You are entitled to sleep with whomever you like but the way things are at the moment, don't expect to find a partner easily if you do. Don't expect the OP, or many posters here, or me, to stick around after finding out. I wouldn't see a woman with 500 sexual encounters as a positive role model for my child. Actually laughed at some of the ridiculous comments in this thread. She lied, either by omission or flat out and lied about something that would indicate some very troubling patterns for a LTR.

Sensible post. Good points.

Wibbs

Mokuba wrote: »

I don't know, I find quite a lot of women are pretty promiscuous in their 20's, going from encounter to encounter, relationship to relationship and then in their 30's it's a crazy dash to the altar with the one person who just all of a sudden happens to be the one.

Sure you can often write the script in advance, though the same script is written for a lot of men too and I'm not saying that to be "right on" about it either. The main difference tends to be less of a rush to the altar in the 30's part. The other difference is that it's a "sellers market", especially in the 20's. Simply put more women have more opportunities to have sex than men. Even the plainest woman is batting way higher than an average man if she so chooses. A fair number of men if they do stand out for women do become "pretty promiscuous in their 20's, going from encounter to encounter". It's less about gender per se, more about opportunity.

A woman having 500 sexual encounters would without question make her a complete no-go for me in terms of anything other than sex.

So you'd shag her, but wouldn't go out with her? I can appreciate the choice not to see someone as a potential longtermer, but then feeling it's fine to sleep with that same someone is a bit too hypocritical for me anyway.

She lied, either by omission or flat out and lied about something that would indicate some very troubling patterns for a LTR.

That would be as much if not more a concern.

Maybe there's another aspect to this from a male point of view, some guys anyway. IE some guys get off on the idea of "saving a woman" (an extension of the madonna/whore thing?) from a bad past, sexual or not. I had a touch of that TBH when I was younger(much). I was in helper/caretaker/shrink/protector mode. I suspect if this thread was kicking off when I was say 25 I would be much more likely on the side of her past is her past I'd love her regardless. Nowadays... well let's just say a) I got burned every single time acting like that. Rightfully too. I was stupid. This kinda thing rarely lasts long or ends well and b) I copped on that unstable people tend not to change, nearly always get worse and if they do change you remind them of the time when they were a bit loopy so they don't want you around anymore. Naturally TBH. I can understand that. If I was advising my 25 year old self I'd say everyone has some baggage, it's a part of growing and a part of being human, but if they're lugging more baggage than Aer Rianta on Xmas eve, run and keep on running. To continue the dodgy metaphor, now I'd be more Ryanair, hand baggage only.

eviltwin

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Because shows the difference between some who sees sex as intimate and someone who sees sex as just an activity. A lot of people want someone to share the intimacy of sex, not just see it in the same light as playing a game of football.


Again the safe argument doesn't justify the action and as stated by the OP, she wasn't safe about it.

Do you not accept that people change? Some people have a lot of casual sex in their 20's and get it out of their system and make the most loyal, faithful spouses in their 30's. Some people settle down and sleep around. Just because you had a phase in your life where you had no emotional connection to the people you were having sex with doesn't mean you are incapable of seeing sex as an intimate act. I wouldn't be put off by someone who told me he had a prolific sex life in his youth, the time to have fun is when you are young and single. Sex shouldn't have to be something thats only done within a relationship.

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe there's another aspect to this from a male point of view, some guys anyway. IE some guys get off on the idea of "saving a woman" (an extension of the madonna/whore thing?) from a bad past, sexual or not. I had a touch of that TBH when I was younger(much). I was in helper/caretaker/shrink/protector mode. I suspect if this thread was kicking off when I was say 25 I would be much more likely on the side of her past is her past I'd love her regardless. Nowadays... well let's just say a) I got burned every single time acting like that. Rightfully too. I was stupid. This kinda thing rarely lasts long or ends well and b) I copped on that unstable people tend not to change, nearly always get worse and if they do change you remind them of the time when they were a bit loopy so they don't want you around anymore. Naturally TBH. I can understand that. If I was advising my 25 year old self I'd say everyone has some baggage, it's a part of growing and a part of being human, but if they're lugging more baggage than Aer Rianta on Xmas eve, run and keep on running. To continue the dodgy metaphor, now I'd be more Ryanair, hand baggage only.

Woah there cowboy!

If you set yourself up in a therapist/patient; teacher/student; parent/child paradigm, archetypally you are setting yourself up for a destiny. You know what happens to patients, students and children? They get better, they graduate, they leave the nest. They leave you.

Unstable people can and do change, either through something entirely earth shatteringly tragic or via professional help.' And when you say this, " and if they do change you remind them of the time when they were a bit loopy so they don't want you around anymore" is it possible they can't have you around anymore because there are too many triggers and risk of regression....

Honestly I think women and promiscuity touches a nerve because women are expected to practice natural selection, a lack of discrimination smacks of something unnatural. I suspect that is what it comes down to. As the saying goes every man wants to be a woman's first and every woman wants to be a man's last....sorry I don't know who said that..may have been Oscar Wilde.

And no way would a promiscuous man be accused of instability. Pathological ego boosting/validation maybe... but never insane. :-(

Celly Smunt

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you not accept that people change? Some people have a lot of casual sex in their 20's and get it out of their system and make the most loyal, faithful spouses in their 30's. Some people settle down and sleep around. Just because you had a phase in your life where you had no emotional connection to the people you were having sex with doesn't mean you are incapable of seeing sex as an intimate act. I wouldn't be put off by someone who told me he had a prolific sex life in his youth, the time to have fun is when you are young and single. Sex shouldn't have to be something thats only done within a relationship.

I don't think anybody is arguing that people can't change or that people can't do what they want to sexually.I think what people are pointing out is that throwing your body about can lead to people having impressions of that person and what kind of lifestyle they enjoy and deep down desire to a degree. If a person is going to be overly sexually active with strangers etc. they should be prepared for people to view them in a different light,there's no helping it people will judge and no amount of "people can change" is going to prevent that impression. You might say it's wrong but personally i view an overly active person as somebody lacking in self respect and dignity, not empowered or "just getting it out of the way",quite the opposite. There is nothing to get out of the way.

I wouldn't feel comfortable with a person with 100's of previous partners nor would I expect my partner to feel comfortable with it either. I guess it is what makes a Lady a Lady and a Girl just a Girl. Or a Man a Man and a Boy a Boy for PC sake.

Wibbs

diveout wrote: »

Woah there cowboy!

If you set yourself up in a therapist/patient; teacher/student; parent/child paradigm, archetypally you are setting yourself up for a destiny. You know what happens to patients, students and children? They get better, they graduate, they leave the nest. They leave you.

Oh defo. Like I said I learned that one fast. I still know blokes like this though. They never learned this.

Unstable people can and do change, either through something entirely earth shatteringly tragic or via professional help.' And when you say this, " and if they do change you remind them of the time when they were a bit loopy so they don't want you around anymore" is it possible they can't have you around anymore because there are too many triggers and risk of regression....

Mostly I think it's embarrassment more than anything.

Honestly I think women and promiscuity touches a nerve because women are expected to practice natural selection, a lack of discrimination smacks of something unnatural. I suspect that is what it comes down to. As the saying goes every man wants to be a woman's first and every woman wants to be a man's last....sorry I don't know who said that..may have been Oscar Wilde.

Think it was Oscar alright. There's something in what you say re discrimination. They're selling themselves cheap as it were.

diveout

Celly Smunt wrote: »

I don't think anybody is arguing that people can't change or that people can't do what they want to sexually.I think what people are pointing out is that throwing your body about can lead to people having impressions of that person and what kind of lifestyle they enjoy and deep down desire to a degree. If a person is going to be overly sexually active with strangers etc. they should be prepared for people to view them in a different light,there's no helping it people will judge and no amount of "people can change" is going to prevent that impression. You might say it's wrong but personally i view an overly active person as somebody lacking in self respect and dignity, not empowered or "just getting it out of the way",quite the opposite. There is nothing to get out of the way.

I wouldn't feel comfortable with a person with 100's of previous partners nor would I expect my partner to feel comfortable with it either. I guess it is what makes a Lady a Lady and a Girl just a Girl. Or a Man a Man and a Boy a Boy for PC sake.

Not always. I knew a guy who yes I guess you could call him promiscious, but it wasn't at all about ego boosting, he had boundary problems and genuinely related to women that way, and sex just became an extension of this. And he knew he had a boundary problem, but in a way couldn't help himself. It was just how he was wired.

Celly Smunt

diveout wrote: »

Not always. I knew a guy who yes I guess you could call him promiscious, but it wasn't at all about ego boosting, he had boundary problems and genuinely related to women that way, and sex just became an extension of this. And he knew he had a boundary problem, but in a way couldn't help himself. It was just how he was wired.

Then a Lack of self control,still a fairly big fault.

Change two words and it's on par.

Not always. I knew a guy who yes I guess you could call him agressive, but it wasn't at all about ego boosting, he had boundary problems and genuinely related to women that way, and agression just became an extension of this. And he knew he had a boundary problem, but in a way couldn't help himself. It was just how he was wired.

Note: I am not trying to equate sex to beating people up.

diveout

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Then a Lack of self control,still a fairly big fault.

Change two words and it's on par.





Note: I am not trying to equate sex to beating people up.

Sorry that is utterly ridiculous. If he were a rapist I'd agree with you, but no far far from the reality.

What is up with the moral superiority pissing contest on this thread?

Celly Smunt

diveout wrote: »

Sorry that is utterly ridiculous. If he were a rapist I'd agree with you, but no far far from the reality.

What is up with the moral superiority pissing contest on this thread?

I'm just trying to emphasise the level of lack of self discipline is all, not calling him a rapist or anything of the sort.

I don't think it's moral superiority either,i just think that it's a clash of two different value systems.

Saipanne

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you not accept that people change? Some people have a lot of casual sex in their 20's and get it out of their system and make the most loyal, faithful spouses in their 30's. Some people settle down and sleep around. Just because you had a phase in your life where you had no emotional connection to the people you were having sex with doesn't mean you are incapable of seeing sex as an intimate act. I wouldn't be put off by someone who told me he had a prolific sex life in his youth, the time to have fun is when you are young and single. Sex shouldn't have to be something thats only done within a relationship.

Being promiscuous when young is one thing, but sleeping with 500 men, and taking part in porn esque group scenes suggests a potential issue. At best, lack of self control, at worst a sex addiction. That type of person would not make an ideal long term partner, in my opinion. Infidelity would be very likely.

diveout

Celly Smunt wrote: »

I'm just trying to emphasise the level of lack of self discipline is all, not calling him a rapist or anything of the sort.

I don't think it's moral superiority either,i just think that it's a clash of two different value systems.

Yeah he definitely ran into some complications in his life as a result, but no one ever shamed him or rejected him because of it. Definite double standard at play.

h.bolla

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you not accept that people change? Some people have a lot of casual sex in their 20's and get it out of their system and make the most loyal, faithful spouses in their 30's. Some people settle down and sleep around. Just because you had a phase in your life where you had no emotional connection to the people you were having sex with doesn't mean you are incapable of seeing sex as an intimate act. I wouldn't be put off by someone who told me he had a prolific sex life in his youth, the time to have fun is when you are young and single. Sex shouldn't have to be something thats only done within a relationship.

Yes having lots of casual sex during your 20s is fine and yes Im sure people change all the time.

But what I want to know and just going to quote myself from earlier:

h.bolla wrote: »

I would like to ask.....why girls feel thats its absolutely none of a mans business what went on in a girls past? Whats the logical reason? Why do girls get so defensive about it?

After my experiences, if a girl ever says that to me Im just going to think "skanky background. RUN LIKE CRAZY...."

diveout

h.bolla wrote: »

Yes having lots of casual sex during your 20s is fine and yes Im sure people change all the time.

But what I want to know and just going to quote myself from earlier:

Because there is so much shame and judgementalism around it, it's a defensive reaction. It's also because it's very personal, and maybe the girl in question whom you are asking, doesn't trust you enough to be able to talk about it.

And your OP kind of confirms that.

Mike747

Hey op didn't you hear? We must never, ever criticise or judge women now. They are beyond reproach and can do as they please. Nothing is ever their fault. And if you don't like it tough, you don't deserve a strong independent woman like her.

Wibbs

diveout wrote: »

Yeah he definitely ran into some complications in his life as a result, but no one ever shamed him or rejected him because of it. Definite double standard at play.

Regardless he had a personal issue that would make him a bit sus as a potential long termer until he fixed it. In any event yes there is a double standard, but it has a long and deep history for social and reproductive reasons and it will take a while for culture to catch up.

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

Regardless he had a personal issue that would make him a bit sus as a potential long termer until he fixed it. In any event yes there is a double standard, but it has a long and deep history for social and reproductive reasons and it will take a while for culture to catch up.

Yes. I think one would have to take a radical acceptance approach to a spouse or LTR with this history, gender irrelevant imo.

lavinia hathaway

But what I want to know and just going to quote myself from earlier:[/QUOTE]

Speaking for myself, privacy and respect for a previous partner means I wouldn't divulge too many details. If however something were to impact on a future partner, then that would be a different matter.

We all make decisions based on information we're given, this means by nature we make judgements. Yours is an extreme case OP, it's not the normal yardstick.

goz83

h.bolla wrote: »

That was a long post!


My fear is 500 was a conservative estimate. But yeh. For all I know the number could be 10, 50, 500, 1000


Oh and someone asked why did I not mention STDs sooner? I didnt think it made much odds to the discussion really.


Was I ever suspicious? Nope. Not at all. She seemed like a well travelled, open minded, intelligent, career/family focused woman. We didnt have sex for about 2-3 months after we started dating because she felt its important to wait and not just give in. And that really made me fall for her if Im honest. Basically her opinion was that after she arrived home in Ireland she had got all the partying of her system and wanted to settle down with a man ."

So, maybe she genuinely wanted to do the right thing and wait to have sex with the OP, or maybe this was part of a deception. Maybe she had a nasty case of the herpes she needed to clear up first! We just don't know. My opinion is that the ex was a manipulative liar. You don't talk about starting a family with someone and hiding a past of several hundred sexual partners. The risk of passing an STI to the OP was huge. OP, did you say you tested positive an an STI clinic and if so, was it something treatable, or is it a lifetime disease?

diveout wrote: »

Because there is so much shame and judgementalism around it, it's a defensive reaction. It's also because it's very personal, and maybe the girl in question whom you are asking, doesn't trust you enough to be able to talk about it.

And your OP kind of confirms that.

If she didn't trust him enough, she shouldn't have been discussing marriage and babies and little house on the prairie when her past sexual encounters are something you'd see on pornhub.

pwurple

I think you have assumed (wrongly) that all the people defending the girls past are female, and all those who think it is beyond anything they would accept in a partner are male

From a glance through the thread there are both genders on either side.

I'm female and already posted that i think it's not something I would accept in any sexual partner. And I think you have a right to know a sexual partners sexual history. Too risky for disease otherwise... Obviously, seeing as you have picked up something.

To put it bluntly, there are some serious reprecussions to NOT knowing someone's sexual history. Up to and including death. I would have expected most educated people living in a first world country to be well aware of this.

Mike747

h.bolla wrote: »

That was a long post!

As I mentioned, her family are Ozzies. Her parents moved here and I guess they liked it and settled down and had kids. Shes the only kid that stayed here, her two brothers are over there with the rest of their grandparents/aunties/uncles/cousins. Her parents are still here and I did meet them. I doubt they knew what she got up to, but even if they did I doubt they'd care. They are very hippyish constantly trying to rebel against Catholic oppression and talk about free love and naturism and all this kind of thing. Maybe its not suprising their daughter turned out the way she did.

Yeh the 500 number is high but its what she told me! Was she lying? I personally dont think so. But yes its possible.

For me I think its possible because if she was going to lie you would expect her to at least keep it low enough that I might forgive her. Afterall she was wanting for us to start a family.

As I said she clocked a chunk of numbers in Oz by giving maybe 3 or 4 lads blowjobs all in the one night because its a game and shes not oppressed and shes drunk and its what you do.

My fear was that if she had those kinda nights lets say even just twice a week (though she reckoned she was doing stuff every second or third night because her high sex drive) thats 6 lads a week. 52 x 6 = 312 lads each year and she was there for 3 years.

My fear is 500 was a conservative estimate. But yeh. For all I know the number could be 10, 50, 500, 1000 or anything inbetween. I only know what she told me. And she told me she wasnt sure herself what the number was but she guessed it would be around 500.


Oh and someone asked why did I not mention STDs sooner? I didnt think it made much odds to the discussion really. I still dont. Yeh its somewhat related, but its not the main focus. THe main focus here is why women keep insisting what goes in her past is none of her current boyfriends business.


Was I ever suspicious? Nope. Not at all. She seemed like a well travelled, open minded, intelligent, career/family focused woman. We didnt have sex for about 2-3 months after we started dating because she felt its important to wait and not just give in. And that really made me fall for her if Im honest. Basically her opinion was that after she arrived home in Ireland she had got all the partying of her system and wanted to settle down with a man and have kids/career.

---

OK. I would like to ask to username123 (or any of the other girls on here) why they feel thats its absolutely none of a mans business what went on in a girls past? Whats the logical reason? Why do girls get so defensive about it?

After my experiences, if a girl ever says that to me Im just going to think "skanky background. RUN LIKE CRAZY...."

Well it sounds like her parents did a good job of making sure she's not oppressed.

You were right to chuck her. This is whoredom on a galactic scale. God knows how many diseases she has.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - Mike747 banned. Do not reply to his posts