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

beks101

h.bolla wrote:

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?

Because we're positively exhausted of being judged for who and when and how many men we choose to sleep with. Because we’re sick of that being used as a barometer of our character, of our morality, of our mental stability, or of our value as women. Because we’re bored sh1tless of the retarded lock-and-key analogy that is trotted out when it comes to this stuff, and the blatant double standard that exists when it comes to men having consensual sex with multiple partners.

I simply cannot fathom 500+ sexual partners. Or 100 partners. And I’m a woman who has had casual sex and would have quite an appetite. I’ve had sex on my terms, because I was horny and there was an attractive man in front of me; and I’ve had sex on other people’s terms – because they pushed for it and I naively thought it would help me get what I want, it would make them ‘like’ me more. I’ve had sex because I was lonely, or pissed, or needed an ego boost.

I don’t believe sex is sacred, or special, or should be saved for a relationship. Personal preference would be to know the guy, to have a connection, to have a trust and an affection, if not a great love for each other; but needs must. I wouldn’t get into a relationship just for sex and have withstood long periods of being single where I just wanted to get laid.

And I could still not fathom 500+ partners. So I couldn’t choose to defend it or explain it away – man or woman, it’s an inexplicable number to me. 6-somes, numerous blowjobs in a nightclub, public masturbation because you’ve lost some drinking game…and all these things repeatedly, commonly…I cannot relate to. They don’t even register as acts of sexual gratification to me – where’s the pleasure? Where’s the orgasm? Where’s that mind-numbing moment of ecstasy that makes even the most questionable encounter worthwhile?

I couldn’t defend the OP’s ex but I can understand the jump to. In the context of an environment and society and grand old history where we women have had to curtail our sex drives, or have sex on others’ terms and always hide our encounters if they don’t add up to an ‘acceptable’ amount or type; or live up to some old stereotype of women only needing sex once their emotions are engaged yack yack yack…people can become defensive. People can want to claim equal rights. People can go into overdrive with that, because why the fcuk can’t a woman have forty thousand partners and experience the same repercussions as that as a man, who would probably be hailed as some sort of legend - or at the very worst, 'yer man's a bit filthy, a sex-crazed lothario'?

Red Nissan

beks101 wrote: »

Because

I'm saving this post.

Penny Tration

Goz, in response to you asking why I believe it's none of a man's business what I've done sexually (can't find the post to quote it, sorry) -

Because it's my past. My past has moulded and shaped me into who I am today, but it does not define me. Similarly, I don't think my boyfriend's sexual history is any of my business. As long as he's free from diseases, I don't care who or what he did. I didn't know him in the past, so it's nothing to do with me. I know his number (which is very high) aand he knows mine (very low) just because it happened to come up in conversation. I know he slept with one of my old friends before meeting me, again because it happened to come up in conversation. Neither of us asked each other, and neither of us care. We're together because we love each other, that's the only part that matters to us.

With regards to the girl in the OP, I wouldn't do what she did. I've never had casual sex. I think the number is insanely high. I understand that many people would be turned off by it.

But people calling her a bitch, whore, tramp and slut, I take issue with. Having sex does not mean you're a slut, ffs, no matter how many people it's been with.

I think it's disgusting that she infected the OP, and I wouldn't consider defending that.

But casual sex, does not a whore make.

py2006

beks101 wrote: »

Because we're positively exhausted of being judged for who and when and how many men we choose to sleep with. Because we’re sick of that being used as a barometer of our character, of our morality, of our mental stability, or of our value as women. Because we’re bored sh1tless of the retarded lock-and-key analogy that is trotted out when it comes to this stuff, and the blatant double standard that exists when it comes to men having consensual sex with multiple partners.

I think women (and men) are only judged if the multiples become a ridiculous figure and to be honest I witness far more women being judgemental of women in this regard. It has become all too easy to blame men these days.

beks101 wrote: »

why the fcuk can’t a woman have forty thousand partners and experience the same repercussions as that as a man

You can be assured that if it went to that level both sexes would be judged equally and rightly so.

chalcedony

^who even cares? Why should they be judged for something that has no effect on anyone but them?

Somehow when it comes to the 500 number I think either she or he is really exaggerating...

and yea, a partners sexual past shouldn't be anyone's business, as long as you know they're clean of STDs and whatever which most people are willing to sort out (I hope) if they've had a few casual encounters. To care about it THAT much is a sign of insecurity imo, but if it really bothers you and it doesn't bother them or vice versa then maybe your attitudes towards sex just aren't compatible

py2006

green_screen wrote: »

But people calling her a bitch, whore, tramp and slut, I take issue with. Having sex does not mean you're a slut, ffs, no matter how many people it's been with.

I think it's disgusting that she infected the OP, and I wouldn't consider defending that.
.

What is the polite and politically correct term for some who goes to such extremes in terms of figures and in terms of where and how and lies about it to their partner and goes beserk when he is shocked to find out? Then to top things off she infects him with some sort of disease?

Penny Tration

py2006 wrote: »

What is the polite and politically correct term for some who goes to such extremes in terms of figures and in terms of where and how and lies about it to their partner and goes beserk when he is shocked to find out? Then to top things off she infects him with some sort of disease?

She told her partner she'd had 3 boyfriends, not 3 sexual partners.

I think she's scum for knowingly infecting somebody.

I don't have a derogatory word about her sleeping around because I don't see why she should be criticised for it.

py2006

chalcedony wrote: »

and yea, a partners sexual past shouldn't be anyone's business, as long as you know they're clean of STDs

If its none of their business (an assumption is there is something to hide?) then how would the partner be aware of an STD?

chalcedony

py2006 wrote: »

If its none of their business (an assumption is there is something to hide?) then how would the partner be aware of an STD?

What I mean is that people generally get checked out every once in a while if they're sexually active (which is just for health reasons) and if one partner needs they can provide proof. You don't need the ins and outs and details of how many people your partner has or has not slept with, you could sleep with one person and get an STD.

py2006

green_screen wrote: »

I don't have a derogatory word about her sleeping around because I don't see why she should be criticised for it.

It is a bit more than just sleeping around in fairness.

This thread is interesting as it appears that the gender of the person is very relevant. There is a suggestion that a man would not be criticised to the same extent and even be classed as some sort of hero by his fellow men. I find that astounding. I would certainly not be high five-ing any of my friends for it.

Also if we were talking about a man, you would not get the usual female posters popping in here defending his behaviour. I mean the posts that say 'women can like sex too' suggesting that the premise of this thread is to state the opposite.

Saipanne

green_screen wrote: »

Goz, in response to you asking why I believe it's none of a man's business what I've done sexually (can't find the post to quote it, sorry) -

Because it's my past. My past has moulded and shaped me into who I am today, but it does not define me. Similarly, I don't think my boyfriend's sexual history is any of my business. As long as he's free from diseases, I don't care who or what he did. I didn't know him in the past, so it's nothing to do with me. I know his number (which is very high) aand he knows mine (very low) just because it happened to come up in conversation. I know he slept with one of my old friends before meeting me, again because it happened to come up in conversation. Neither of us asked each other, and neither of us care. We're together because we love each other, that's the only part that matters to us.

With regards to the girl in the OP, I wouldn't do what she did. I've never had casual sex. I think the number is insanely high. I understand that many people would be turned off by it.

But people calling her a bitch, whore, tramp and slut, I take issue with. Having sex does not mean you're a slut, ffs, no matter how many people it's been with.

I think it's disgusting that she infected the OP, and I wouldn't consider defending that.

But casual sex, does not a whore make.

Of course it doesn't. But her behaviour goes way beyond that.

Penny Tration

py2006 wrote: »

It is a bit more than just sleeping around in fairness.

This thread is interesting as it appears that the gender of the person is very relevant. There is a suggestion that a man would not be criticised to the same extent and even be classed as some sort of hero by his fellow men. I find that astounding. I would certainly not be high five-ing any of my friends for it.

Also if we were talking about a man, you would not get the usual female posters popping in here defending his behaviour.

Usual female posters? :rolleyes: I'd defend any person, male or female, being called horrible names just because they've had a lot of sexual partners.

py2006

green_screen wrote: »

Usual female posters? :rolleyes: I'd defend any person, male or female, being called horrible names just because they've had a lot of sexual partners.

Didn't mean you.

But yes a 'lot of sexual partners' doesn't warrant much name calling. But I think this is a whole new ball game. The worst I would describe the person in question is 'unhealthy' both in body and most likely in mind. There has to be something wrong there somewhere.

lavinia hathaway

py2006 wrote: »

It is a bit more than just sleeping around in fairness.

This thread is interesting as it appears that the gender of the person is very relevant. There is a suggestion that a man would not be criticised to the same extent and even be classed as some sort of hero by his fellow men. I find that astounding. I would certainly not be high five-ing any of my friends for it.

Also if we were talking about a man, you would not get the usual female posters popping in here defending his behaviour. I mean the posts that say 'women can like sex too' suggesting that the premise of this thread is to state the opposite.

For me as a woman the gender is irrelevant, all of my posts are based on the behaviour. My judgement that I don't like it is not the same as vilifying the people involved. There's no need for name calling.

Shakespeare's Sister

Yeh I don't see the need for saying "slut" just because that's deemed the correct term and that's just the way it is and "I'm not PC". It's an ugly word, no need for it at all - and there is no male equivalent.

py2006

If a man was to have 500 sexual encounters, a lot of which in dubious scenarios, resulting from over use of alcohol and contracted some sort of disease and then misled/lied to his current long term girlfriend. Then goes beserk because she finds out and is shocked and to top things off gives her a disease.

You would NOT and I repeat NOT have any woman defending his behaviour or say in response, 'oh a man can have sex like that if he wants, you can't judge' etc etc. And there would be some very choice words/phrases thrown his way for sure.

We would all be disgusted and rightly so.

h.bolla

Magaggie wrote: »

Yeh I don't see the need for saying "slut" just because that's deemed the correct term and that's just the way it is and "I'm not PC". It's an ugly word, no need for it at all - and there is no male equivalent.

Hmmm I guess its a local thing to here, but I quite often hear the term "male-slut" get thrown around.

lavinia hathaway

Magaggie wrote: »

Yeh I don't see the need for saying "slut" just because that's deemed the correct term and that's just the way it is and "I'm not PC". It's an ugly word, no need for it at all - and there is no male equivalent.

I think "rake" would be the male equivalent but it still implies a rugged charm compared to the female words.

Ficheall

beks101 wrote: »

People can go into overdrive with that, because why the fcuk can’t a woman have forty thousand partners and experience the same repercussions as that as a man, who would probably be hailed as some sort of legend[...]?

Is that attitude really that common? I've never felt any extra respect for, or paid compliments to a guy for managing to bed someone.

I suppose I might have some admiration for a guy having the cojones to approach a lass in the first place, (I'm envisioning a scenario where both parties aren't so drunk that they simply fall against each other in a club), the end result of which might be sex, but the "legend" part takes place well before the sex.

eviltwin

py2006 wrote: »

It is a bit more than just sleeping around in fairness.

This thread is interesting as it appears that the gender of the person is very relevant. There is a suggestion that a man would not be criticised to the same extent and even be classed as some sort of hero by his fellow men. I find that astounding. I would certainly not be high five-ing any of my friends for it.

Also if we were talking about a man, you would not get the usual female posters popping in here defending his behaviour. I mean the posts that say 'women can like sex too' suggesting that the premise of this thread is to state the opposite.

Another female here who wouldn't care if the genders were reversed, you'll find a lot of female posters on the PI board saying the same thing so less of the generalisations eh?

eviltwin

py2006 wrote: »

If a man was to have 500 sexual encounters, a lot of which in dubious scenarios, resulting from over use of alcohol and contracted some sort of disease and then misled/lied to his current long term girlfriend. Then goes beserk because she finds out and is shocked and to top things off gives her a disease.

You would NOT and I repeat NOT have any woman defending his behaviour or say in response, 'oh a man can have sex like that if he wants, you can't judge' etc etc. And there would be some very choice words/phrases thrown his way for sure.

We would all be disgusted and rightly so.

Can you stop telling us what we would or would not say? We are all well able to give our own opinion on the issue thanks.

Wibbs

py2006 wrote: »

There is a suggestion that a man would not be criticised to the same extent and even be classed as some sort of hero by his fellow men. I find that astounding. I would certainly not be high five-ing any of my friends for it.

+1. While a man may in some circumstances, especially when young, get a "stud" rep, the kinda thing the OP describes would be another story entirely. If a bloke told me he had hundreds of encounters, going down on multiple women when drunk, shagging in pub toilets and the like, I'd not be shaking his hand, not without smearing myself in dettol first and after he left burning the furniture he sat in. I'd just think "manky bastard" and a bit of a twat. If a woman mate of mine asked my advice if she was interested in him I'd be questioning her sanity. If she found all this out after a long enough relationship and he gave her a dose of the clap on top, I'd be asking for his whereabouts, breaking out the plastic sheeting, gaffer tape and rubber hoses.

If a man was to have 500 sexual encounters, a lot of which in dubious scenarios, resulting from over use of alcohol and contracted some sort of disease and then misled/lied to his current long term girlfriend. Then goes beserk when the girlfriend finds out and to top things off gives her a disease.

You would NOT and I repeat NOT have any woman defending his behaviour or say in response, 'oh a man can have sex like that if he wants, you can't judge' etc etc. And there would be some very choice words/phrases thrown his way for sure.

I'd tend to agree with this. Some would call him on it(and have already expressed this in the thread), but quite the number wouldn't I'd bet and I'd further bet there would be hypocrisy coming along for the ride. Double standards can most certainly go both ways. As I said earlier I've lost out on two women over a past that wasn't within an asses roar of the carry on the OP describes.

goz83

beks101 wrote: »

Because we're positively exhausted of being judged for who and when and how many men we choose to sleep with. Because we’re sick of that being used as a barometer of our character, of our morality, of our mental stability, or of our value as women. Because we’re bored sh1tless of the retarded lock-and-key analogy that is trotted out when it comes to this stuff, and the blatant double standard that exists when it comes to men having consensual sex with multiple partners.

I simply cannot fathom 500+ sexual partners. Or 100 partners. And I’m a woman who has had casual sex and would have quite an appetite. I’ve had sex on my terms, because I was horny and there was an attractive man in front of me; and I’ve had sex on other people’s terms – because they pushed for it and I naively thought it would help me get what I want, it would make them ‘like’ me more. I’ve had sex because I was lonely, or pissed, or needed an ego boost.

I don’t believe sex is sacred, or special, or should be saved for a relationship. Personal preference would be to know the guy, to have a connection, to have a trust and an affection, if not a great love for each other; but needs must. I wouldn’t get into a relationship just for sex and have withstood long periods of being single where I just wanted to get laid.

And I could still not fathom 500+ partners. So I couldn’t choose to defend it or explain it away – man or woman, it’s an inexplicable number to me. 6-somes, numerous blowjobs in a nightclub, public masturbation because you’ve lost some drinking game…and all these things repeatedly, commonly…I cannot relate to. They don’t even register as acts of sexual gratification to me – where’s the pleasure? Where’s the orgasm? Where’s that mind-numbing moment of ecstasy that makes even the most questionable encounter worthwhile?

I couldn’t defend the OP’s ex but I can understand the jump to. In the context of an environment and society and grand old history where we women have had to curtail our sex drives, or have sex on others’ terms and always hide our encounters if they don’t add up to an ‘acceptable’ amount or type; or live up to some old stereotype of women only needing sex once their emotions are engaged yack yack yack…people can become defensive. People can want to claim equal rights. People can go into overdrive with that, because why the fcuk can’t a woman have forty thousand partners and experience the same repercussions as that as a man, who would probably be hailed as some sort of legend - or at the very worst, 'yer man's a bit filthy, a sex-crazed lothario'?

Ahem....you somehow managed to quote my name to a post I did not write. Maybe you might fix it?

h.bolla

beks101 wrote: »

Because we're positively exhausted of being judged for who and when and how many men we choose to sleep with. Because we’re sick of that being used as a barometer of our character, of our morality, of our mental stability, or of our value as women.

Did you judge my ex when you found out she slept with 500 people?

Would you advise her to keep going lieing about her past, be secretive about it and tell the next guy hes boyfriend no 4 and have a few kids, tell him its none of his business if ever asks- ya know just incase he judges her?

goz83

green_screen wrote: »

Goz, in response to you asking why I believe it's none of a man's business what I've done sexually (can't find the post to quote it, sorry) -

Because it's my past. My past has moulded and shaped me into who I am today, but it does not define me. Similarly, I don't think my boyfriend's sexual history is any of my business. As long as he's free from diseases, I don't care who or what he did. I didn't know him in the past, so it's nothing to do with me. I know his number (which is very high) aand he knows mine (very low) just because it happened to come up in conversation. I know he slept with one of my old friends before meeting me, again because it happened to come up in conversation. Neither of us asked each other, and neither of us care. We're together because we love each other, that's the only part that matters to us.

With regards to the girl in the OP, I wouldn't do what she did. I've never had casual sex. I think the number is insanely high. I understand that many people would be turned off by it.

But people calling her a bitch, whore, tramp and slut, I take issue with. Having sex does not mean you're a slut, ffs, no matter how many people it's been with.

I think it's disgusting that she infected the OP, and I wouldn't consider defending that.

But casual sex, does not a whore make.

You cant find it, because I did not write it. Beks101 pinned my tag to a post i did not write. I think the OP was the person who asked that question, but can't be sureconfirmed it was OP

But my two cents on the issue, is that knowing someones past, helps to know their present. I personally think that within about 6 months, both partners should pretty much have the full outline of a persons past. What if you found out that a partner of 2 years was convicted of aggravated assault, or of rape? It's in the persons past after all. Just sayin'

Azwaldo55

A man who is both surprised or upset that women like sex as much as men do is naive, immature, pathetic, needy, pleading, clingy and pitifully sad.

Remember this hilarious scene from Boogie Nights with William H Macy and Nina Hartley? It makes me howl with laughter every time!

py2006

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

A man who is both surprised or upset that women like sex as much as men do is naive, immature, pathetic, needy, pleading, clingy and pitifully sad.

Have you met many that do?

Shakespeare's Sister

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

A man who is both surprised or upset that women like sex as much as men do is naive, immature, pathetic, needy, pleading, clingy and pitifully sad.

Seagull posting is so lazy. Read the thread rather than rushing to throw out insults in relation to a perfectly valid concern.
500 sex partners in 10-12 years is not healthy. What you're talking about is maybe 100 sex partners in the equivalent amount of time, which is a lot but not insane.

beks101

goz83 wrote: »

Ahem....you somehow managed to quote my name to a post I did not write. Maybe you might fix it?

Sorry, butter fingers. Have fixed.

the_syco

Regarding the magaluf woman; if it were a man, there'd probably be a petition somewhere saying that he should get the key to the city. Regarding thje OP's ex's answer to the OP, I'm guessing she had enough of his insecurities and trolled him. The line "6-some one night (her and 5 other men) along with a dozen or 3-somes over the years and has lost count on the amount of drunken one night stands shes had with randomers" sounded quite like trollollolloll. She probably got the result that she wanted, and walked away.

the_syco wrote: »

I'll come back to this quote with where i read it from, it's some book about a womans sexual liberation who was never given "the talk" as she presumed her folks thought she'd die during the cold war, and when she hit 18, she went to London to become good at sex. Not so for lads.

The article I was thinking of was "Caitlin Moran: my sex quest years". It's an interesting read. A quote from the artile that really stands out is

Fat, badly dressed, shy, awkward – not even actually in a room with a man at all – there is nothing that can be so "wrong" with a woman that she can't have sex any time she wants, merely by uttering this infallible, magic spell to a man: "Would you like to have some sex with me?"

for when some men see "any hole is a goal", sex can be sex.

h.bolla wrote: »

I thought she was a bitch for letting me date her for years and never once felt the need to tell me about the 500 other guys she slept with.

So you were a virgin before you f**ked her? Or you had a few before her?

Magaggie wrote: »

Seems like the tendency of someone with a problem IMO.

If you asked a couple of lads if they'd like sex on tap, I'd doubt they'd all say no.

Magaggie wrote: »

This thing of her "just liking sex" I don't get. I love sex - absolutely adore it and have had some extraordinarily intense experiences, but no way would I go out ****ing a different man every week for years.

But here's the thing; she kept f**king a different man until she found one she really liked, and kept him. Some people would take this as a compliment; that they are better than the previous 500. But the OP didn't.

PucaMama wrote: »

did you add a word into my post

The acronym "FYP" means "fixed your post".

drumswan wrote: »

She can, but this will make her less desirable as a long term partner for a lot of men. Its not that difficult.

And yet the man that sleeps around and breaks many hearts along the way is? She's less desirable for a lot of insecure men who fear they'll be judged.

Larry Wildman wrote: »

The OP's ex is a disgrace...a promiscuous slut and a deviant. It is absolutely not okay to sleep with 500 people and to claim otherwise is revisionist pseudo liberal claptrap.

Oh look, another virgin choirboy...

pwurple wrote: »

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.

Agreed. I wouldn't really care if she slept with (the better) half of Dublin, once she ensured the man wore protection, and she went for a STD check every so often.

py2006 wrote: »

What is the polite and politically correct term for some who goes to such extremes in terms of figures and in terms of where and how and lies about it to their partner and goes beserk when he is shocked to find out? Then to top things off she infects him with some sort of disease?

I messed the post where he said that (I skipped pages 7 to 13). I assume he also did an STD check before he f*ked her, to ensure that he didn't infact give it to her?

As for the polite and politically correct term, how about knowledgable?