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

ZeroThreat

Luke92 wrote: »

This girl was having sex with 2-3 fook buddy's who would change every 3-4 months and multiple one night stands and all sorts of somes, from the age of 14.

When I was a lad she was known as a bike. People came from far and near to get a blowjob or a ride off the local bike!

As a lad I would have been delighted to be having sex at 14, but as you grow old and mature you realise you should still be somewhat innocent at that age. This girl needs a therapist. To think it normal to be riding a few different lads every week from the age of 14 is ridiculous.

When you were a teenager you didn't think oh fair play to her, performing sexual acts on anyone that's willing. You thought Jesus that's some SLUT. Now as an adult you know its OK to enjoy sex. But 500 people is a bit much for my liking.

But hey everyone is different. Some people would laugh at someone falling and others would help them up. I for one wouldn't touch a woman that's had 500 partners, where some people would. Its all about personal preference.

I'm 35 but am feeling there's a huge gap between a 25 and 35 year old in this country. Either that or I had an extremely sheltered childhood/early adolesence.

Red Nissan

username123 wrote: »

What number is ok? And why?

None.
Over the vast majority of the World girls should be virgins going to their partners.

Some tribes have what we'd call underage sex until puberty and then no sex at all, are still considered Virgin for the purpose of being a wife or a man's property.

Pepe LeFrits

Wibbs wrote: »

Completely daft comparison.

Why?

There's no guaranteed corollary between # of sexual partners and # of sexual encounters.

At any rate, my point about mileage wasn't about the physical effects of sex (and those using this angle as a justification for their views are ridiculous, which we seem to agree on). Some people negatively judge both genders for being promiscuous, which I don't agree with (having sex doesn't reflect on a person's character IMO), but fair enough. This sort of criticism often isn't applied to both genders equally though in my experience.

House of Blaze

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Why?

There's no guaranteed corollary between # of sexual partners and # of sexual encounters.

At any rate, my point about mileage wasn't about the physical effects of sex (and those using this angle as a justification for their views are ridiculous, which we seem to agree on). Some people negatively judge both genders for being promiscuous, which I don't agree with (having sex doesn't reflect on a person's character IMO), but fair enough. This sort of criticism often isn't applied to both genders equally though in my experience.

But by definition if you have had x sexual partners you have had at least x sexual encounters?

The Wild Bunch

I'll be honest and hold my hands up and say I get kinda upset thinking about my partner with any previous sexual partners (4), so the thoughts of having to deal with 500 is too much to bear thinking about

h.bolla

uch wrote: »

Also I think it would be fair to amend the Thread title to " Mens attitudes to previous sexual encounters"

Well I wanted this thread to talk about women who have the same opinion as my ex (that a womans sexual history is none of our business at all) and I just wanted to see what we (men) make of that opinion.

My own opinion, is that drunken antics where she "loses the game" and then has to lie down on the floor and let have everyone have a go..... that kinda girl is not for me and I dont care how unpolitically correct that is.

(it was just a double kick in the face to think you were dating a classy conservative girl and all along shes lying)

Knex*

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Why?

There's no guaranteed corollary between # of sexual partners and # of sexual encounters.

At any rate, my point about mileage wasn't about the physical effects of sex (and those using this angle as a justification for their views are ridiculous, which we seem to agree on). Some people negatively judge both genders for being promiscuous, which I don't agree with (having sex doesn't reflect on a person's character IMO), but fair enough. This sort of criticism often isn't applied to both genders equally though in my experience.

Because one shows a willingness to commit to an extremely healthy relationship, certainly from a sexual standpoint, whereas the other shows an absolute need for multiple partners in order to garner sexual fulfillment. We're talking about over 500 people. No matter how liberal a viewpoint you have, that far exceeds the consensus of a, "a lot".

If the OP is looking for a long term relationship, I can understand why the latter is not as appealing as the former.

username123

JeffKenna wrote: »

It's good that this thread was posted. I feel the exact same as the OP, 500 partners is way too much. You can call me backwards or whatever but at the end of the day, and not trying to disrespect the girl, an average hooker or lap dancer would have slept with less people.

When I settle with someone I want sex to be something special. I have no objection to one night stands or an active sex life, but genuinely has this not swung too far?

Why do you feel the need to compare 500+ partners to someone who works in the sex trade?

And again I ask - what number is ok and why?

You say that you have no objection to an active sex life, one night stands, but that this has swung too far - how many is too far and why?

If 100 is ok, then is 101 ok? Is 102 ok? And so on. So why is 500+ not ok?

Buzz Killington the third

username123 wrote: »

Not if they presented me with a clean bill of health after a sexual health check - no.

When you start going out with someone you'd assume they're healthy. It's not always the case and discovering about 500 past conquests would make you wonder.

username123 wrote: »

Its all just so irrelevant. Sex is fun, people like sex, if everyone is a consenting adult and being responsible, whats to worry about?

You can't keep saying that, you don't know if it's the case at all. It's a cop out argument. You don't know if she was being responsible. What if she wasn't?

Katgurl

I'm a girl.

If a boyfriend quizzed me on my history the following would happen:

I'd tell him it was none of his business and I wasn't asking him. Then if he pressed me, I'd tell him that if he wanted to know he had no business making a deal about it. If he did make a deal about it I'd dump him.

I haven't had 500 partners myself obviously but that is neither here nor there.

I think one of the issues is that she lied to you if you honestly were led to believe you were her third partner. It's feasible that you were her third boyfriend.

I really do think it is none of your business and she did not have to explain her past to you.

However, if one of my friends or I were getting together with someone and I knew they'd had 500 partners I might avoid because I woudl assume they had some issues that would rear it's head. But were there any issues? Was she ever unfaithful? Did she struggle with commitment?

If not then, yeah - she was within her rights to tell you to mind your own business.

Pepe LeFrits

Knex. wrote: »

Because one shows a willingness to commit to an extremely healthy relationship, certainly from a sexual standpoint, whereas the other shows an absolute need for multiple partners in order to garner sexual fulfillment. We're talking about over 500 people. No matter how liberal a viewpoint you have, that far exceeds the consensus of a, "a lot".

If the OP is looking for a long term relationship, I can understand why the latter is not as appealing as the former.

I'm not sure what point of mine you're even addressing here, Knex.

username123

h.bolla wrote: »

Well I wanted this thread to talk about women who have the same opinion as my ex (that a womans sexual history is none of our business at all) and I just wanted to see what we (men) make of that opinion.

My own opinion, is that drunken antics where she "loses the game" and then has to lie down on the floor and let have everyone have a go..... that kinda girl is not for me and I dont care how unpolitically correct that is.

(it was just a double kick in the face to think you were dating a classy conservative girl and all along shes lying)

Thats a totally grand way to feel but she is not wrong for having indulged as she did. She simply has different morals to you.

Did you tell her upfront in the relationship that that level of promiscuity is a problem for you? If not then you should have.

I thought your issue was the lying, not the promiscuity?

PLUG71

username123 wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to compare 500+ partners to someone who works in the sex trade?

And again I ask - what number is ok and why?

You say that you have no objection to an active sex life, one night stands, but that this has swung too far - how many is too far and why?

If 100 is ok, then is 101 ok? Is 102 ok? And so on. So why is 500+ not ok?

Any male or female that has had 500+ partners needs to take a good look at themselves.

No way can this be considered the norm.

Knex*

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I'm not sure what point of mine you're even addressing here, Knex.

You asked why it was a daft comparison.

Galwayguy35

Most thing I would be concerned about is her smashing the place up, someone that does that has issues.

username123

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

When you start going out with someone you'd assume they're healthy. It's not always the case and discovering about 500 past conquests would make you wonder.

Id never assume that. That would be a totally silly thing to assume. I have always insisted on barrier protection until a clean bill of health is produced.

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

You can't keep saying that, you don't know if it's the case at all. It's a cop out argument. You don't know if she was being responsible. What if she wasn't?

See my comment above.

The responsible default in the sexual arena is to protect YOURSELF so never have unprotected sex unless you are sure of your partners sexual health.

username123

PLUG71 wrote: »

Any male or female that has had 500+ partners needs to take a good look at themselves.

No way can this be considered the norm.

No one said it was the norm. But whats wrong with it?

LegacyUser

Red Nissan wrote: »

None.
Over the vast majority of the World girls should be virgins going to their partners.

Some tribes have what we'd call underage sex until puberty and then no sex at all, are still considered Virgin for the purpose of being a wife or a man's property.

Words actually fail me here... What are you smoking??

What about men? Why shouldnt they be virgins for their partners??

Seriously backwards thinking from you that I'm going to hope it was a bad joke of some sort.

JeffKenna

username123 wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to compare 500+ partners to someone who works in the sex trade?

And again I ask - what number is ok and why?

You say that you have no objection to an active sex life, one night stands, but that this has swung too far - how many is too far and why?

If 100 is ok, then is 101 ok? Is 102 ok? And so on. So why is 500+ not ok?

I guess 500+ in my opinion would not be ok because I would immediately link that into mental illness. A common symptom for bi-polar is hyper sexuality. Being honest, that would be my underlying concern, to sleep with that many people would indicate some emotional issues that would rear there head at a later stage.

iwantmydinner

Red Nissan wrote: »

None.
Over the vast majority of the World girls should be virgins going to their partners.

Some tribes have what we'd call underage sex until puberty and then no sex at all, are still considered Virgin for the purpose of being a wife or a man's property.

Dafuq you on about here??

Penny Tration

JeffKenna wrote: »

I guess 500+ in my opinion would not be ok because I would immediately link that into mental illness. A common symptom for bi-polar is hyper sexuality. Being honest, that would be my underlying concern, to sleep with that many people would indicate some emotional issues that would rear there head at a later stage.

Surely it could equally just indicate that the person enjoys sex? I'm bipolar and have had 5 sexual partners. One of my friends is perfectly mentally healthy, and has had well over 100 partners. She likes sex, simple as.

username123

JeffKenna wrote: »

I guess 500+ in my opinion would not be ok because I would immediately link that into mental illness. A common symptom for bi-polar is hyper sexuality. Being honest, that would be my underlying concern, to sleep with that many people would indicate some emotional issues that would rear there head at a later stage.

Thats an honest answer and I am not being disparaging when I say this, but you could easily sleep with someone who had had only a few partners who suffered from mental illness. So it seems like an odd worry.

Plus - whats wrong with having mental health issues!!

PLUG71

username123 wrote: »

No one said it was the norm. But whats wrong with it?

The problems with it for me was that she was not up front with the op when she was asked about her past.

If she had told the truth then it would be up to him to decide if he was still interested!

Luke92

Luke92 wrote: »

When I was a lad she was known as a bike.

And again we see that the problem lies with the other people - not with her. It is the disgusting attitudes of people who would level derogatry terms at such a person that are at fault here. Not the girl. Those compelled to throw out terms like "Bike" and "slut" and worse are more at fault in these equations than anyone else in my view.

Luke92 wrote: »

As a lad I would have been delighted to be having sex at 14, but as you grow old and mature you realise you should still be somewhat innocent at that age.

Why? What do you even mean by innocent? I have children who I want to maintain as "innocent" as long as I can but "sex" is not on the list of things I feel I need to think of.

"Mans inhumanity to man" - the existence of death hate and war - the true depths of torture - bogotry and hatred of the other - painful and horrific dieseases and ways of dying - the unending lists of things one should be terrified of in this world - the pressures and tribulations of the economy and making ends meet and ensuring you can simply eat and house yourself - there are many things I feel the need to shield children from to maintain their wonderful "innocence".

My first penetrative sexual experience was aged 12 - and assuming I am every bit as "old and mature" as you are - I can tell you of no harm this caused me - no loss of innocence - absolutely no detriment at all. Id rather my daugther know all about sex and have her first experience as a teen by her own choice - than have her do so at some arbitrary later age for all the wrong reasons. My first experience is one I would not trade in for the world. Sex at young ages is not bad per se. Context and the circumstances around it are everything.

Luke92 wrote: »

This girl needs a therapist. To think it normal to be riding a few different lads every week from the age of 14 is ridiculous.

What is "normal" and why does deviating from this "norm" automatically mean someone needs therapy? Human sexuality is a continuum. Assuming the OPs story is not aprocraphl all we can assume is that we have here an example of a person one one end of that contiuum. That does not automatically call mental health into question and demand therapy.

JC01 wrote: »

Ahh give over, a lie is a lie.

Ahhhh give over, I am well away of dictionary definitions thanks kid. There is a difference between partners and boyfriends. If she claimed he is her third boyfriend then this might not be a lie. You might want it to be a lie in order to judge her - but wanting it to be one does not make it so.

JC01 wrote: »

I'm sure the topic came up more than once

How can you be "sure" of something when you know nothing about these people or what conversations they have or have not had in the past?

Maybe in your relationships you bring it up every which way on every which day. That does not mean it is so in any other relationship. I can tell you - for example - that in my own relationship I did actually ask my partners about their sexual history. They have not once asked me mine.

Some people talk about it. Some people simply could not care less. You possibly being an example of the former does nto mean the latter do not exist. So you can be "sure" all you like but effectively you are just imagnging what you want to be true.

Wibbs wrote: »

In your opinion. That is the moral landscape you inhabit, don't make the rookie mistake of thinking this applies to all.

My point exactly. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with it. Perhaps you or someone else operates under a subjective moral system that assumes there is something wrong with a group sex session. Their subjective morality is not by definnition and better or worse than mine.

But in mine when I call something "wrong" or "bad" I can at least lay out my reasoning for this claim. It is not just "wrong" or "bad" because I arbitrarily choose it to be so. So I would be all ears to hear how they base this moral decision themselves. I have never seen a single argument presented to indict the morality or ethics of a group sex session ever. Perhaps you have or someone else has. I am - again - all ears.

Wibbs wrote: »

Don't assume this applies universally, it most certainly doesn't.

Given I did not say - or imply - any such thing whatsoever it is unclear why you are bring it up. You appear to be pre-declining arguments and points I never made on the expectation I might do so in the future.

h.bolla wrote: »

Well I wanted this thread to talk about women who have the same opinion as my ex (that a womans sexual history is none of our business at all) and I just wanted to see what we (men) make of that opinion.

Very few people have brought that up since the opening post. And strangely those that have - you have not replied to. If you want to turn the thread back to your intended topic then stop replying to the off topic posts and address those of us who actually have discussed the topic you want to discuss.

To repeat my stance on it - in case you actually do want to steer the thread back on to your oringinal intention - I see no reason to think that a partners sexual history is information you have some kind of right to.

You have every right to only enter into relationships where such information is available. Nothing wrong with that. But do not assume that because you want it - that it is your due. It is not your business unless your partner(s) choose to make it your business.

PLUG71 wrote: »

No way can this be considered the norm.

I do not see anyone claiming it is the "norm". I think the claims being made are that it not being "the norm" does not indict it or make it wrong. Clearly it is on one end of the human continuum and spectrum of human behaviour. For sure. This is not "the norm" but again that does not make it bad.

ZeroThreat

A lot of the excessive promiscuity stems from the Irish relationship to alcohol at the end of the day.

Pepe LeFrits

Knex. wrote: »

You asked why it was a daft comparison.

That wasn't the point I made though, at all.

Someone said he wouldn't go near a girl who'd had 500 partners because, well, her vagina would be loose, which is ridiculous. I was speaking in purely physiological terms; a vagina wouldn't know the difference between 500x1 or 1x500. I wasn't talking about a person's ability to commit to a relationship or any of the stuff you seem to have inferred.

Aurora Green

Aurora Green wrote: »

Either a person's past is relevent or it isn't.

That is an over simplication of the matter. The user made a comparison between a violent rapist - and a promiscuous woman.

The latter is a matter of the persons _personal_ past.

The former is a matter of _public record_.

Not comparable at all - the user is comparing apples and oranges and you are simply bleating that "well it is all fruit really".

Holsten

I never ask as pretty much any answer would annoy me. That's the way I am.

I really do not like holding anyone's past against them, people change and can do so dramatically.

In this case it would annoy me to no end and I would have to end the relationship. Not really the number so much but in how she gained such high numbers, multiple one night stands, group sex etc

Her values are different from mine. My view of her would be to use for sex and sex only and then disregard.

eviltwin

green_screen wrote: »

Surely it could equally just indicate that the person enjoys sex? I'm bipolar and have had 5 sexual partners. One of my friends is perfectly mentally healthy, and has had well over 100 partners. She likes sex, simple as.

If she were my friend I would be concerned. Not judging, just wondering what is driving it and worried it was a sign of a deeper issue. I think it would be amiss not to look at that angle. Of course if she just enjoys sex, orgies that kind of thing then more power to her. There are probably a lot of people out there with large numbers like this who just lie and never admit to being involved in swingers parties etc because they are scared of being judged. It's a shame she couldn't admit it to the op from the get go though.

h.bolla

username123 wrote: »

Did you tell her upfront in the relationship that that level of promiscuity is a problem for you? If not then you should have.

How upfront do you mean? Obviously we dated for years so it would something we talked about multiple times. Im not sure when the first mention was? It could have been in the first month or so.

username123 wrote: »

I thought your issue was the lying, not the promiscuity?

Yes with her the problem was lying and what not. But I mean general speaking I would have a problem with those kinda drunken antics.