Anyone else enjoy being single?

joeguevara

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Less than five allowing for age/failed relationships any more is inexcusable

Inexcusable by whom? Why 5? Let's say a girl had sex once with 5 guys and a girl who had sex 1000 times each with 3. In your opinion which one is less pure?

Charles Ingles

joeguevara wrote: »

Inexcusable by whom? Why 5? Let's say a girl had sex once with 5 guys and a girl who had sex 1000 times each with 3. In your opinion which one is less pure?

I'm only giving my own opinion so only speaking for myself.
And Im not only talking about women men also shouldn't be sleeping around

fin12

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Well not one man I know wants to settle down and marry a bike

But it’s ok for them to be a bike themselves.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Less than five allowing for age/failed relationships any more is inexcusable

The major Irish Times sex survey carried out a few years ago found that 40 percent of heterosexual men and 32 percent of women have had 11 sexual partners or more. To say that any more than 5 partners is "inexcusable" is very out of touch with modern life.

Gimme A Pound

Yeah Charles Ingles's posts are way over to the other extreme - certainly don't agree with that either.

If a person becomes sexually active at 18 and meets their eventual spouse at 30, they could easily have had sex with far more than five people and still not have been rampantly promiscuous. And that's taking into account two three-year relationships also.

joeguevara

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I'm only giving my own opinion so only speaking for myself.
And Im not only talking about women men also shouldn't be sleeping around

Well you specifically mentioned men not wanting a lady who sleeps around in a previous post and never talked about the other way around. And you mentioned about the opinion of every man you know which was meant to show that it's not only your opinion. So back to the question of whether you think a girl who sleeps once with five men is more or less pure than a girl who sleeps 1000 times each with 3. It was you who came up with the arbitrary number of 5 as the gauge of someone who wouldn't be considered as you put it 'a bike'.

Charles Ingles

fin12 wrote: »

But it’s ok for them to be a bike themselves.

No of course not , both men and women should keep their flowers for somebody special

Charles Ingles

fin12 wrote: »

But it’s ok for them to be a bike themselves.

No of course not , both men and women should keep their flowers for somebody special

Charles Ingles

joeguevara wrote: »

Well you specifically mentioned men not wanting a lady who sleeps around in a previous post and never talked about the other way around. And you mentioned about the opinion of every man you know which was meant to show that it's not only your opinion. So back to the question of whether you think a girl who sleeps once with five men is more or less pure than a girl who sleeps 1000 times each with 3. It was you who came up with the arbitrary number of 5 as the gauge of someone who wouldn't be considered as you put it 'a bike'.

The number of sexual partners is the problem for me, not the frequency of sex.

pgj2015

Flowers lol

“If you ever start taking things too seriously, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe.” JOE ROGAN

mvl

Raelynn Pitiful Minion wrote: »

The major Irish Times sex survey carried out a few years ago found that 40 percent of heterosexual men and 32 percent of women have had 11 sexual partners or more. To say that any more than 5 partners is "inexcusable" is very out of touch with modern life.

What year was this on ? You got me looking into the results - and only found a survey from 2015 (was Tinder popular in here then ?) https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/sex-survey/let-s-talk-about-sex-the-full-survey-results-1.2263907
- Sounds like he might be referring to the 38% sexually active women who have had less than 4 partners - this can be contemporary too

joeguevara

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

Yeah Charles Ingles's posts are way over to the other extreme - certainly don't agree with that either.

If a person becomes sexually active at 18 and meets their eventual spouse at 30, they could easily have had sex with far more than five people and still not have been rampantly promiscuous.

Is there a difference between someone being rampantly promiscuous and someone being merely promiscuous.

Also, you brought health into it saying that it's not healthy to have multiple partners. What is your opinion of someone being completely monogamous and only having one partner but there partner engaging in unprotected sex with 1000 people. Is that more or less healthy than a person engaging in sexual activity with 20 people? Surely it is a flawed argument to simply state that more sexual partners isn't healthy. I presume when you mentioned health it was purely about contracting sexually transmitted diseases or are you arguing that having 10 different partners is in itself inherently unhealthy?

Charles Ingles

pgj2015 wrote: »

Flowers lol

“If you ever start taking things too seriously, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe.” JOE ROGAN

It's just a turn of phrase.
I prefer to look to Jesus for inspiration not not a so called comedian

joeguevara

Charles Ingles wrote: »

The number of sexual partners is the problem for me, not the frequency of sex.

That makes sense. So a 20 year old girl who has had 4 different partners in 1 night is more pure than a 30 year old woman who has had 5 long term committed relationships over 10 years.

Charles Ingles

joeguevara wrote: »

That makes sense. So a 20 year old girl who has had 4 different partners in 1 night is more pure than a 30 year old woman who has had 5 long term committed relationships over 10 years.

Yes

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

mvl wrote: »

What year was this on ? You got me looking into the results - and only found a survey from 2015 (was Tinder popular in here then ?) https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/sex-survey/let-s-talk-about-sex-the-full-survey-results-1.2263907
- Sounds like he might be referring to the 38% sexually active women who have had less than 4 partners - this can be contemporary too

Yes, it's the 2015 survey, the one you linked.

My point is that having had 5+ sexual partners is quite normal for modern Irish women. It doesn't make someone unusually promiscuous, per another poster's use of the derogatory term "bike."

pgj2015

Charles Ingles wrote: »

It's just a turn of phrase.
I prefer to look to Jesus for inspiration not not a so called comedian

For all you know Jesus had sex with 100+ people

joeguevara

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Yes

I admire the fact that you stick to your guns even though you must see how ridiculous it is.

mvl

joeguevara wrote: »

That makes sense. So a 20 year old girl who has had 4 different partners in 1 night is more pure than a 30 year old woman who has had 5 long term committed relationships over 10 years.

I'd suggest we can only certify this after STI testing results are revealed

joeguevara

Charles Ingles wrote: »

It's just a turn of phrase.
I prefer to look to Jesus for inspiration not not a so called comedian

You do know Jesus didn't judge Mary Magdalene, a prostitute and admonished so called pious hypocrites who looked down on her. If you look to Jesus for inspiration maybe you should do a slightly better job.

Charles Ingles

joeguevara wrote: »

I admire the fact that you stick to your guns even though you must see how ridiculous it is.

Come on you know I'm right

Gimme A Pound

joeguevara wrote: »

Is there a difference between someone being rampantly promiscuous and someone being merely promiscuous.

Also, you brought health into it saying that it's not healthy to have multiple partners. What is your opinion of someone being completely monogamous and only having one partner but there partner engaging in unprotected sex with 1000 people. Is that more or less healthy than a person engaging in sexual activity with 20 people? Surely it is a flawed argument to simply state that more sexual partners isn't healthy. I presume when you mentioned health it was purely about contracting sexually transmitted diseases or are you arguing that having 10 different partners is in itself inherently unhealthy?

I don't think it's healthy mentally to have sex with countless strangers. And studies back this. It is indeed also risky in terms of STIs. It's compulsive behaviour.

I can totally understand people losing attraction to someone if they find out they've ****ed hundreds of people (for me, that would be a man - I certainly don't think it's only something applicable to women). I'd find it difficult to trust them as they likely have a sex addiction.

And would people ever give over with the intellectually dishonest "what number is acceptable?" stuff. They know full well what I mean. A few alcoholic drinks a week is enjoyable but getting drunk most days is not good for you, trying a drug now and again and being careful - if you're into that - is highly unlikely to do you harm and you'll more than likely really enjoy it, but hoovering up a few lines a day is obviously bad for you, and eating high calorie food once in a while for a tasty treat is enjoyable and makes you feel good, but doing so constantly will cause obesity and related health problems.

A perfectly healthy person has the occasional one-night stand and uses protection (because it's not a trivial thing to get so intimate with a stranger) or a short-term fling or friend with benefits.

But if it is a stream of countless one night stands with strangers - you're kidding yourself that this is healthy behaviour.

joeguevara

mvl wrote: »

I'd suggest we can only certify this after STI testing results are revealed

No need as we have been instructed that only numbers are important to virtue. The fact that the girl who had 4 partners in one night could have engaged in a 5 way gangbang with Somalian sailors is irrelevant. She is better than someone who had 5 committed loving relationships over 10 years.

EmmetSpiceland

joeguevara wrote: »

You do know Jesus didn't judge Mary Magdalene, a prostitute and admonished so called pious hypocrites who looked down on her. If you look to Jesus for inspiration maybe you should do a slightly better job.

Mary Magdalene wasn’t a prostitute.

Charles Ingles

joeguevara wrote: »

You do know Jesus didn't judge Mary Magdalene, a prostitute and admonished so called pious hypocrites who looked down on her. If you look to Jesus for inspiration maybe you should do a slightly better job.

I'm not judging anyone I'm not qualified to do so.
I think society was better when people had one partner got married and had kids

sportsfan90

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I'm not judging anyone I'm not qualified to do so.
I think society was better when people had one partner got married and had kids

People are still free to do that if they wish. And presuming you're talking about 40+ years ago, what exactly was better about society back then?

ashes2014

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I'm not judging anyone I'm not qualified to do so.
I think society was better when people had one partner got married and had kids

You are definitely judging.

You cant have unrealistic expectations in place for people (max of 5 partners) and then claim not to be judging.

Your entitled to judge if you wish, but dont say you are not.

joeguevara

Tucker Hot Bell wrote: »

I don't think it's healthy mentally to have sex with countless strangers. And studies back this. It is indeed also risky in terms of STIs. It's compulsive behaviour.

I can totally understand people losing attraction to someone if they find out they've ****ed hundreds of people (for me, that would be a man - I certainly don't think it's only something applicable to women). I'd find it difficult to trust them as they likely have a sex addiction.

And would people ever give over with the intellectually dishonest "what number is acceptable?" stuff. They know full well what I mean. A few alcoholic drinks a week is enjoyable but getting drunk most days is not good for you, trying a drug now and again and being careful - if you're into that - is highly unlikely to do you harm and you'll more than likely really enjoy it, but hoovering up a few lines a day is obviously bad for you, and eating high calorie food once in a while for a tasty treat is enjoyable and makes you feel good, but doing so constantly will cause obesity and related health problems.

A perfectly healthy person has the occasional one-night stand and uses protection, or a short-term fling or friend with benefits.

But if it is a stream of countless one night stands with strangers - you're kidding yourself that this is healthy behaviour.

So your basic belief is that sex is unhealthy. You liken it to alcohol, drugs and food. You have brought mental health and sexual addiction into the mix too. My God you have a warped view of sex in my opinion but if it works for you then that's what works for you. But to say that people who have a different view to be an addict or have the possibility of damaging their mental health is not acceptable.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I'm not judging anyone I'm not qualified to do so.
I think society was better when people had one partner got married and had kids

You're likely referring to a time when women got married in their late teens or early twenties and were expected to be virgins on their wedding night.

Nowadays, the average Irish woman does not get married until she's 34. She invests a lot more time in getting an education, building a career, saving for a mortgage, etc., than women typically did forty or fifty years ago.

Society is completely different now. And yet you are not making any allowance for that.

Gimme A Pound

joeguevara wrote: »

So your basic belief is that sex is unhealthy.

"So"... no it isn't obviously. Because that's not what I said at all whatsoever.