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

username123 · 11-07-2014 02:41PM

h.bolla wrote: »

1) well, she never lied, but she delibertily hid it

So she didnt lie at all?

Had you previously expressed to her that you would think a past sexual history of 500+ was a terrible thing?

Aurora Green · 11-07-2014 02:41PM

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Would you refuse to date a girl who'd shagged her one BF 500 times then too?

In fairness chances are she has taken some whoppers, if the bell curve applies.

username123 · 11-07-2014 02:42PM

Luke92 wrote: »

So your telling me there is no difference between a vagina that's had 500 penises versus a vagina that's had 1?

There is definitely a difference!

You know that babies come out of vaginas right? And they that are stretchy?

PLUG71 · 11-07-2014 02:42PM

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Would you refuse to date a girl who'd shagged her one BF 500 times then too?

That's not the same though!

Shagging her bf 500 times and shagging 500 different guys is a totally diffrent world.

Luke92 · 11-07-2014 02:44PM

username123 wrote: »

You know that babies come out of vaginas right? And they that are stretchy?

Yeah I do, I also know there is an operation some women have to tighten it back up after child birth.

I doubt she would even have to push. The baby would just fall right out.

Red Nissan · 11-07-2014 02:45PM

It would take a prostitute 62 days straight of nine to five @ 8 males per day to service 500 clients.

PLUG71 · 11-07-2014 02:46PM

Luke92 wrote: »

Yeah I do, I also know there is an operation some women have to tighten it back up after child birth.

I doubt she would even have to push. The baby would just fall right out.

Ambilicule bungee cord

Yeah I know I probably spelt it wrong

The Diabolical Monocle · 11-07-2014 02:46PM

5 fvcking hundred !!!
Lol.

Shes bullshttng you.

PLUG71 · 11-07-2014 02:47PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

It would take a prostitute 62 days straight of nine to five @ 8 males per day to service 500 clients.

Yeah but she would be well flush!

Penny Tration · 11-07-2014 02:48PM

BFDCH. wrote: »

larry murphy's new squeeze said the same thing when asked by reporters about Larry's past- his past is none of her business.
If she was upfront with OP to begin with I don't think there would've been an issue, if she misled him in the way that he suggested for that long then it's fair enough to have a problem with it.

You're really comparing a promiscuous woman to a violent rapist?

JC01 · 11-07-2014 02:49PM

Sweet Devine Jesus I can't beleive some of the responses in this thread. The girl had 500 partners before you and had you told for years you were her third? The mind absolutely boggles...

I would have told her to get the boat aswell the girl obviously hasn't an ounce of self respect. Wev all had the odd drunk one night stand but I'm not sure how many people that don't do it professionally have had 500 partners. And I would have thought maybe after 100,200,300 that she might maybe have thought "hold on that's kinda a lotta people"

And none of that even begins to address the massive lie she has been actively telling you.

To some of the posters in here bemoaning "double Standerds" whinge all ya want but if I'm looking for a decent ride of a night i might go to for the town (county??) bike and quite obviously not have a hard time about getting it. If I'm looking for a long term relationship and eventually a wife etc. well then strangely enough I might be tempted to look at someone else. And no woman on the planet,no matter how liberal and new age and all that crap can say she wouldn't feel the same about a man with 500 previous sexual partners.

Admittedly that comes across as a bit of a rant but honestly, 500...

11-07-2014 02:49PM

h.bolla wrote: »

This attitude really blows my mind. How do you gentlmen feel about the whole thing?

It may be that I am slow today but I am not sure which "attitude" you are discussing? Is it the attitude that being that promiscuous is ok that you are asking about? Or is it the attitude that her sexual history is none of your business.

Because it really is not your business. You have every right to ask a partner what their sexual history is of course. But they are in no way obliged to tell you. If they _choose_ to then that is ok - but if they do not then this is too.

At which point you have every right to leave the relationship - if knowledge of a partners sexual history is that important to you - or build a bridge for yourself and get over it.

h.bolla wrote: »

Emmm.... the attitude that we had to have an absolute blazing row with her smashing the place before she finally admitted that there was a possiblity that I may not be her third sexual partner? That attitude maybe.

There are problems there. Having rows and smashing things is poor form and she could probably do with looking into anger management.

Her error was to tell you anything at all really and to choose to lie. That was not a good choice. If she did not want you to know her sexual past she should simply have told you nothing. Lying about it only compounded and exacerbated the issue.

h.bolla wrote: »

If its such a non-issue why does she get uppety about it?

Often the reason people get upset over non issues is because of the reactions of OTHERS to it. It may be a non-issue to her - what her sexual past was - but what _is_ an issue to her is peoples attitudes to it. Yours included it seems as your vicarious judgements of someone promiscuous that you do not even know - led you to make comments about something that reflected directly on your partner - even if you did not know this at the time.

And it is that - more than the past itself - which fuels her emotional and unwarranted reaction on the matter.

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.

She was under no obligation to inform you of any such thing. Such information is not - and never was - your due.

TimeToShine wrote: »

It's her problem because she lied to him and told him he was her third boyfriend.

Actually do we know this is NOT true? I - like you - assumed it was not true when I was writing my reply to the OP above.

But now you mention it - she said "boyfriends" not "partners". Maybe he is actually her third boyfriend? It might actually be entirely true actually.

Of course the OP can shrilly cry out "Lie of omission" here and be somewhat warranted in it - but the OP and us here on the thread were assuming she was flat out lying when her claim might actually be entirely true.

EDIT: Reading on I see Bluewolf got to this realisation before me.

TimeToShine wrote: »

If you're willing to defend a woman who let herself get railed by 5 men on the trot with the line "women like sex too" then you are deluded beyond measure.

Actually I do not think anyone is even defending it. Rather we are pointing out there is _nothing TO defend_. There is absolutely nothing wrong with group sex - many people have tried it - many people want to. There is nothing to defend because there was nothing done wrong.

h.bolla wrote: »

But the drinking games bumped it alot apparantly where you could end up doing sexual acts on 2 or 3 people per game. But yeh- her guesses not mine.

And what "sexual acts" means might be more varied than you think and not all as bad as you might be imaginging. As I was growing up "sexual acts" were stupid things like stick your hand down the pants of some other member of the game for a few seconds - or kissing - or silly things. Are these included in her number of 500?

I have been in a lot of such games myself over recent years and the "sexual acts" are rarely much more beyond heavy petting. Very little to get sweaty and bothered about. I can think of - in all the games - about 5 incidents involving myself of my current partners that got in any way wantonly sexual.

newport2 wrote: »

That doesn't really come across as the main point in the OP though.

Agreed. Especially given the actual title of the thread reflects what the OP now says the thread is about - in no way whatsoever really.

Luke92 wrote: »

Let's be realistic here. If a woman you were out on a date with said yeah I've had over 500 sexual partners, you certainly wouldn't be marrying her!

I would not be marrying her for _that reason_. I also would not be NOT marrying for that reason either. I judge people on who they are today - not who or what they were in the past (with the occasional exception of breaking some of more cherished laws of course).

An active sexual past - even in an extreme - would not be a preclusion factor in my decision to enter into a relationship. My current partners have not had such a past - but that was in no way a factor in my choice to be with them. I mediate my choices of partners on a big enough list of things anyway - this simply would not be on the list at all.

TimeToShine wrote: »

lads actually do take history into account.

Speak for yourself kid - you are not speaking in my name or in the name of anyone I know who I can think of.

h.bolla wrote: »

1) well, she never lied, but she delibertily hid it

Nothing wrong with that at all.

h.bolla wrote: »

2) that she got mad and flew off the handle before having to admit it

Her anger is an issue. She was out of line there. But your own use of language here belies your attitude. She did not just tell you. She "admitted" it you say. The negativity associated with that word is clear. People TELL you information. They ADMIT to crimes and misdeeds.

h.bolla wrote: »

3) when she said I dont deserve her for not being able to accept what happened

She is in the wrong here for sure. Everyone has their own personal standards in a relationship. Some people judge on sexual history as one of their standards. There is nothing wrong with that per se. You are one of those people perhaps - and if so then a relationship with her is not for you.

She did nothing wrong in having an active sex life in the past. You are doing nothing wrong by not wanting to be in a relationship with someone who has had an active sexual past.

The only wrong I see is in her lying about it when there was no need to it. Her reaction of unwarranted rage and near violence at being questioned on the topic. And you feeling the information on her past is something you somehow had a right to or expectation of.

h.bolla wrote: »

4) Then I was shocked to see others, even people in this thread telling me that her history is bascially none of my business

Its not. At all. IF you think it is - then you are in the wrong here.

JC01 wrote: »

Sweet Devine Jesus I can't beleive some of the responses in this thread. The girl had 500 partners before you and had you told for years you were her third? The mind absolutely boggles...

Again - she told him he was her third BOYFRIEND. Not third partner.

Aurora Green · 11-07-2014 02:49PM

green_screen wrote: »

You're really comparing a promiscuous woman to a violent rapist?

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

ZeroThreat · 11-07-2014 02:50PM

What's the average no of partners in this country for a man & woman by age 30?

Just curious.

newport2 · 11-07-2014 02:50PM

h.bolla wrote: »

What? I never said or even alluded that cheated on me???

I know you didn't. I was referring to this post (it was quoted in my post)

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

It's always easy to just say the past is the past but in reality, finding out that you're dating someone who has been that promiscuous would end in trust issues. It happened to a friend of mine who was dating a girl for a while before he found out about her past sexual experiences. It completely changed his view of her and get very paranoid if she didn't want sex. He never let it become an argument but was constantly thinking about how much she had before him, and that if she didn't want it from him then she must have been getting it somewhere else. He just ended it because it got too much for him.

Wibbs · 11-07-2014 02:50PM

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Would you refuse to date a girl who'd shagged her one BF 500 times then too?

Completely daft comparison.

h.bolla wrote: »

Then I was shocked to see others, even people in this thread telling me that her history is bascially none of my business and trying to make me feel like im closed minded and Im in the wrong here.

All too often an "open mind" is one that agrees with the prevailing winds of acceptable opinion.

Luke92 wrote:

So your telling me there is no difference between a vagina that's had 500 penises versus a vagina that's had 1?

There is definitely a difference!

There isn't. Makes little or no difference. I've been with women who had a couple of sexual encounters before me who were "generous" in internal dimension and women who would have had numbers more like the OP's ex who were vise like. This idea is up there with the belief that the size of a man's hands/feet/ears/whatever is an indicator of the size of his penis.

ZeroThreat wrote:

Don't they say when you sleep with someone, it's the same as sleeping with all their previous partners health wise?

"They" say that alright, but usually in safe sex anti STD posters. Disease transmission doesn't work like that. You don't build up a pathogen load with every contact. Not even close. I've had measles(both kinds) mumps, whooping cough, chicken pox, malaria, various flus and other lurgys including exposure to infectious TB. Doesn't mean if you shake my hand you're gonna come down with any of that lot.

Also, you must have great technique and be endowed like Dirk Diggler if she was faithful to you for 3 years - given that someone having slept with 500 others would most likely have seen all shapes and sizes...

Again a fallacy. A male one, based on penile insecurity. A huge one won't keep a woman in a relationship, nor will a small one lose her. Plus emotional connection is a hugh part of things. Put it another way the "best" sex I've had on a technical and physical level wasn't with women I've loved, but sex with them was better on so many levels.

uch · 11-07-2014 02:52PM

I still fail to see how something someone did before you Met them is any of your business

username123 · 11-07-2014 02:52PM

JC01 wrote: »

And no woman on the planet,no matter how liberal and new age and all that crap can say she wouldn't feel the same about a man with 500 previous sexual partners.

Im a woman. On the planet. I couldnt care less about how many past sexual partners someone has had.

blatantrereg · 11-07-2014 02:53PM

Yeah I think 500 might have been an exaggeration, made out of anger at your attitude OP.

I'd rather not think about a partner's sexual history.

I was bothered by a gf's sexual past when her number of previous partners was very small - I felt she wouldn't realise how awesome I was.

uch · 11-07-2014 02:53PM

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

Penny Tration · 11-07-2014 02:57PM

Aurora Green wrote: »

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

Except we're talking about peoples' past in a sexual context. Rape has nothing to do with sex.

newport2 · 11-07-2014 02:59PM

Wibbs wrote: »

"Originally Posted by newport2
You probably wouldn't be good enough to keep someone that experienced happy in bed, so just as well."

*facepalm* Imagine that response with the genders reversed. Cue low level shítestorm.

That wasn't the context I meant it in. I was responding to a poster who referred to her as a "used flesh light"

Luke92 · 11-07-2014 02:59PM

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.

JC01 · 11-07-2014 03:02PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again - she told him he was her third BOYFRIEND. Not third partner.

Ahh give over, a lie is a lie. Who wants to be ina relationship where every conversation has to be watched by a friggin Soliciter to see if the wording of a sentence constitutes a lie or not. I'm sure the topic came up more than once and her story was always that the OP was her third. That is a blatant lie.

username123 · 11-07-2014 03:03PM

Luke92 wrote: »

But 500 people is a bit much for my liking.

What number is ok? And why?

Wibbs · 11-07-2014 03:04PM

Aurora Green wrote: »

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

It is. Anyone who thinks it isn't is being naive, though they may think they're being mature. Our past is what informs the person of today. Patterns repeat and not just sexually. Precious few people change much beyond reaching adulthood. If someone has done things as a repeated meme in the past it does inform their character today. Now it can inform it in a healthy way, most things do as people learn from their past, but it can also inform it in an unhealthy way and having some idea of that past is a good thing for all concerned.

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually I do not think anyone is even defending it. Rather we are pointing out there is _nothing TO defend_. There is absolutely nothing wrong with group sex - many people have tried it - many people want to. There is nothing to defend because there was nothing done wrong.

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

Speak for yourself kid - you are not speaking in my name or in the name of anyone I know who I can think of.

Again in your name and those you know. Birds of a feather and all that. Don't assume this applies universally, it most certainly doesn't.

For me, objectively I see no "wrong" in what people want to do. As long as no one gets hurt, then play ball, whatever floats your boat. However subjectively I would have different attitudes depending on the circumstances. I can tell the difference.

uch wrote:

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

Nope. Not just men. I've lost two women in the past who found out about my sexual history. A pity, but I didn't have a fit about it, it was their choice and I could kinda see their angle on it.

Knex* · 11-07-2014 03:06PM

I'd be quite liberal in my thoughts towards sex, relationships, etc, but 500 people is a phenomenal amount of people to have had sex with.

Fair enough if she turned around and said, I've had a few 'somes, and I had a lot of casual sex. Even if the number was around 100, I'd be thinking, "That's a lot, but whatever".

100 individual partners is certainly more than the average. 500 is a whole new ball park, however. That's definitely unhealthy. When your partner informs you that they are on that number, warning signals would go off for me. Like Wibbs says, patterns repeat, and that just screams to me that its almost an addiction for her. There's only so long the honeymoon period will keep that at bay. *cynic hat*

Now, I'd be happy enough myself to be with a woman who had that past, but I'm not looking to settle down and get married. If OP had those thoughts in mind, I can certainly see why it rattled him when he found out.

I do laugh, at the OP's expense (sorry!), at the difference between the reality, and her telling him she was only with two other guys.

Standman · 11-07-2014 03:06PM

Luke92 wrote: »

So your telling me there is no difference between a vagina that's had 500 penises versus a vagina that's had 1?

There is definitely a difference!

If a woman has 1 boyfriend for a couple of years then most likely she has had sex more than 500 times, would you say the same about her vagina?

Saying she's "had 500 penises" sounds like a lot, but if they were mostly casual one night things then it's really not that much different than most people who prefer monogamous relationships I would think.

Regarding the OP, you are entitled have your own preferences when choosing your partner, but I really think that unless you made it clear to her from the start that you felt this way about promiscuous people then you shouldn't hold it against her for keeping her past to herself. Bringing up past sexual encounters, mentioning "numbers", etc, is a minefield that is best avoided in the vast majority of relationships.

You see it so often in the Personal Issues forum, one partner finds out "the number" of the other from asking through curiosity or otherwise, can't handle the answer and seemingly ruins an otherwise good relationship.

While I'm fairly sure it wouldn't bother me, I would never ask nor would I like to know my girlfriends "number" and would prefer if she never brings it up. It's simply irrelevant and while nothing bad may come of it, certainly nothing good ever seems to come out of it either.

h.bolla · 11-07-2014 03:07PM

newport2 wrote: »

I know you didn't. I was referring to this post (it was quoted in my post)

Apologies. The threads moving so fast Im speed reading everything and I thought it was aimed at me

JeffKenna · 11-07-2014 03:07PM

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?

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

Comments