Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

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

1…78101213…27

Comments

  • #272
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,252 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Thats well too much. It's a bloody turn off.
    Yeah everyone has a past but 500 blokes?! ...

    I am actually laughing at some of the responsives so far :rolleyes: Such pc crap. Now I know the op was already in a relationship when he heard the facts (that sucks) But lets all be honest here lads.... if you meet a girl. Have a few dates and she turns around and says "erm... think i've slept with 500" - There's no way you would get into a relationship. You wouldn't. Unless there is something wrong with you.

    most blokes would probably become the 501st :rolleyes: But same blokes would NEVER get into a relationship.


  • #273
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Hazys wrote: »
    TBH 500 people in a country of 2 million men is a very fair sample size in statistics

    Not really no - and as you say that is even assuming that the 500 were even all located on these shores - which is not an assumption I would make. The encounters may have been abroad. The people in the encounters may have been in Ireland at the time but were from abroad or now live there. Given the time frame and the sample set a not insignificant number of them may simply be dead.

    The statistical likelihood of any one of them just happening to cross paths - let alone to be aware of each other after that many years - I doubt are all that great. Given drink was involved by the sounds of it they probably would not even recognize each other the next day - let alone this many years later.

    And this is all further assuming the 500 figure is even accurate and not grossly exaggerated in the heat of argument which - a few posters now - many here are suggesting.


  • #274
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,132 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Da Shins Kelly wrote: »
    For people who can't handle what they hear in these conversations, I'd say yeah it is. If your partner's past bothers you or if its something you don't like thinking about (I don't blame anyone for not liking to hear that) then don't start asking questions or getting into an interrogation about it because you're not going to like what you hear more often than not and it may end up ruining an otherwise good relationship. Unless there's a previous relationship that was hugely significant (like resulting in a child as was already mentioned, or if there was some baggage from the relationship or something) I don't see the point in getting into it, especially not this numbers game so many seem to enjoy playing. You're just going to drive yourself crazy.

    I don't think it would be a partner's past experience would bother me emotionally. It would primarily be the disease factor for me. There is no way I would have sex with a promiscuous partner. HIV, Herpes, chlamydia and all the rest. HIV was only identified in the 80's, a measly 30 years ago. It has killed 36 million people since.

    Whatever people can even be tested for, or is evident, who knows what is dormant or yet to be unidentified.

    That's the Ickiness which is instinctual. Disease.


  • #275
    beano345
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,105 ✭✭✭beano345


    Tasden wrote: »
    As long as she is free from stds its nobody else's business how many people she has slept with.

    If you have a problem with the amount of people she has slept with the problem is yours not hers.

    I really don't see the issue. As long as people protect themselves it doesn't matter how many people they have sex with, whether its 6 on one night or 6 throughout their life, if they have decided to be monogamous and faithful to you now then it makes not one bit of difference to your relationship with them.

    Being annoyed at her for lying to you, if she did lie, is a separate issue.

    I'd safely say she has at least HPV if your to believe the figures knocking about,especially after sleeping with 500 people not good odds


  • #276
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not really no - and as you say that is even assuming that the 500 were even all located on these shores - which is not an assumption I would make. The encounters may have been abroad. The people in the encounters may have been in Ireland at the time but were from abroad or now live there. Given the time frame and the sample set a not insignificant number of them may simply be dead.

    The statistical likelihood of any one of them just happening to cross paths - let alone to be aware of each other after that many years - I doubt are all that great. Given drink was involved by the sounds of it they probably would not even recognize each other the next day - let alone this many years later.

    And this is all further assuming the 500 figure is even accurate and not grossly exaggerated in the heat of argument which - a few posters now - many here are suggesting.

    You said statistically, you only need 384 people to be a sample set of 2,000,000 with a 5% margin of error and 5% confidence interval. http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#one

    So even if 116 were abroad we're good...that's not even taking into account that only about half 2 million "men" in Ireland are over 18.

    Anyway, its a bit misleading, we are not sampling these 500 men to see how many of the Irish male population slept with the OP's GF, as the number would come out at over 100%, and if that's case...

    r91ybup.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    Fox_In_Socks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭Fox_In_Socks


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not really no - and as you say that is even assuming that the 500 were even all located on these shores - which is not an assumption I would make. The encounters may have been abroad. The people in the encounters may have been in Ireland at the time but were from abroad or now live there. Given the time frame and the sample set a not insignificant number of them may simply be dead.

    :eek: Due to what, do you know?:eek:


  • #278
    cletus van damme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 960 ✭✭✭cletus van damme


    Magaggie wrote: »
    Seems like confirmation bias. From what I saw, it was 50/50.

    nah. I think you are not correct As I never mentioned number I mentioned the tone of the comments


    There was 50/50 comment - but the really vicious stuff was female driven and very much so.
    Alas I spent too much time in work reading on it.


  • #279
    beano345
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,105 ✭✭✭beano345


    cletus van damme wrote: »
    nah. I think you are not correct As I never mentioned number I mentioned the tone of the comments


    There was 50/50 comment - but the really vicious stuff was female driven and very much so.
    Alas I spent too much time in work reading on it.

    I seen a link on facebook to one of the papers running the magaluf story,the comments between women on it got so bad they were taking screenshots and threatening legal action against each other even bringing their kids into aswell.


  • #280
    Daveysil15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,301 ✭✭✭Daveysil15


    newport2 wrote: »
    Did she have time for work?

    Maybe that was her work.


  • #281
    Pawwed Rig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Milly33 wrote: »
    From my knowing men are normally the sleeper rounders which there is nothing said about that so why should it be different just because the woman was doing the sleeping with.

    How is it even possible that men are the 'sleeper rounders'? They must be sleeping with someone
    Banjoxed wrote: »
    What someone did before they met me is none of my business.
    If I am considering spending my life with womeone I would consider their past to be very relevant. People don't change that much unless they have a Road to Damascus experience which does not seem to be the case here. Damn right I would want to know if my potential mate had been with so many previous. Same as if they were a shop lifter, bi sexual, had previous children, previous marriages, criminal tendencies. Of course it is your business.
    Aurora Green wrote: »
    Nope, my position is that there is nothing wrong with being promiscuous and there is also nothing wrong with someone not wanting their partner to be promiscuous. Everyone is entitled to their personal preferences.
    Sensible post


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    House of Blaze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 627 ✭✭✭House of Blaze


    beano345 wrote: »
    I seen a link on facebook to one of the papers running the magaluf story,the comments between women on it got so bad they were taking screenshots and threatening legal action against each other even bringing their kids into aswell.

    Reminds me of this article I read a while ago about a study done on slut shaming in the US.

    Conclusions; there's no such thing as a slut, women tend to slut shame each other without regard to actual levels of sexual activity.

    Interesting read though.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-slut/371773/

    Also seems to confirm the notion that women from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to be promiscuous.


  • #283
    beano345
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,105 ✭✭✭beano345


    House of Blaze wrote: »
    Reminds me of this article I read a while ago about a study done on slut shaming in the US.

    Conclusions; there's no such thing as a slut, women tend to slut shame each other without regard to actual levels of sexual activity.

    Interesting read though.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-slut/371773/

    Also seems to confirm the notion that women from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to be promiscuous.

    I was telling a mate about that newspaper link with the comments and he came out with an interesting take on it,he reckons women are the most vicious at slut shaming each other because a promiscuous women lowers the value of sex, one of the main reasons a woman can manipulate a man and get things done for her.


  • #284
    yourpics
    Closed Accounts Posts: 904 ✭✭✭yourpics


    OP I note you say you and your GF broke up, can you send me on her contact details, thanks in advance


  • #285
    Sh1tbag OToole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭Sh1tbag OToole


    h.bolla wrote: »
    She guessed all in all that she'd had around 500 partners give or take.


    Holy Che Guevara !!


  • #286
    bilbot79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭bilbot79


    It's true that her past is none of your business but I would hazard a guess that after 500 partners you wouldn't be the last. I would think a girl like that would cheat


  • #287
    Royal Legend
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭Royal Legend


    Was it a sixum or a gang bang? Did they take turns or did 3 go and 3 wait?
    Just wondering


  • #288
    Buzz Killington the third
    Closed Accounts Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Buzz Killington the third


    bilbot79 wrote: »
    It's true that her past is none of your business

    Well upon entering into a relationship, her past catching up on her would become his business. Would you like to be the guy who's going out with the girl that has the bad rep? The one that was always easy? Etc etc


  • #289
    Da Shins Kelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,047 ✭✭✭Da Shins Kelly


    pwurple wrote: »
    I don't think it would be a partner's past experience would bother me emotionally. It would primarily be the disease factor for me. There is no way I would have sex with a promiscuous partner. HIV, Herpes, chlamydia and all the rest. HIV was only identified in the 80's, a measly 30 years ago. It has killed 36 million people since.

    Whatever people can even be tested for, or is evident, who knows what is dormant or yet to be unidentified.

    That's the Ickiness which is instinctual. Disease.

    Well, obviously people being safe is important. That goes without saying.

    Just in my experience, the people who tend to ask a lot of questions about someone's past are the kind of people who don't want to hear the honest answers anyway. I don't see the benefit in digging it all up and to be honest, I would point blank refuse to have that conversation with someone because generally it just causes a whole load of grief.


  • #290
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    bilbot79 wrote: »
    It's true that her past is none of your business but I would hazard a guess that after 500 partners you wouldn't be the last. I would think a girl like that would cheat

    Of course. There was a similiar discussion on the other forums here - either personal or LL - where I said exactly that but was shut down because "a persons past is not your business" is the PC belief.

    It's rubbish. Imagine you meet somebody at work, get on with him/her, go out and get it on; and then find out s/he has slept with lots of people in the Office, and 500 over all. But s/he tells you that you are now the one, and from now on s/he is now monogamous.


    It *could* be true. People do settle down.

    Buts it's not prudish to be concerned.


  • #291
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,252 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Magaggie wrote: »
    Ew, despise that too. "She's a slut but I'm going to shag her anyway and contribute to her 'slutdom'" - colossal hypocrisy. And worse than any "sluttiness".
    While nothing will make me believe having sex with 500 people is a healthy thing (in the case of a woman or man) some of the things being said about her on this thread are despicable.

    I wouldn't shag a woman with such an amount. You have to be careful with STDs in this day and age.

    Sure take a girl who's shagged even 100 guys. You have to assume a few were poxed up. Throw in the mix of alcohol and the carelessness of not wearing a condom that can follow with (not to mention how do you even know they practiced safe sex to begin with?!) and you would be mad to have sex with such a person.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭seenitall


    Thread is heaving with double standards, as usual.

    Makes me glad that I can say I have a completely opposite situation in my life right now, where my boyfriend was actually disappointed with my relatively low count of past sexual partners (less than 10).

    He only cheered up once I told him that, including all types of sexual activity (not just vaginal penetrative), the number is much, much higher. :D

    He finds the thought a turn-on because he likes having an experienced and sexually adventurous woman for a partner.

    What a gem. *smug*


  • #293
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,313 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    This post has been deleted.


  • #294
    Shakespeare's Sister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    I wouldn't shag a woman with such an amount. You have to be careful with STDs in this day and age.

    Sure take a girl who's shagged even 100 guys. You have to assume a few were poxed up. Throw in the mix of alcohol and the carelessness of not wearing a condom that can follow with (not to mention how do you even know they practiced safe sex to begin with?!) and you would be mad to have sex with such a person.
    Any guys who do have sex with her despite being disgusted with her promiscuity are total hypocrites though, seeing as they're actively contributing to this promiscuity that causes them such disgust.


  • #295
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    seenitall wrote: »
    Thread is heaving with double standards, as usual.

    Makes me glad that I can say I have a completely opposite situation in my life right now, where my boyfriend was actually disappointed with my relatively low count of past sexual partners (less than 10).

    He only cheered up once I told him that, including all types of sexual activity (not just vaginal penetrative), the number is much, much higher. :D

    He finds the thought a turn-on because he likes having an experienced and sexually adventurous woman for a partner.

    What a gem. *smug*

    There are some examples of double standards but not too many.

    Why would sexual adventurism be related to number of partners though?


  • #296
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭seenitall


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Why would sexual adventurism be related to number of partners though?

    I would have thought the link obvious, but maybe it isn't.

    Generally, the more partners a person has, the more sexual styles, positions and preferences they will encounter and try out. For that to happen, they must be willing, and open to new sexual experiences. IME.

    Or am I talking nonsense? :)


  • #297
    carraig2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,072 ✭✭✭carraig2


    I think a lot of men like to think they have the same or more experience than their partners. I would anyway. If my gf had 500+ partners I would feel inadequate.


  • #298
    buried
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,980 ✭✭✭buried


    The OP is totally within their own right to seek a relationship with someone who isn't/hasn't been promiscuous. If that sort of behaviour is not compatible with the OP's own personal & emotional standards then the OP is totally correct and within their own god-given rights as a normal human being to distance themselves from it.

    Everyone in the modern world judge's other peoples personality traits and whether those traits are comparable with their own when seeking a potential relationship or developing a more serious one. That's just a fact of life and the way things are, so what is the difference here?

    The OP is supposed to go against their own personal, emotional standards and their own personal compatibility trait because some folk on the anonymous, avatar laden, edgy internet thinks a potential partner having 6-some's with whoever and has sexual contact with 500 previous other random sexual partner's, which the partner has even lied about, is cool and the OP doesn't? Some folks on here should get over themselves and instead, get real.

    Bullet The Blue Shirts



  • #299
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    seenitall wrote: »
    I would have thought the link obvious, but maybe it isn't.

    Generally, the more partners a person has, the more sexual styles, positions and preferences they will encounter and try out. For that to happen, they must be willing, and open to new sexual experiences. IME.

    Or am I talking nonsense? :)

    Well there might be a small correlation. It's perfectly possible to be adventurous with one partner.


  • #300
    Milly33
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,663 ✭✭✭Milly33


    Magaggie wrote: »
    How do you just get over something?
    She wasn't being honest for ages, that's the problem. And "she may have done some stuff" is a dishonest downplaying of it.
    She may not be a different person to when she was younger either.

    It would put me off a man, so I'm not making this about women only.

    It would you but everyone is different.. Sorry I am not reading through all the posts but maybe the op wasn't going out with the lady in question for that long.. It takes a lot to open up to people especially those who you are close too, to come out and say well look I done some stuff that may not have been great but that has nothing to do with them as a couple.. Yeah she done it, but then did that stop them meeting and having a nice realationship nope, not until she did come out and say it and he went off an on..In that case I would defo say she should have fecking got in there first and dumped him


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    InReality
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭InReality


    I think its gas that everyone now seems to think is that any number of sexual partners a person has had in the past must be disregarded by their current partner.

    Whereas if there was an internet 50 years asking someone that question on would get you quite a different answer.

    Seems these beliefs are totally based on social pressure ( in both cases ).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement