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

diveout wrote: »

Not necessarily so. Depends on the person, depends on the chemistry, depends on a whole lot of variables.

Its not a numbers game. Some promiscuous people are only in it for the validation and attention, and not so much the other person.

The whole numbers obsession- ugh- sex is over rated- sensuality completely underrated.

But define "promiscuous"?!? Is someone who hooks up with a fúckbuddy during the week, "promiscuous"? Or is it someone who sleeps with a randomer at the weekend, is that "promiscuous"?

Or is it just someone who has the audacity to enjoy sex when the person they are having sex with, isn't their long term partner or spouse?!?

LordNorbury wrote: »

But define "promiscuous"?!? Is someone who hooks up with a fúckbuddy during the week, "promiscuous"? Or is it someone who sleeps with a randomer at the weekend, is that "promiscuous"?

Or is it just someone who has the audacity to enjoy sex when the person they are having sex with, isn't their long term partner or spouse?!?

Of course not. You're putting words in their mouth.
I think they mean someone who ploughs through people indiscriminately like an alley-cat would.
And obviously they don't mean someone who hooks up with a fukbuddy.

LordNorbury wrote: »

But define "promiscuous"?!? Is someone who hooks up with a fúckbuddy during the week, "promiscuous"? Or is it someone who sleeps with a randomer at the weekend, is that "promiscuous"?

Or is it just someone who has the audacity to enjoy sex when the person they are having sex with, isn't their long term partner or spouse?!?

Im not going to put a strict definition in it. Can you?

Generally speaking, I'd say someone who engages in regular indiscriminate sex.

Wibbs

The Wild Bunch wrote: »

So what's the best way to get over a current partners dalliances with her ex?

We broke up for a month over Xmas and she was straight back with him for the festive season before we got back together in January

Personally I'd scrape her off and walk away, but that's just me. Sure you had broken up and both were free agents but going straight back to banging her ex? eh no. Major red flag IMH.

BTW Lest anyone boil themselves up to righteous indignation here I would apply that to either gender.

Frank Lee Midere

LordNorbury wrote: »

There is a reason I'm single, it's because I want to be, I love my single life and am extremely happy as a single guy.

I think 500 sexual partners isn't a real figure that you can base proper considerations upon. The point doesn't really stack up I think, I have had some really long term relationships, that were proper committed relationships that I was extremely happy in, that was before I was single.

I'm single at the present time and my life is configured very differently from how it was when I was in a relationship, I have fúckbuddies, I have female friends that I met on dating sites (who are not fúckbuddies), I go on new dates regularly and I meet new people.

Nothing in the paragraph above, would be compatible with a proper meaningful relationship. By that, I mean that if I met a girl I was mad about in the morning, and these feelings happened to be reciprocated, I'd obviously have to completely reconfigure my life, as a girlfriend isn't going to run with fúckbuddies and me hanging out with female friends that started off as dates, etc. I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever making that effort and doing that transition, for the right girl, but I have not met such a person in the last few years.

But does that mean that I am somehow wrong for enjoying a healthy single life today? I think not...

What you are missing is that your prospective future partner might not be happy with you ever having **** buddies or lots of simultaneous partners. You have to convince her that she is the one, for all she knows you have made that speech for everybody.

There is no prudishness here it's mere statistics.

Also how do you know you can turn off the desire for multiple ongoing partners?

Magaggie wrote: »

Of course not. You're putting words in their mouth.
I think they mean someone who ploughs through people indiscriminately like an alley-cat would.
And obviously they don't mean someone who hooks up with a fukbuddy.

But again that's a very wooly and grey definition... I know some people would consider me to be "promiscuous", but I don't whatever consider myself to be. I can't speak for the mating habits of an alleycat, but if you are single these days and dating, it is normal enough to be having sex with someone you are dating, around a 3rd or 4th date, that is what is normal in my experience, but people who are in long term serious relationships, who are just not aware of what it is like being single in the world today, would look at that and think, "wtf"... This could be someone you could date for a month or so, or maybe longer. People date like this these days and often they (and for they read the guy and the girl), don't particularly want anything hugely serious from it, they often don't want to move in with you, they don't want a big serious thing to come from it...

But it doesn't make them "promiscuous" in my view, not a bit...

LordNorbury wrote: »

if you are single these days and dating, it is normal enough to be having sex with someone you are dating, around a 3rd or 4th date, that is what is normal in my experience, but people who are in long term serious relationships, who are just not aware of what it is like being single in the world today, would look at that and think that and think, "wtf"... This could be someone you could date for a month or so, or maybe longer. People date like this tese days and often they (and for they read the guy and the girl), don't particularly want anything hugely serious from it, they often don't want to move in with you, they don't want a big serious thing to come from it

I don't know that coupled-up people would recoil at that. This seems to stem from your "prude" assumption towards monogamous people, which... I don't know where you've got that from.

It's as bad as the olden days sexual repression talk of people who enjoyed sex being filthy.
Dating someone and having sex with them after three or four dates doesn't scream "Promiscuous" to me. I'm talking about extreme stuff, indicative of an addiction.

Wibbs wrote: »

Personally I'd scrape her off and walk away, but that's just me. Sure you had broken up and both were free agents but going straight back to banging her ex? eh no. Major red flag IMH.

BTW Lest anyone boil themselves up to righteous indignation here I would apply that to either gender.

Very true, banging the ex is the fly in the ointment...

h.bolla

LordNorbury wrote: »

But it doesn't make them "promiscuous" in my view, not a bit...

Just to quote wikipedia

Wikipedia wrote: »

Promiscuity, in human sexual behaviour, is the practice of having casual sex frequently with different partners.....

Magaggie wrote: »

I don't know that coupled-up people would recoil at that. This seems to stem from your "prude" assumption towards monogamous people, which... I don't know where you've got that from.
It's as bad as the olden days sexual repression talk of people who enjoyed sex being filthy.
Dating someone and having sex with them after three or four dates doesn't scream "Promiscuous" to me. I'm talking about extreme stuff, indicative of an addiction.

No what I meant was that single people who are on really really long famines, I mean a year or two, and are dating regularly, there would be an anomaly or an inconsistency there that I would struggle to get my head around.

I've been in really long term monogamous relationships and had a fantastic sex life, so I don't equate monogamy with prudishness, it's actually the completely opposite view I would have. But if someone is dating regularly as a single person, who is single for a long time but is not having any sexual activity in their life, I'd personally find that to be strange. In my head, I'd see that as either the person being too fussy, or else maybe would not have a strong sex drive. And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the latter, (or the former for that matter), although neither would really be my cup of tea to be honest...

h.bolla wrote: »

Just to quote wikipedia

I guess I'm "promiscuous" then lol!

It's an outdated word I think, it's like saying a child is "illegitimate", it has no real or respected meaning in the world today...

LordNorbury wrote: »

if someone is dating regularly as a single person, who is single for a long time but is not having any sexual activity in their life, I'd personally find that to be strange. In my head, I'd see that as either the person being too fussy, or else maybe would not have a strong sex drive. And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the latter, (or the former for that matter), although neither would really be my cup of tea to be honest...

Or they might not have fancied any of their dates enough to have sex with them.

Wibbs

LordNorbury wrote: »

But define "promiscuous"?!? Is someone who hooks up with a fúckbuddy during the week, "promiscuous"? Or is it someone who sleeps with a randomer at the weekend, is that "promiscuous"?

Nope, but if you're batting the century(or more) that's another matter. There's more going on, especially if the person man or woman is around the 25 year old mark. That's getting obsessive if nothing else. The further details the OP imparted would make me go "eh, no. Just no". Not just the numbers, but drinking games involving public masturbation, oral sex or shagging in toilets involving a group of people. Jesus. Do not want. Again I'd be thinking the exact same if the OP was a woman mate of mine and it was her boyfriend involved. And again I'd bet that few enough women, even those saying "it's in their past, none of your beeswax", would be too happy to find out their partner was doing that kinda thing.

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, but if you're batting the century(or more) that's another matter. There's more going on, especially if the person man or woman is around the 25 year old mark. That's getting obsessive if nothing else. The further details the OP imparted would make me go "eh, no. Just no". Not just the numbers, but drinking games involving public masturbation, oral sex or shagging in toilets involving a group of people. Jesus. Do not want. Again I'd be thinking the exact same if the OP was a woman mate of mine and it was her boyfriend involved. And again I'd bet that few enough women, even those saying "it's in their past, none of your beeswax", would be too happy to find out their partner was doing that kinda thing.

For me it would actually depend on how they were framing their past and not the past itself. As in it would depend on their CURRENT attitude and perspective on what they did.

Magaggie wrote: »

Or they might not have fancied any of their dates enough to have sex with them.

Yeah but to be dating regularly or even infrequently for a year or two and not finding some spark with even one person, to the point where you might want to pursue things a bit further with them, in my experience there are only 2 reasons for that:

(1) Too fussy, or

(2) Has no or very little interest in sex in general.

There are people out there, men and women, (in fact I have a male friend who fits straight into this category), who have absolutely no interest in sex and there is nothing wrong with this. It can be a bone (no pun intended!), of contention though, as especially when internet dating, people obviously tend not to state on their profiles/descriptions, where they are with regard to this particular subject, so you never really know where you stand with it until you know the person a lot better, which can take several dates.

I don't get the "fussy" thing in this context - what should people do? Force themselves to fancy someone?
"Fussy" is being obsessive about what your curtains look like or your bathroom soap dispenser. But in the case of sex partners, it's hardly voluntary if you aren't interested in having sex with someone.

The Wild Bunch

Wibbs wrote: »

Personally I'd scrape her off and walk away, but that's just me. Sure you had broken up and both were free agents but going straight back to banging her ex? eh no. Major red flag IMH.

BTW Lest anyone boil themselves up to righteous indignation here I would apply that to either gender.

Ahh Jaysus

Magaggie wrote: »

I don't get the "fussy" thing in this context - what should people do? Force themselves to fancy someone?
"Fussy" is being obsessive about what your curtains look like or your bathroom soap dispenser. But in the case of sex partners, it's hardly voluntary if you aren't interested in having sex with someone.

Nope, but statically, if you are dating, and are going at it in any sort of intelligent form, you should be meeting people you are attracted to and statically you should be having some success with it.

But I don't want to go on about internet dating any further on this thread as it is wandering off topic, I only mentioned my own particular background as a context for the OP and his particular woes at the present time...

Yeh, it's weird though how it can happen that someone seems utterly perfect in every way on paper, and then you meet them and get on great etc etc but there's just no sexual chemistry.
One of the most disappointing, unfair things ever!

py2006 wrote: »

I think if you had a daughter your attitude may change.

Patronising nonsense. I don't have to have a daughter to have a particular attitude towards sex and sexuality. My attitude towards people's "number" is no different whether or not we are discussing my mother, my sister, my partner, my child, a random internet stranger or anyone else. My belief that there is nothing morally wrong with a high number of past sexual partners applies equally to all regardless of gender, race, sexuality, or relation to me.

Magaggie wrote: »

That's just... nuts.

The eroding of sexual repression is great, but sometimes it's just replaced with views that are equally narrowminded.

Some people simply enjoy sex way waaaaaay more with someone whom they have intense feelings for, therefore one-night stands are pretty unexciting in comparison. Prudishness doesn't even come into this. If anything they've probably done really freaky stuff with their partner.

Does this not come back to the healthy idea that the best match is to be made with someone who shares a similar value system towards sex and sexuality as you?

Lots of comments on this thread say that many men would not want a serious relationship or marriage with woman who had a lot of sexual partners in the past but the flip side of that is, a woman who had a lot of sexual partners in the past wouldn't want to be with a man who thought that way!

username123 wrote: »

Patronising nonsense. I don't have to have a daughter to have a particular attitude towards sex and sexuality. My attitude towards people's "number" is no different whether or not we are discussing my mother, my sister, my partner, my child, a random internet stranger or anyone else. My belief that there is nothing morally wrong with a high number of past sexual partners applies equally to all regardless of gender, race, sexuality, or relation to me.

There may nothing "morally wrong with it" but I would certainly raise an eyebrow and not be happy with my child's behavior if they were engaging in promiscuous behavior.

There's nothing morally wrong with eating 100 kit kats a day either, but I still would be worried about it.

Larry Wildman

username123 wrote: »

Patronising nonsense. I don't have to have a daughter to have a particular attitude towards sex and sexuality. My attitude towards people's "number" is no different whether or not we are discussing my mother, my sister, my partner, my child, a random internet stranger or anyone else. My belief that there is nothing morally wrong with a high number of past sexual partners applies equally to all regardless of gender, race, sexuality, or relation to me.

It's a good thing then that you do not have a daughter, given that you freely admit to be lacking in the moral compass department.

It is absolutely not okay to have a high number of sexual partners (this discussion centres around 500). It is absolutely not okay to appear in porn or to be "gang banged" by six guys.

I get the feeling that you're just trying to elicit a reaction from people with your "sluttish behaviour is okay" nonsense.

Larry Wildman wrote: »

It's a good thing then that you do not have a daughter, given that you freely admit to be lacking in the moral compass department.

It is absolutely not okay to have a high number of sexual partners (this discussion centres around 500). It is absolutely not okay to appear in porn or to be "gang banged" by six guys.

I get the feeling that you're just trying to elicit a reaction from people with your "sluttish behaviour is okay" nonsense.

There is no objective right or wrong number of sexual partners that it is ok to have, it is a subjective opinion.

I have reported your post for personalising against me. You are not the judge of my or anyone else's moral compass.

diveout wrote: »

There may nothing "morally wrong with it" but I would certainly raise an eyebrow and not be happy with my child's behavior if they were engaging in promiscuous behavior.

There's nothing morally wrong with eating 100 kit kats a day either, but I still would be worried about it.

I would only worry about it if it was having a detrimental effect on my child's mental or physical health. I'm not sure I'd even be discussing my adult child's sex life with them! But if we did discuss it and she liked a lot of sex, it wouldn't be my place to condemn (or congratulate) it, it'd be her business.

Larry Wildman

username123 wrote: »

There is no objective right or wrong number of sexual partners that it is ok to have, it is a subjective opinion.

I have reported your post for personalising against me. You are not the judge of my or anyone else's moral compass.

There was no personal attack on you...it's your opinion that I have a problem with.

Your contention regarding subjectivity is also laughable because it ignores the existence of objective morality.

And public claims such as "post reported" etc are themselves a breach of the rules.

Your views and contentions regarding sexual mores are laughable to be honest. It is not "okay" to sleep with 500 people and to teach a child or teenager otherwise is shocking. People need to be taught to have respect for themselves and for others.

username123 wrote: »

I would only worry about it if it was having a detrimental effect on my child's mental or physical health. I'm not sure I'd even be discussing my adult child's sex life with them! But if we did discuss it and she liked a lot of sex, it wouldn't be my place to condemn (or congratulate) it, it'd be her business.

I'd worry about it as being symptomatic of mental health issues tbh, even something as basic as self regulation or impulse control, using sex to dull sensitivity, to gain validation or attention, ego boosting, peer pressure, or something else.

Larry Wildman wrote: »

There was no personal attack on you...it's your opinion that I have a problem with.

Your contention regarding subjectivity is also laughable because it ignores the existence of objective morality.

And public claims such as "post reported" etc are themselves a breach of the rules.

Your views and contentions regarding sexual mores are laughable to be honest. It is not "okay" to sleep with 500 people and to teach a child or teenager otherwise is shocking. People need to be taught to have respect for themselves and for others.

It may be your opinion that my views on sexual mores are laughable, I find your own assertions repugnant, childish and your use of the term sluttish pathetic, if you can't make your point without using derogatory terms then you don't have much of a point to make.

You think sex is something dirty and wrong, that's fine, you are entitled to hold that catholic informed opinion. There is no objective morality regarding an individual's private sex life.

Ironic that you feel people need to be taught respect for others when you yourself display such a disrespectful attitude to the opinions of others and use such derogatory terms about the behaviour of women.