h.bolla wrote: OK. I would like to ask to username123 (or any of the other girls on here) why they feel thats its absolutely none of a mans business what went on in a girls past? Whats the logical reason? Why do girls get so defensive about it?
beks101 wrote: » Because
beks101 wrote: » Because we're positively exhausted of being judged for who and when and how many men we choose to sleep with. Because we’re sick of that being used as a barometer of our character, of our morality, of our mental stability, or of our value as women. Because we’re bored sh1tless of the retarded lock-and-key analogy that is trotted out when it comes to this stuff, and the blatant double standard that exists when it comes to men having consensual sex with multiple partners.
beks101 wrote: » why the fcuk can’t a woman have forty thousand partners and experience the same repercussions as that as a man
green_screen wrote: » But people calling her a bitch, whore, tramp and slut, I take issue with. Having sex does not mean you're a slut, ffs, no matter how many people it's been with. I think it's disgusting that she infected the OP, and I wouldn't consider defending that. .
py2006 wrote: » What is the polite and politically correct term for some who goes to such extremes in terms of figures and in terms of where and how and lies about it to their partner and goes beserk when he is shocked to find out? Then to top things off she infects him with some sort of disease?
chalcedony wrote: » and yea, a partners sexual past shouldn't be anyone's business, as long as you know they're clean of STDs
py2006 wrote: » If its none of their business (an assumption is there is something to hide?) then how would the partner be aware of an STD?
green_screen wrote: » I don't have a derogatory word about her sleeping around because I don't see why she should be criticised for it.
green_screen wrote: » Goz, in response to you asking why I believe it's none of a man's business what I've done sexually (can't find the post to quote it, sorry) - Because it's my past. My past has moulded and shaped me into who I am today, but it does not define me. Similarly, I don't think my boyfriend's sexual history is any of my business. As long as he's free from diseases, I don't care who or what he did. I didn't know him in the past, so it's nothing to do with me. I know his number (which is very high) aand he knows mine (very low) just because it happened to come up in conversation. I know he slept with one of my old friends before meeting me, again because it happened to come up in conversation. Neither of us asked each other, and neither of us care. We're together because we love each other, that's the only part that matters to us. With regards to the girl in the OP, I wouldn't do what she did. I've never had casual sex. I think the number is insanely high. I understand that many people would be turned off by it. But people calling her a bitch, whore, tramp and slut, I take issue with. Having sex does not mean you're a slut, ffs, no matter how many people it's been with. I think it's disgusting that she infected the OP, and I wouldn't consider defending that. But casual sex, does not a whore make.
py2006 wrote: » It is a bit more than just sleeping around in fairness. This thread is interesting as it appears that the gender of the person is very relevant. There is a suggestion that a man would not be criticised to the same extent and even be classed as some sort of hero by his fellow men. I find that astounding. I would certainly not be high five-ing any of my friends for it. Also if we were talking about a man, you would not get the usual female posters popping in here defending his behaviour.
green_screen wrote: » Usual female posters? :rolleyes: I'd defend any person, male or female, being called horrible names just because they've had a lot of sexual partners.
py2006 wrote: » It is a bit more than just sleeping around in fairness. This thread is interesting as it appears that the gender of the person is very relevant. There is a suggestion that a man would not be criticised to the same extent and even be classed as some sort of hero by his fellow men. I find that astounding. I would certainly not be high five-ing any of my friends for it. Also if we were talking about a man, you would not get the usual female posters popping in here defending his behaviour. I mean the posts that say 'women can like sex too' suggesting that the premise of this thread is to state the opposite.
Magaggie wrote: » Yeh I don't see the need for saying "slut" just because that's deemed the correct term and that's just the way it is and "I'm not PC". It's an ugly word, no need for it at all - and there is no male equivalent.
beks101 wrote: » People can go into overdrive with that, because why the fcuk can’t a woman have forty thousand partners and experience the same repercussions as that as a man, who would probably be hailed as some sort of legend[...]?
py2006 wrote: » If a man was to have 500 sexual encounters, a lot of which in dubious scenarios, resulting from over use of alcohol and contracted some sort of disease and then misled/lied to his current long term girlfriend. Then goes beserk because she finds out and is shocked and to top things off gives her a disease. You would NOT and I repeat NOT have any woman defending his behaviour or say in response, 'oh a man can have sex like that if he wants, you can't judge' etc etc. And there would be some very choice words/phrases thrown his way for sure. We would all be disgusted and rightly so.
py2006 wrote: » There is a suggestion that a man would not be criticised to the same extent and even be classed as some sort of hero by his fellow men. I find that astounding. I would certainly not be high five-ing any of my friends for it.
If a man was to have 500 sexual encounters, a lot of which in dubious scenarios, resulting from over use of alcohol and contracted some sort of disease and then misled/lied to his current long term girlfriend. Then goes beserk when the girlfriend finds out and to top things off gives her a disease. You would NOT and I repeat NOT have any woman defending his behaviour or say in response, 'oh a man can have sex like that if he wants, you can't judge' etc etc. And there would be some very choice words/phrases thrown his way for sure.
beks101 wrote: » Because we're positively exhausted of being judged for who and when and how many men we choose to sleep with. Because we’re sick of that being used as a barometer of our character, of our morality, of our mental stability, or of our value as women. Because we’re bored sh1tless of the retarded lock-and-key analogy that is trotted out when it comes to this stuff, and the blatant double standard that exists when it comes to men having consensual sex with multiple partners. I simply cannot fathom 500+ sexual partners. Or 100 partners. And I’m a woman who has had casual sex and would have quite an appetite. I’ve had sex on my terms, because I was horny and there was an attractive man in front of me; and I’ve had sex on other people’s terms – because they pushed for it and I naively thought it would help me get what I want, it would make them ‘like’ me more. I’ve had sex because I was lonely, or pissed, or needed an ego boost. I don’t believe sex is sacred, or special, or should be saved for a relationship. Personal preference would be to know the guy, to have a connection, to have a trust and an affection, if not a great love for each other; but needs must. I wouldn’t get into a relationship just for sex and have withstood long periods of being single where I just wanted to get laid. And I could still not fathom 500+ partners. So I couldn’t choose to defend it or explain it away – man or woman, it’s an inexplicable number to me. 6-somes, numerous blowjobs in a nightclub, public masturbation because you’ve lost some drinking game…and all these things repeatedly, commonly…I cannot relate to. They don’t even register as acts of sexual gratification to me – where’s the pleasure? Where’s the orgasm? Where’s that mind-numbing moment of ecstasy that makes even the most questionable encounter worthwhile? I couldn’t defend the OP’s ex but I can understand the jump to. In the context of an environment and society and grand old history where we women have had to curtail our sex drives, or have sex on others’ terms and always hide our encounters if they don’t add up to an ‘acceptable’ amount or type; or live up to some old stereotype of women only needing sex once their emotions are engaged yack yack yack…people can become defensive. People can want to claim equal rights. People can go into overdrive with that, because why the fcuk can’t a woman have forty thousand partners and experience the same repercussions as that as a man, who would probably be hailed as some sort of legend - or at the very worst, 'yer man's a bit filthy, a sex-crazed lothario'?
beks101 wrote: » Because we're positively exhausted of being judged for who and when and how many men we choose to sleep with. Because we’re sick of that being used as a barometer of our character, of our morality, of our mental stability, or of our value as women.
Azwaldo55 wrote: » A man who is both surprised or upset that women like sex as much as men do is naive, immature, pathetic, needy, pleading, clingy and pitifully sad.
goz83 wrote: » Ahem....you somehow managed to quote my name to a post I did not write. Maybe you might fix it?
the_syco wrote: » I'll come back to this quote with where i read it from, it's some book about a womans sexual liberation who was never given "the talk" as she presumed her folks thought she'd die during the cold war, and when she hit 18, she went to London to become good at sex. Not so for lads.
Fat, badly dressed, shy, awkward – not even actually in a room with a man at all – there is nothing that can be so "wrong" with a woman that she can't have sex any time she wants, merely by uttering this infallible, magic spell to a man: "Would you like to have some sex with me?"
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.
Magaggie wrote: » Seems like the tendency of someone with a problem IMO.
Magaggie wrote: » This thing of her "just liking sex" I don't get. I love sex - absolutely adore it and have had some extraordinarily intense experiences, but no way would I go out ****ing a different man every week for years.
PucaMama wrote: » did you add a word into my post
drumswan wrote: » She can, but this will make her less desirable as a long term partner for a lot of men. Its not that difficult.
Larry Wildman wrote: » The OP's ex is a disgrace...a promiscuous slut and a deviant. It is absolutely not okay to sleep with 500 people and to claim otherwise is revisionist pseudo liberal claptrap.
pwurple wrote: » To put it bluntly, there are some serious reprecussions to NOT knowing someone's sexual history. Up to and including death. I would have expected most educated people living in a first world country to be well aware of this.
