nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

h.bolla

Myself and my GF broke up a few months back and it happened after a discussion about another girl with a similar story to the Magaluf girl.

I said something like 'no self respecting man will date the girl after this' and my GF defended her saying that shes young and drunk and what you do expect at that age.

I replied by saying "you were young and did you ever do anything like that?". Then her face changed I knew something was up.

After a lot of rowing she admitted she had a 6-some one night (her and 5 other men) along with a dozen or 3-somes over the years and has lost count on the amount of drunken one night stands shes had with randomers. Oh and for most of her teens right up to her mid 20's she has always had 1 or 2 friends with benefits at any given time most of them lasting for 3-4 months. She guessed all in all that she'd had around 500 partners give or take.

Its not exactly the kinda image that sprang to mind when we first got together and told me she only ever had 2 boyfriends and I'd be her third.

But alas, apparantly its none of my business what went on in her past, and if Im annoyed about her past then obviously I dont deserve her.

I thought I just had the worst luck and was dating a right bitch and put it behind me and moved on. But then I was reading a few threads on here (in the personal issues section) and I noticed that quite a lot of women posters have the same attitude.

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

Mod note from #469

If anyone is unsure of what an acceptable standard of posting is then read the charter or pm me.
Do not personalise the debate.
Be respectful to other peoples opinions.
Do not be a dick.
No more backseat modding.
Oh and refrain from using derogatory sexist language from here on.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Pug160

I think the concept that someone can sleep with a relatively high number of men or women and still be selective, escapes some people. Even a fairly promiscuous woman will turn down many more admirers than she will ever entertain. In most cases, it's probably the top 10-15% of men who are being chosen anyway, so even if you were to label them with derogatory names, you'd have to consider the fact that they're quite often only that way inclined for this smaller percentage of men. In addition to that, women are a lot more discrete when it comes to casual sex anyway, so a lot of us are simply not aware of what really goes on.

Some men and women genuinely don't like casual sex and wait until they're in relationships as they obviously find that more fulfilling and profound, but I have a hard time believing everyone who claims to have that mindset. Some people take it all a little bit too seriously. Surprisingly enough, a lot of young women seem to be more relationship orientated than ever before. Maybe it's all of these Hollywood romcoms. But what's happening is cause for concern. A lot of young women are being burned at an age when they're very vulnerable and it could have psychological consequences for them in later life. Some people might say that's an overreaction but it's a view some other people share, including Germaine Greer apparently. I doubt that I agree with her on many other issues but I do agree with that.

Milly33

I would say man whore for a slutty man..

py2006

the_syco wrote: »

And yet the man that sleeps around and breaks many hearts along the way is? She's less desirable for a lot of insecure men who fear they'll be judged.

Seriously!

Azwaldo55

Milly33 wrote: »

I would say man whore for a slutty man..

Why should either term be used?

Whose business is it if someone has slept with lots of people?

It's just sex.

Azwaldo55

Magaggie wrote: »

Seagull posting is so lazy. Read the thread rather than rushing to throw out insults in relation to a perfectly valid concern.
500 sex partners in 10-12 years is not healthy. What you're talking about is maybe 100 sex partners in the equivalent amount of time, which is a lot but not insane.

Not healthy? Says who?

Citizen2011

is she counting slow sets at the disco. you're a moron if you think any girl could notch up 500 partners. it would be a world record

Shakespeare's Sister

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Not healthy? Says who?

It indicates lack of self control and being extremely impressionable, needy and insecure.
You can say I could be wrong, and I could, but I doubt it. And nothing will make me think "Ah it's fine, it's just sex." Absolutely nothing. Disingenuousness is not my bag.

Shakespeare's Sister

Pug160 wrote: »

I think the concept that someone can sleep with a relatively high number of men or women and still be selective, escapes some people. Even a fairly promiscuous woman will turn down many more admirers than she will ever entertain. In most cases, it's probably the top 10-15% of men who are being chosen anyway, so even if you were to label them with derogatory names, you'd have to consider the fact that they're quite often only that way inclined for this smaller percentage of men. In addition to that, women are a lot more discrete when it comes to casual sex anyway, so a lot of us are simply not aware of what really goes on.

Some men and women genuinely don't like casual sex and wait until they're in relationships as they obviously find that more fulfilling and profound, but I have a hard time believing everyone who claims to have that mindset. Some people take it all a little bit too seriously.

Not of relevance to someone who has had approximately 500 sex partners though. You even said "relatively" high number. Yeh I prefer sex in a relationship yet still have had casual encounters. I don't think anyone's saying casual sex in and of itself is a bad thing, just not obsession with/addiction to it.

Pug160

Magaggie wrote: »

It indicates lack of self control and being extremely impressionable, needy and insecure.
You can say I could be wrong, and I could, but I doubt it. And nothing will make me think "Ah it's fine, it's just sex." Absolutely nothing. Disingenuousness is not my bag.

That describes a lot of today's young women (and some young men) - many of them obsessed with 'serious' relationships. I'd actually worry more about them than I would a sexually promiscuous person. It all comes down to the mental health of the individual person, and we can't make a judgement on that by the number of sexual partners someone has had. There is a strange mix of old fashioned and liberal philosophies going on at the moment, and I wonder if it's a Frankenstein's monster.

Azwaldo55

Magaggie wrote: »

It indicates lack of self control and being extremely impressionable, needy and insecure.

Not necessarily. To have lots of sexual partners both men and women could have high levels of body confidence, could be very persuasive and charismatic and seductive and could be extremely happy. Women like Joan Rivers and men like Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty have been around the block more than a few times. I know plenty of people who have a different date every time I see them.

You can say I could be wrong, and I could, but I doubt it. And nothing will make me think "Ah it's fine, it's just sex." Absolutely nothing. Disingenuousness is not my bag.

It's not your bag. But it clearly is other peoples' bag.:D I just find it distasteful that sex becomes something people are judged. A person could be pure as the driven snow and a horrible cold as ice person or a serial shagger but a wonderful person to know. I've met people like both.

the_syco

py2006 wrote: »

Seriously!

One worded responses are hard to know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my post that only the less secure men will fear being judged?

Shakespeare's Sister

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Not necessarily. To have lots of sexual partners both men and women could have high levels of body confidence, could be very persuasive and charismatic and seductive and could be extremely happy. Women like Joan Rivers and men like Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty have been around the block more than a few times. I know plenty of people who have a different date every time I see them.

Againnnnnn, this could still be far removed from someone aged 27 who's had about 500 sex partners (if the number is true).

People aren't saying sex is the issue, but an unhealthy attitude towards it. Same with food, alcohol, drugs - moderation, even occasional blow-outs, aren't generally an issue... but addiction/misuse is.

beano345

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Not healthy? Says who?

Says me for a start,I've said it before on this thread but without doubt I would say she's HPV or herpes check out the statistics,makes for some scary reading not too mention that both can lay dormant,show no symptoms and still be spread.both have no long term cure and stay present in the body and use of a condom does not guarantee non transmission.if op has contracted either of them he'll have to sit down and tell future partners......I wonder how that conversation would go.

Wibbs

the_syco wrote: »

Regarding the magaluf woman; if it were a man, there'd probably be a petition somewhere saying that he should get the key to the city.

Im not so sure about that. Some of the vitriol would be less, but he'd still get stick over it.

Regarding thje OP's ex's answer to the OP, I'm guessing she had enough of his insecurities and trolled him.

yep, still it seems it's now the guys fault. OK. For all the talk among hippies, liberals and feminists of "shaming" they're usually the first to use it. More of this later no doubt. That's usually the pattern.

So you were a virgin before you f**ked her? Or you had a few before her?

A few

Country mile

hundreds. I go through a bottle of wine per week = OK even healthier than abstaining Versus I go through a bottle or two per day = you're a feckin alco Ted.

But here's the thing; she kept f**king a different man until she found one she really liked, and kept him. Some people would take this as a compliment; that they are better than the previous 500. But the OP didn't.

Or she kept shagging hundreds, thought I've had my fun/jesus what was I doing[delete as applicable] and grabbed the first guy who came along who wasn't looking to spitroast her after a few ales. And surprise surprise, the blame laying at the OP's feet because he wasn't "man enough" to handle her.

And yet the man that sleeps around and breaks many hearts along the way is?

No he's not, he's not a good bet at all. Certainly less a good bet than a guy who wasn't trying to rack up a big score.

She's less desirable for a lot of insecure men who fear they'll be judged.

Right, again it's the men's fault for having a preference that their girlfriend wasn't pulling trains or getting her tonsils rammed while drunk in a crowd.

Oh look, another virgin choirboy...

Annnnd again on the men. You've just pulled the male chauvinist equivalent of "sure what man would have you're a slut/fat/crazy bitch". Kudos.

Agreed. I wouldn't really care if she slept with (the better) half of Dublin, once she ensured the man wore protection, and she went for a STD check every so often.

Which you can be sure in the majority of cases the former wasn't followed all the time and the latter rarely. I've been frankly shocked by the number of women who will risk going bareback on a first encounter. Never have myself. My non condom number is three. I'm nearly a virgin *blushes*

GalwayGuy2

Originally Posted by the_syco View Post
Regarding the magaluf woman; if it were a man, there'd probably be a petition somewhere saying that he should get the key to the city.

Eh, I don't think a man going down on 'drunk', and perhaps under-age, women in a public place would go down well.

IMO, there'd be a good few people saying he took advantage of the drunk women, or that he outright assaulted them.

Shakespeare's Sister

the_syco wrote: »

So you were a virgin before you f**ked her? Or you had a few before her?

I... don't know what point you're trying to make with this. One doesn't need to be a virgin to see the issue with ****ing 500 people by the age of 27. One doesn't even need to have only a small number of sexual conquests behind them to see it.

Frank Lee Midere

eviltwin wrote: »

Another female here who wouldn't care if the genders were reversed, you'll find a lot of female posters on the PI board saying the same thing so less of the generalisations eh?

If somebody came into a PI thread and said she was in love with a guy who was 25 but had 500 encounters including a 6- some one night; however he now he was prepared for monogamy she would be told quite clearly to steer clear.

And that's what this is about. Relationships with people with histories.

People think that above average sexual encounters should be ignored in the general case but not in any specific case.

the_syco

Magaggie wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

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.

So you were a virgin before you f**ked her? Or you had a few before her?

I... don't know what point you're trying to make with this is. One doesn't need to be a virgin to see the issue with ****ing 500 people by the age of 27. One doesn't even need to have a small number of sexual conquests behind them to see it.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I was wondering how many h.bolla had racked up so far? I'm still question the 500 figure, thinking that we only got half the story of what was said, and a large number was given as anything under 100 could be seen as okay if the numbers worked out.

Wibbs wrote: »

A few
Country mile
hundreds. I go through a bottle of wine per week = OK even healthier than abstaining Versus I go through a bottle or two per day = you're a feckin alco Ted.

Two pints a day in Ireland; fine.
Two pints a day in other countries; you're an alcoholic.

I suppose perception does play a part, however, and take your point that too many can be bad for one.

=-=

From reading Wibbs replies, I can see myself playing the devils advocate a little to the extreme. Was this thread in AH for a while, or am I thinking of another thread?

beks101

the_syco wrote: »

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?"

I have a real problem with this. It propagates this stereotype about men being dawgs, gagging for the ride at any given chance, sex-starved, they'll fcuk anything with a pulse blah blah blah.

You'll meet those lads, lots of them particularly drunk in a bar or club and out for what they can get, but by and large that's not been my experience with men.

I've had guys refuse sex before - two exes of mine who wanted to wait because they were interested in more. Some other fellas who just weren't up for it. I'm not 'fat, badly dressed, shy, awkward'...quite the opposite on all of those counts, not short of male attention, but not every single man on the face of the planet will fcuk me if I give him the green light.

Sex isn't a power play for most women. It's not a 'reward' that a woman bestows among a man who has 'earned' it, or 'gotten lucky' because he happens to be to the woman's taste. We too can 'get lucky', get laid with some hot guy we fancy the pants off and it can be something we both want, do and enjoy on a level playing field. Men can be selective too.

And yeah, I've no doubt if I was single and gagging for it, I could get laid most nights of the week with any old dude off the street - is that supposed to be some sort of superpower that I hold as a result of my gender? Is that something to aspire to, to know that I could have any old c*ck in my face at any given moment? Maybe sex is about a bit more than any man, any c*ck at any time? Maybe men have a similar set of preferences that doesn't reduce a woman to a walking vagina that's either open or closed to f*cking?

Milly33

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Why should either term be used?

Whose business is it if someone has slept with lots of people?

It's just sex.

Yes I get that I was just saying that would be a term I would use.. Most defiantly think the OP should wake up and smell the roses. just because the lady lead a bit of a wild life does not give him the right to judge her. It isn't her fault she didn't think of building a time machine and contacting him before she done all this to make sure he thought it was ok... Feck that malarky

thebullkf

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Cool, I'm sure calling someone a tramp will help whatever issues you've diagnosed them with. Great approach.

thanks for the helpful comment- you think 500 partners at 27 is normal

btw it wasnt me who diagnosed her with an STD.

Would you sleep with someone with 500 partners? What would you say if it was your sister? - Daughter? Genuine question.

Shakespeare's Sister

beks101 wrote: »

I have a real problem with this. It propagates this stereotype about men being dawgs, gagging for the ride at any given chance, sex-starved, they'll fcuk anything with a pulse blah blah blah.

You'll meet those lads, lots of them particularly drunk in a bar or club and out for what they can get, but by and large that's not been my experience with men.

I've had guys refuse sex before - two exes of mine who wanted to wait because they were interested in more. Some other fellas who just weren't up for it. I'm not 'fat, badly dressed, shy, awkward'...quite the opposite on all of those counts, not short of male attention, but not every single man on the face of the planet will fcuk me if I give him the green light.

Sex isn't a power play for most women. It's not a 'reward' that a woman bestows among a man who has 'earned' it, or 'gotten lucky' because he happens to be to the woman's taste. We too can 'get lucky', get laid with some hot guy we fancy the pants off and it can be something we both want, do and enjoy on a level playing field. Men can be selective too.

And yeah, I've no doubt if I was single and gagging for it, I could get laid most nights of the week with any old dude off the street - is that supposed to be some sort of superpower that I hold as a result of my gender? Is that something to aspire to, to know that I could have any old c*ck in my face at any given moment? Maybe sex is about a bit more than any man, any c*ck at any time? Maybe men have a similar set of preferences that doesn't reduce a woman to a walking vagina that's either open or closed to f*cking?

This post is amazing. So sick of "It's easy for women, even if they're wrote-off they can get a shag" bitterness (I don't mean you, syco). Amount of interest from men in me when I'm scruffing around: zero.

Milly33 wrote: »

the OP should wake up and smell the roses. just because the lady lead a bit of a wild life does not give him the right to judge her. It isn't her fault she didn't think of building a time machine and contacting him before she done all this to make sure he thought it was ok... Feck that malarky

It isn't "a bit of a" wild life. Why are people pretending around 500 sex partners by the age of 27 is no big deal and definitely can't mean a problematic outlook towards sex?

Saipanne

Magaggie wrote: »

This post is amazing. So sick of "It's easy for women, even if they're wrote-off they can get a shag" bitterness (I don't mean you, syco). Amount of interest from men in me when I'm scruffing around: zero.

It isn't "a bit of a" wild life. Why are people pretending around 500 sex partners by the age of 27 is no big deal and definitely can't mean a problematic outlook towards sex?

Ive said it before. It sounds like genuine sex addiction

Addle

the_syco wrote: »

Regarding the magaluf woman; if it were a man, there'd probably be a petition somewhere saying that he should get the key to the city.

I don't think so.
The only time I can remember the media reporting on a man admitting to performing oral sex on lots of women was when Michael Douglas was blaming his throat cancer on the HPV.

py2006

the_syco wrote: »

Two pints a day in Ireland; fine.
Two pints a day in other countries; you're an alcoholic.

Thats an alcoholic in any country

the_syco

Magaggie wrote: »

This post is amazing. So sick of "It's easy for women, even if they're wrote-off they can get a shag" bitterness (I don't mean you, syco). Amount of interest from men in me when I'm scruffing around: zero.

From reading the article, it would seem that she went around with an intent to get shagged, and therefore would find the shag.

beks101 wrote: »

is that supposed to be some sort of superpower that I hold as a result of my gender? Is that something to aspire to, to know that I could have any old c*ck in my face at any given moment?

An extract from the article explains why she seemed to have wanted to shag everyone;

By the time I was 17, I'd decided I wanted to be a great lay. A really amazing lay. "See her? She's a legendary piece of ass," I wanted people to say at literary parties while pointing at me.

It seems that the parents not giving her "the talk" backfired on them a tad.

Aurora Green

beks101 wrote: »

I have a real problem with this. It propagates this stereotype about men being dawgs, gagging for the ride at any given chance, sex-starved, they'll fcuk anything with a pulse blah blah blah.

You'll meet those lads, lots of them particularly drunk in a bar or club and out for what they can get, but by and large that's not been my experience with men.

I've had guys refuse sex before - two exes of mine who wanted to wait because they were interested in more. Some other fellas who just weren't up for it. I'm not 'fat, badly dressed, shy, awkward'...quite the opposite on all of those counts, not short of male attention, but not every single man on the face of the planet will fcuk me if I give him the green light.

Sex isn't a power play for most women. It's not a 'reward' that a woman bestows among a man who has 'earned' it, or 'gotten lucky' because he happens to be to the woman's taste. We too can 'get lucky', get laid with some hot guy we fancy the pants off and it can be something we both want, do and enjoy on a level playing field. Men can be selective too.

And yeah, I've no doubt if I was single and gagging for it, I could get laid most nights of the week with any old dude off the street - is that supposed to be some sort of superpower that I hold as a result of my gender? Is that something to aspire to, to know that I could have any old c*ck in my face at any given moment? Maybe sex is about a bit more than any man, any c*ck at any time? Maybe men have a similar set of preferences that doesn't reduce a woman to a walking vagina that's either open or closed to f*cking?

I think the poster you quoted is closed to the mind and internal experience of men and you are closed to the mind and internal experience of women. Both projecting each others internal realities.

Plenty of men refuse sex, I've refused sex myself with women I've met on a night out, ( take precautions, some women become scary when rejected sexually), but I think it is unfair to judge some men for being desperate for sex. The fact of the matter is some are and they can't help it, many would love to be able to press a switch and turn off their sex drive but they can't.

I also think some men don't realise that it's not an amazing gift for most women that they could have sex with some stranger in the street if they wanted, as they project their own internal realities onto women.

Sleepy

The number itself wouldn't bother me. The screaming, breaking things and lying about having a clean STD test would be deal breakers though and, tbh, I'd be concerned about the fashion in which she accumulated those numbers.

Maybe it's just me but I'd be happier to be involved with a woman who'd notched up those numbers through more sober, consensual experimentation in swingers clubs etc. than through drunken drinking games in a hostel in Australia. The former scenario seems far more a case of exploring / enjoying one's own sexuality whilst the second seems more like a young person seeking any kind of validation / attention they can get.

While myself and my wife have never explicitly discussed numbers, I suspect hers would be higher than mine (she's better looking than I am and, as such, would have had more opportunities

) but it's not something that bothers me in the slightest.

[Deleted User]

Hazys wrote: »

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.

A confidence interval of what? The question was about the probability that any one of 500 people will happen to be in the same room with you more than a decade later than you first met them. Given that a good % of that 500 is likely not in ireland any more, were never from or in ireland originally, or may now be dead, this number is reduced still further.

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

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

Irrelevant. If you randomly select 500 people and then return 15 or 20 years later - a % of them are simply going to be dead.

h.bolla

beks101 wrote: »

And yeah, I've no doubt if I was single and gagging for it, I could get laid most nights of the week with any old dude off the street - is that supposed to be some sort of superpower that I hold as a result of my gender? Is that something to aspire to, to know that I could have any old c*ck in my face at any given moment? Maybe sex is about a bit more than any man, any c*ck at any time? Maybe men have a similar set of preferences that doesn't reduce a woman to a walking vagina that's either open or closed to f*cking?

I hear about men, and the very very very odd woman, who just cant get laid. I believe the term is incel (short for involuntarily celebate).

I know its an extreme example (but he has become the poster boy for it) is Elliot Rodgers. There are a lot of people like him (minus the crazy) who just cannot get laid no matter how hard they try. Even here on boards we can see examples of that over on personal issues. Lads who are in their 20s and 30s and still virgins. They were never able to get with a girl.

Its these men who often harp on about women only granting sex to certain men and it makes them mad.

I understand when you say "yeh I can have sex any night of the week if I really wanted- but the people I fancy the socks off sometimes say no" thats fair enough. But I can also see the other side too where some lads stuggle for years to find a girl that will sleep with them. Id say its very frustrating.