Bob_Latchford wrote: » would say 500 is easily doable if your away from home having a party time getting drunk and getting laid. Pretty much exactly like the girl in magaluf. Maybe thats why she got upset you essentially called your gf a slut. Most lads would do the same given the chance, reps in Spain/Greece etc will go through alot and thats part of the attraction of going. I knew a primary school teacher who had over 1000 (though i dont know why anyone still counts beyond 10 or 20), in her 30s mind you, liked to drink and party on holidays and weekends thats all
h.bolla wrote: » 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.
h.bolla wrote: » 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.
con___manx1 wrote: » i would never ask my partner about previous partners. your just better of not knowing about that kinda stuff. to be honest the op was looking for trouble by diveing into his ex past
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: » True enough, although I'd rather know in this case. Performing oral sex on a girl who had had 500 different c*cks inside her knowingly is just all kinds of wrong to me.
LordNorbury wrote: » Maybe, but what about if the number was 50, or 100 or 80, does it make a material difference really?
chalcedony wrote: » From what I've seen of "incels" they don't try though. They moan and complain and label themselves as undateable but they never actually go out of their way to find hobbies, develop their personalities and interests, improve their appearance...or even leave the house. They expect people to come to them.
h.bolla wrote: » 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.
Saipanne wrote: » Probability of std is probably higher with 500 than with 50. I doubt the 500 type used condoms at all times, and even is he/she did a condom is not guaranteed to stop infection.
hoodwinked wrote: » it only takes one, i'd rather have sex with a man who had 500 previous partners and used condoms, (or got tested and was clean), than have sex with a man who had sex with 10 people and didn't. mostly because the guy who only had sex 10 times without a condom clearly has no respect for himself or others, while the man with 500 clearly does respect himself and others
h.bolla wrote: » As has been said many times, the actual number is a tad irrelevant. We dont say 20 is fine but over 50 is no go. The issue is, and what I believe to be one of the main issues behind this whole problem, is people dont believe that other people change. If a girl is at a house party and lying across a table letting all the lads have a go because "she lost the game" or lying on a table masturbating for everyone.It might be in her past, but now you know what shes capable of and what she finds acceptable. And then you start wondering, 'will she do it again'... 'is that really the kinda girl I want to marry'..... 'what about our kids will they turn out like that'.
fergus1001 wrote: » Never in a million years would I date a girl with 500 different sexual partners That's just me I don't like the idea its wrong to me
hoodwinked wrote: » oh that is absolutely rubbish, i did many things in my past that i will never do again, some because i learned my lesson, others because of current circumstances and others because i have matured or "been there done that". sexually you could say i have done most of what is possible, i tried everything as the opportunities arose and i am not ashamed of that, my now husband knew this early on as we were dating and i am completely open about my sexual tastes, he still married me, and no he doesn't worry that i am going to do it again, because he knows i chose to marry him and monogamy was stated part of that choice by him, if anything he has been known to say he benefited greatly from what i learned along the way nor does he worry that our daughter will be just like me, i am nothing like my mother, he is nothing like his father, we don't all turn into our parents.
jimd2 wrote: » Yes but the key difference is that your husband knew about it early on and you didn't try a pretend to be someone that you weren't.
h.bolla wrote: » As has been said many times, the actual number is a tad irrelevant. We dont say 20 is fine but over 21 is no go. The issue is, and what I believe to be one of the main issues behind this whole problem, is people dont believe that other people change. If a girl is at a house party and lying across a table letting all the lads have a go because "she lost the game" or lying on a table masturbating for everyone. It might be in her past, but now you know what shes capable of and what she finds acceptable. And then you start wondering, 'will she do it again'... 'is that really the kinda girl I want to marry'..... 'what about our kids will they turn out like that'.
jimd2 wrote: » Two key points to remember for you are 1. She chose to mask all this stuff from you as she obviously was perceptive to realise that it would be a problem for you. So, she deceived you in an obvious attempt to snare you. She could well have changed / decided to settle down and she could very well be planning to be monogamous with you. I would also find it difficult to differentiate between her true thoughts and the manufactured ones for the relationship. 2. From her statements ref the magaluf or similar girl, it seems that she thinks these activities are ok and, as such, her moral beliefs haven't changed and are therefore different to yours.
hoodwinked wrote: » no but people here are disgusted at the actions/numbers, its ridiculous, its even more ridiculous that the girl had to hide her past, but clearly she feared the re-action she eventually got from the op, maybe i got lucky in that my husband is mature enough to understand my past isn't who i am, its just a part of my life that happened and made me into the girl he fell in love with.
py2006 wrote: » If she had to 'hide' and she 'feared' his reaction then she must not be all that proud of her past. By the way, you are making assumptions there about her. Also, the shock and disgust of some people is not down to immaturity it is down to different moral values.
hoodwinked wrote: » there is a difference in not being proud of your past and hiding it in the company of non likeminded people, it is a very immature thing in my opinion to judge someones moral values.
Saipanne wrote: » Then she clearly should not have been with someone who has different moral values.You'd swear your view on sex is the only right one...
hoodwinked wrote: » the opposite is actually my point, nobody's view on sex is the only right one, there is no right or wrong, the girl in the op was not wrong to sleep with 500 people, or to have a 6 some if thats what she wanted at the time,
Saipanne wrote: » I would rather not date such a person. Is that ok?
hoodwinked wrote: » i don't know why you are asking me if it is ok?, i only quoted your post because you were saying sleeping with 500 people meant more of a chance of an std i was making the point that it doesn't, you could have sex with just one person, no protection, who has an STI and catch it, like wise you could have sex with 500 protected and catch nothing.
