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

py2006

hoodwinked wrote: »

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,

Well it most certainly is not the norm, its quite extreme. In fact its quite unhealthy and dangerous. I find it odd that you seem to brush this off as something people should not be shocked by.

py2006

Another take on this is that she made the whole thing up or exaggerated it to hurt him or to end the relationship. I'd rather it was that than the alternative.

beano345

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,

She was wrong to not tell her op at the start and allow him make up his own mind and then passing an sti onto him Jesus seriously 500 that's like playing Russian roulette and putting five bullets in the gun instead of one

hoodwinked

py2006 wrote: »

Well it most certainly is not the norm, its quite extreme. In fact its quite unhealthy and dangerous. I find it odd that you seem to brush this off as something people should not be shocked by.

why should people be shocked at someone having sex?

enjoying sex is not a bad thing, being female and enjoying sex or lots of it is not shocking,

Ireland does seem to be such a prudish place, but i guess it wasn't that long ago that sex outside marriage was "shocking" or sex that was anything but missionary was shocking....

Saipanne

beano345 wrote: »

She was wrong to not tell her op at the start and allow him make up his own mind and then passing an sti onto him Jesus seriously 500 that's like playing Russian roulette and putting five bullets in the gun instead of one

I know... I don't know how anyone could defend her behaviour by infecting him.

py2006

hoodwinked wrote: »

why should people be shocked at someone having sex?

enjoying sex is not a bad thing, being female and enjoying sex or lots of it is not shocking,

Ireland does seem to be such a prudish place, but i guess it wasn't that long ago that sex outside marriage was "shocking" or sex that was anything but missionary was shocking....

Ah here! :rolleyes:

Saipanne

hoodwinked wrote: »

why should people be shocked at someone having sex?

enjoying sex is not a bad thing, being female and enjoying sex or lots of it is not shocking,

Ireland does seem to be such a prudish place, but i guess it wasn't that long ago that sex outside marriage was "shocking" or sex that was anything but missionary was shocking....

Straw man.

beano345

Saipanne wrote: »

I know... I don't know how anyone could defend her behaviour by infecting him.

I can only imagine the society we're heading for if people are defending this,no wonder sti clinics are out the door these days.

hoodwinked

beano345 wrote: »

She was wrong to not tell her op at the start and allow him make up his own mind and then passing an sti onto him Jesus seriously 500 that's like playing Russian roulette and putting five bullets in the gun instead of one

just to clear it up, i don't condone her passing on an sti, not at all i find that despicable that a: she didn't get tested before sleeping with him, and b: didn't tell him in advance of her past knowing it was a potential risk,

i can understand she probably feared a re-action like the op had.

what i disagree with are the posts saying things like "her numbers are too large" or "with people who do these kind of things there is always a risk they'll do them again" or "she must be a sexual addict" or have "personal issues".

as long as sex is safe and consensual it doesn't matter how many you have sex with or how you have sex with them.

beano345

hoodwinked wrote: »

just to clear it up, i don't condone her passing on an sti, not at all i find that despicable that a: she didn't get tested before sleeping with him, and b: didn't tell him in advance of her past knowing it was a potential risk,

i can understand she probably feared a re-action like the op had.

what i disagree with are the posts saying things like "her numbers are too large" or "with people who do these kind of things there is always a risk they'll do them again" or "she must be a sexual addict" or have "personal issues".

as long as sex is safe and consensual it doesn't matter how many you have sex with or how you have sex with them.

Ah come off it there's no way in this day and age you'd get away that lightly with sleeping with 500 people

Saipanne

hoodwinked wrote: »

just to clear it up, i don't condone her passing on an sti, not at all i find that despicable that a: she didn't get tested before sleeping with him, and b: didn't tell him in advance of her past knowing it was a potential risk,

i can understand she probably feared a re-action like the op had.

what i disagree with are the posts saying things like "her numbers are too large" or "with people who do these kind of things there is always a risk they'll do them again" or "she must be a sexual addict" or have "personal issues".

as long as sex is safe and consensual it doesn't matter how many you have sex with or how you have sex with them.

I said she *might* be a sex addict. Might.

Bluethaw

hoodwinked wrote: »

just to clear it up, i don't condone her passing on an sti, not at all i find that despicable that a: she didn't get tested before sleeping with him, and b: didn't tell him in advance of her past knowing it was a potential risk,

i can understand she probably feared a re-action like the op had.

what i disagree with are the posts saying things like "her numbers are too large" or "with people who do these kind of things there is always a risk they'll do them again" or "she must be a sexual addict" or have "personal issues".

as long as sex is safe and consensual it doesn't matter how many you have sex with or how you have sex with them.

In my personal opinion there is nothing wrong with having as much sex as you want. But in your opinion it doesn't matter how many people someone has sex with, in some people's opinion it does matter and they are entitled to that opinion.

Saipanne

Bluethaw wrote: »

In my personal opinion there is nothing wrong with having as much sex as you want. But in your opinion it doesn't matter how many people someone has sex with, I'm some people's opinion it does matter and they are entitled to that opinion.

Well put. You'd swear only one opinion counts. I'm quite open minded, when it comes to sex, but I think you have to be responsible, and take everything in moderation, just like everything else in life.

My opinion.

Greenmachine

Find the particular number a little hard to believe they are so far beyond those of the average person. I do think everyone has a past, but that honesty is also important in a relationship. I would compare that level of promiscuity with the risks of intravenous drug use. I would be horrified if my SO came out and told me she was an IV drug users in the past. It would require me to seriously reconsider things. Surprised at the seemingly large majority who think it would be wrong of me to be concerned by something like this.

lavinia hathaway

hoodwinked wrote: »

just to clear it up, i don't condone her passing on an sti, not at all i find that despicable that a: she didn't get tested before sleeping with him, and b: didn't tell him in advance of her past knowing it was a potential risk,

i can understand she probably feared a re-action like the op had.

what i disagree with are the posts saying things like "her numbers are too large" or "with people who do these kind of things there is always a risk they'll do them again" or "she must be a sexual addict" or have "personal issues".

as long as sex is safe and consensual it doesn't matter how many you have sex with or how you have sex with them.

It's not so much the high number as the nature of some of the acts. To have to perform a sexual act to either get a drink or because a drinking game is lost does not equate to most people's idea of enjoyable sex.

The question of it being safe or consensual is also up for debate, especially when she was having sex at 14 with copious amounts of alcohol involved. That's even before the issue of STI's arises.

pwurple

hoodwinked wrote: »

it is a very immature thing in my opinion to judge someones moral values.

How so? Everyone has some sense of morals and ethics at they usually live by. a line that is too far. About everything. Stealing, sexual behaviour, hurting others, etc.

It is far from immature to consider, talk about and yes, judge, based on morality and ethics.

This girl did some damage and hurt, this is where the ethical and moral line is for me. She infected and hurt her boyfriend, possibly the same for some other partners, and has gotten hurt herself, both physically (with this infection) and emotionally.

Sex is loads of fun, but isn't always consequence-free or harmless. It's the harm done here that is being considered.

diveout

py2006 wrote: »

Another take on this is that she made the whole thing up or exaggerated it to hurt him or to end the relationship. I'd rather it was that than the alternative.

Or she was so pissed of at the question that it was some kind of passive aggression. I could see that kind of response of someone felt they were being interrogated.

h.bolla

lavinia hathaway wrote: »

It's not so much the high number as the nature of some of the acts. To have to perform a sexual act to either get a drink or because a drinking game is lost does not equate to most people's idea of enjoyable sex.

All this ^^^

But mainly the fact people tell me that her past history was none of my business. And as one prominent poster here said that Im "sexist, misogynistic and insecure sexually" for being annoyed about her past. That grinds my gears.

Wibbs

hoodwinked wrote: »

like wise you could have sex with 500 protected and catch nothing.

You could, but it's far more likely that you would be exposed and exposed regularly to all sorts of dodgy pathogens. As I said earlier in the thread condoms are considered not that reliable as a contraceptive and we hear of quite the number of pregnancies resulting from their use, yet they apparently become made from magic pixie wings when it comes to STD's. They reduce the risk of many STD's(not all by any stretch, genital herpes and syphilis are a risk of the condom doesn't cover the area of infection) and are a damned good precaution but they most certainly don't remove the risk.

On top of that how often would someone practice full safe sex? Dental dams, condoms for oral etc. I'll bet few enough and that's before we get to the drinking involved in many encounters where safe sex can go out the window.

Leaving out any discussion of gender double standards, psychology and all that, it's a fact of biology not culture or misogyny that women are much more at risk of catching STD's than men. Why? Many reasons. The lining of the vagina is thinner than that of the penis, the lining of the cervix is at some points barely a cell thick so pathogens have a much easier barrier to cross. Womens' reproductive systems continue to mature into their twenties and before that age they're more vulnerable to infections. In intercourse women receive more of a fluid load than men, so they get more of a pathogen load if any are present. The vagina is an ideal environment for bacteria to grow, both good and bad. It's a nice environment for viruses too. Women are less likely to show symptoms of some STD's, or mistake such symptoms for other conditions so may not present for testing.

All in all a woman of say 25 with over a 100 sexual encounters under her belt is more likely to be at risk physically than a man with the same number and that's not even taking the risks of unwanted pregnancies into account. A woman with - of the figure is to be believed - 500? Major risk and without testing is a really big risk for a man to get involved with.

GalwayGuy2

Originally Posted by lavinia hathaway View Post
It's not so much the high number as the nature of some of the acts. To have to perform a sexual act to either get a drink or because a drinking game is lost does not equate to most people's idea of enjoyable sex.

Eh, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

py2006

h.bolla wrote: »

All this ^^^

But mainly the fact people tell me that her past history was none of my business. And as one prominent poster here said that Im "sexist, misogynistic and insecure sexually" for being annoyed about her past. That grinds my gears.

Yes that post was unpleasant and not the first time I have read a reaction like that. It went unnoticed it appears.

Wibbs

h.bolla wrote: »

And as one prominent poster here said that Im "sexist, misogynistic and insecure sexually" for being annoyed about her past. That grinds my gears.

Just as women can be exposed to mansplaining, whataboutery and shaming(trust me as an ex Ladies Lounge mod I saw the lot), there can be the reverse type of shaming going on. In basic terms it boils down to [woman does something that the mainstream or fringe thinks is OK] + [Man has objections/doesn't agree] = [some women(and often other men) use phrases along the lines of "you're not man enough to handle a real woman"]. His feelings on the matter are trivialised and he's shamed into the idea he's not a "real man". GTFO I say. Ironic with it. Much of "right on" thought appears to be inclusive, but it can be just as exclusive, even aggressive towards anything that doesn't agree with their philosophical compass de jour, just like any other ism you care to mention.

The way I see it, a woman or man has, or should have the right to sleep with as many people as they see fit, or indeed not, but a potential or current partner also has the right to think "nope not for me". Too often the self proclaimed non judgmental are as judgmental as those they accuse.

h.bolla

py2006 wrote: »

Yes that post was unpleasant and not the first time I have read a reaction like that. It went unnoticed it appears.

Well, except for all the people that thanked it. They noticed it I guess :P

B.A._Baracus

h.bolla wrote: »

All this ^^^

But mainly the fact people tell me that her past history was none of my business. And as one prominent poster here said that Im "sexist, misogynistic and insecure sexually" for being annoyed about her past. That grinds my gears.

One thing I noticed about boards.ie is that you should never post personal things.
Not having a go at you as I did the same before (relationship issues forum a few years ago) and you always get, well ... jerks insulting you.

FullblownRose

What about a person's psychological state, though. I don't agree that it is a normal amount of encounters no matter how much a woman might enjoy sex. It's roo excessive to be healthy for anyone in a clear state of mind. To have had that many you must have lacked any intimacy, and that's almost always integral to enjoyable sex. Any sex therapist will back that up, common sense backs that up. That many encounters cannot be healthy for anyone. I think the Magaluf incident was horrible, and I don't see how anyone can see it as defensible. I don't mean that as a udgement on the girl but I don't think it was a behaviour that can be normalised as the behaviour of a healthy minded young woman. The girl in question allowed herself to be physically used, by people who did not care about her, I would question the mental stability of anyone who allows that to happen or unconnected people such as those on boards.ie who condone it as normal or can't distinguish between that kind of shallow, probably miserable experience and normal (even if unconventional) sex. I don't think her right to do that is the question but whether or not she'd be doing it if she was in her right mind and whether or not a stable, long term partner has a right to be disturbed and concerned by the revelation that she did participate in it..and I believe the partner is correct to be worried. Even more so when this revalation came out of the blue, accompanied by a physical temper tantrum involving breaking and smashing the house up. The tantrum is an expression of anguish but disproportionate to her partners reaction, which a rational minded woman would have expected upon announcing that her original statement about her number of sexual partners, was very much innacurate and dishonest.

Pawwed Rig

py2006 wrote: »

Yes that post was unpleasant and not the first time I have read a reaction like that. It went unnoticed it appears.

h.bolla wrote: »

Well, except for all the people that thanked it. They noticed it I guess

Mod note - Report personal abuse where you see it and it will be actioned. Discussing it on thread is considered backseat modding.

py2006

FullblownRose wrote: »

What about a person's psychological state, though. I don't agree that it is a normal amount of encounters no matter how much a woman might enjoy sex. It's roo excessive to be healthy for anyone in a clear state of mind. To have had that many you must have lacked any intimacy, and that's almost always integral to enjoyable sex. Any sex therapist will back that up, common sense backs that up. That many encounters cannot be healthy for anyone. I think the Magaluf incident was horrible, and I don't see how anyone can see it as defensible. I don't mean that as a udgement on the girl but I don't think it was a behaviour that can be normalised as the behaviour of a healthy minded young woman. The girl in question allowed herself to be physically used, by people who did not care about her, I would question the mental stability of anyone who allows that to happen or unconnected people such as those on boards.ie who condone it as normal or can't distinguish between that kind of shallow, probably miserable experience and normal (even if unconventional) sex. I don't think her right to do that is the question but whether or not she'd be doing it if she was in her right mind and whether or not a stable, long term partner has a right to be disturbed and concerned by the revelation that she did participate in it..and I believe the partner is correct to be worried. Even more so when this revalation came out of the blue, accompanied by a physical temper tantrum involving breaking and smashing the house up. The tantrum is an expression of anguish but disproportionate to her partners reaction, which a rational minded woman would have expected upon announcing that her original statement about her number of sexual partners, was very much innacurate and dishonest.

Great post.

Saipanne

FullblownRose wrote: »

What about a person's psychological state, though. I don't agree that it is a normal amount of encounters no matter how much a woman might enjoy sex. It's roo excessive to be healthy for anyone in a clear state of mind. To have had that many you must have lacked any intimacy, and that's almost always integral to enjoyable sex. Any sex therapist will back that up, common sense backs that up. That many encounters cannot be healthy for anyone.

I think the Magaluf incident was horrible, and I don't see how anyone can see it as defensible. I don't mean that as a udgement on the girl but I don't think it was a behaviour that can be normalised as the behaviour of a healthy minded young woman. The girl in question allowed herself to be physically used, by people who did not care about her, I would question the mental stability of anyone who allows that to happen or unconnected people such as those on boards.ie who condone it as normal or can't distinguish between that kind of shallow, probably miserable experience and normal (even if unconventional) sex.

I don't think her right to do that is the question but whether or not she'd be doing it if she was in her right mind and whether or not a stable, long term partner has a right to be disturbed and concerned by the revelation that she did participate in it..and I believe the partner is correct to be worried. Even more so when this revalation came out of the blue, accompanied by a physical temper tantrum involving breaking and smashing the house up. The tantrum is an expression of anguish but disproportionate to her partners reaction, which a rational minded woman would have expected upon announcing that her original statement about her number of sexual partners, was very much innacurate and dishonest.

Breaking this up a bit.

lavinia hathaway

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Eh, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

It sounds as if she had to or was resigned to as opposed to doing it for enjoyment. It's highly doubtful she was attracted to every random stranger she had a sexual encounter with.

People can enjoy lots of things, I just question how enjoyable a highly pressurised, alcohol fuelled environment really was for a young girl.

FullblownRose

It's the frequency and the environment of it that matters. That's what determines whether it's a healthy/safe way of enacting a fantasy. Plenty of people have stranger fantasies and act upon the but 500 times with people who had little or no connection to or care for the woman...It's not sounding like a healthy situation from the way it was suddenly disclosed. I'd imagne O.P could do with time to process it and maybe they could get over it, but it must've come as a shock to both.