Do guys really care about a girls sexual history?

[Stormieweather]

So basically, men are excused from whatever sexual misbehavior they engage in because the woman 'chose' them?

And that if women didn't say yes to men's sexual advances, there would be no promiscuity?

Further, men are too stupid to make their own choices and cannot be blamed for sleeping with any woman who 'chooses' him?

Oh and willful sexual acts (according to bmwmcaw) is part of the definition of being a slut. Only unwilling sexual participants can be considered decent?

The abuse excuse is not a valid reason for undesirable behavior. Women or girls who are raped or sexually molested should just forget about it and not let it affect them, right?

"Think of a man and take away all reason and accountability"? Doesn't that directly conflict with previous arguements? That women have GREATER accountablity? This quote seems to imply that we're unable to reason as well.

So, just shut the fuck up, learn to cook and keep our legs closed until Mr. Right appears to teach us everything we ever wanted to know about sex...after we're happily married, of course.

<damn, I'm glad there are plenty of people who disagree with you>

Stormie

[9th Engineer]

I really don't have any problem with people who have had sex within previous committed relationships. People repeat themselves, I trust someone (and I'm not differenciating here) to follow their past habits within a relationship we might have. So if someone has a history of rapid changeovers of sexual partners then I wouldn't expect them to stick with me for very long, or at least not monogamously. If someone has been in one or two steady relationships that involved monogamous sex then I would expect that pattern to continue. If someone I was interested in told me that's the case with them but that they average 3-4 boyfriends a year then I'd take that as a sign of a different problem. Or if I was older and they said they've gone through 15-20 dud relationships of that level I'd take another hard look at why they got into so many failed relationships.

I know guys generally like to commit more to girls who make them wait a period of time for sex (not sure of the exact underpinnings of that), do girls feel more attacted to a guy who turns down their sexual advances for a while?

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I know guys generally like to commit more to girls who make them wait a period of time for sex (not sure of the exact underpinnings of that), do girls feel more attacted to a guy who turns down their sexual advances for a while?

My personal answer is no. It just wouldn't make a difference to me - I either find someone attractive or I don't. They don't become more attractive by not sleeping with me.

I've only been in that situation once - I was dating a Christian guy who had worked out his own solution to the sex/ chastity dilemma. He only slept with women he was prepared to have a baby with. If he would be willing to be connected to this woman throughout her life to raise a child, then he believed God would be satisfied with his choice. He had only had 2 partners and used contraception with both, but the criteria was there.

After 4 months I felt our relationship wouldn't progress any further and we settled for being friends. I find it pretty scary when the bar is raised that high, but I did respect him for it.

For the record, he also believed people should avoid masturbation. Not because it was a sin, but because satisfying yourself physically took the edge off the urge to search for your soulmate.