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.

[Trilby]

I told you guys he's a misogynist.

He's not getting laid, either. What a huge surprise.

[Clodfobble]

Just to clear something up, bmwmcaw, I am assuming from your arguments that you are in fact a virgin, correct?

[footfootfoot]

Are, and will be it seems...

[joelnwil]

"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."

Failure to ejaculate frequently, masturbating or otherwise, also raises a man's chances of prostate cancer later in life.

I think I know why (at age 70) I have never had any prostate problems.

But more to the point, I think that focusing on the other party's sexual history is foolish, and if either party does that then there is some kind of mental problem involved.

Of course, when religion is involved, there is no limiting the crazyness.

[Trilby]

[quote=joelnwilI think that focusing on the other party's sexual history is foolish, and if either party does that then there is some kind of mental problem involved.[/QUOTE]

Amen.

[9th Engineer]

It's interesting that a bunch of people here ended up with nothing more interesting or intelligent to say than "you must not be getting laid", kind of a dissapointing end to what I had hoped would be a thought provoking conversation.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

It's interesting that a bunch of people here ended up with nothing more interesting or intelligent to say than "you must not be getting laid", kind of a dissapointing end to what I had hoped would be a thought provoking conversation.

Hush, I was composing my post

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

It's interesting that a bunch of people here ended up with nothing more interesting or intelligent to say than "you must not be getting laid", kind of a dissapointing end to what I had hoped would be a thought provoking conversation.

Eleven pages of posts and nothing in them is thought provoking for you? It must be hell.

It's IS interesting to note that you have nothing to say about your friend's quoting a deeply misogynistic character in a movie and stating he agrees with said quote. I guess because he's 'only' dissing on women it's ok. If he had said something similarly prejudicial, something along the lines of "all blacks are..." or "all muslims are..." he'd have a shit storm on his hands; but, because it's just little ol women, blast away.

[9th Engineer]

when did I say bmw was my friend??? Far from it, he breaks my cardinal rule of holding men and women both to the same level of accountability. Aside from the fact that quantity has no bearing on quality I was commenting on the fact that some people, in the end, fell back on ad hominem attacks. Whether or not he's 'getting any' has no bearing on what he said, and it's derogatory to other people just the same as if you said "this guy must be Chinese, didn't like the bride your parents picked out for you?".

I hate having to defend someone I disagree with on principle of fair argument...

Alcoholism, drug abuse, sexual taboos, and all kinds of physical and mental abuse have been around for thousands of years.

Women’s sexuality has been more controlled over the millenniums for darn good reasons. Women own sex. Women control sex. Sex doesn’t occur without the expressed consent of women.

How many women do you see at clubs, bars, coffee houses, and buying drinks for men to pick them up for sex? How many women do you see offering to fix this or carry that to gain the favor of men? I think you get my point or should and PLEASE spare me the once in a blue moon comparisons.


Pressure for sex is pressure but NO means NO!

Sexual loyalty for is men the most important attribute they look for in women. For any man to deny this turns there back on 10s of thousands of years of social development and again the obvious.

Men do not want to father another mans child brought about through infidelity. The statistic here are astounding. If memory serves me right the Kinsley report puts children fathered by non-spouses/boyfriend at 30%. 3 or of 10 women cheated on there husband or boyfriend and never told them that the pregnancy was not his seed.

There is no double standard and I can’t repeat this enough. Men can go months without sex or opportunity for sex and have to work hard to obtain it. Women need only point there finger. You put a few drinks in a man and he will stick his Johnson in a hole in the wall.

Women who claim to want sex for sex sake are incredulous. Ask any married man what happens to all that sex they used to have before they got married. Women have sex for entirely different reason then men. Sex for women is a tool. They use it to obtain advantages. To obtain relationships that brings to them advantages. Most men have sex for pure pleasure.

Girls don’t claim that you cut back or even stop because it gets boring. There are only so many ways a cake can bake. It’s really because you’ve reach the limits of advantage and now have no reason other than maintenance to engage in sex.

I’ve talk to many women and the vast majority doesn’t even know what an orgasm is. Again I think its was the Kinsley report or even surveys in Cosmo that put females who claim to have and orgasm at only 20%. What they describe is a light headed feeling (Hyperventilating.)

Men have out of body experiences at 100%. Men, including myself, describe it as similar to drug use like heroin or cocaine (both I’ve never used). Sexual addiction in men is a real thing. I think every woman suffers from some penis envy. Can you image what the pickup routine at bars would be if women got as much enjoyment from sex as men? We would probably be still living in caves because we wouldn’t be able to get out from under the bears skins.:p

The end of our society will comes when the female Viagra comes out. It will be great for men for sometime until society breakdown because men and women stop going to work.

[Stormieweather]

To seriously answer the OP's original question, I think whether a girls sexual history matters depends on the man, just as a man's sexual history matters to some girls.

To someone who believes in waiting until marriage to have sex, it is probably important that their partner has similar beliefs and has acted accordingly.

To someone who is jealous and insecure, a partner with a colorful sexual history may exerbate the issue.

To someone who believes in monogamy, it matters if the other person has shown a history of cheating because chances are good it will be repeated.

To someone who wants to be adventurous and kinky, it may be a good idea to hook up with someone who has an adventurous, kinky history :p .

Someone who wants a one night stand should connect with a partner who wants the same thing.

Of course there are always exceptions, so the playboy may, in fact, have a wonderful, lasting relationship with an inexperienced virgin.

I think the key is to get to know your potential partner and find out what his/her beliefs are about men/women and sexuality as well as a little about their own history before jumping in to bed with them.

I do happen to agree that having multiple relationships (monogamous or not) can affect one's ability to bond with the same innocence as the we did the first time. Before I get run out of the Cellar on a rail for agreeing with Bmwcmaw, let me explain. Breakups and hurts caused by relationships gone bad become baggage that we carry with us. We are much less likely to throw ourselves 110% into subsequent relationships and to trust unquestioningly when we have had failed relationships in our past. We learn to be cautious and safeguard our well being.

I loved my first partner and husband (yes I waited to have sex until marriage)
deeply and passionately. Huge red flags and clues that he was abusive and a cheater were totally ignored in the blindness of first love. I didn't recognize them because I'd never seen them before. Now I know better. No one will ever again get that pure, absolute, and total submission of my heart and soul. Of course, my current partner gets a much wiser, emotionally healthy and independant woman than I was way back then.

One last thing...I don't think its the 'chase' thats important, its the 'anticipation' that is so much fun. Putting some time between meeting and actually sleeping together lets the sexual tension ratchet up which tends to cause the eventual conclusion to be worth the wait.

Stormie

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by joelnwil

But more to the point, I think that focusing on the other party's sexual history is foolish, and if either party does that then there is some kind of mental problem involved.

It is their current sexual behavior that should matter. If you are looking for a life-time mate, then you most likely don't want a person who has not been very serious in their sexual relationships, they don't seem to have a very high level of commitment. If you respect sex and hold is a precious intimate act, then there is reason to look for a person who has had no or few sexual partners. They share your ideal. Whether you are the man or the woman, it does not matter, both are equally responsible for their actions, despite what you think their role is. "To choose...wait to be choosen."

Of course, when religion is involved, there is no limiting the crazyness.

That, of course depends, on your perspective.