Do guys really care about a girls sexual history?
...like how many, who, how etc??
My gfs and I were discussing this last nite and it seems guys can still be a bit weirded out by a girl who has a fairly ...err...impressive? (not the word I was looking for :lol: ) sexual history.
Is it true? Do I need to dull down my resume?
Do guys just want sex from the ones that put out, or can they still fall in love with them??
I have this problem where I always say the first thing that comes to mind, so if I get asked a question...I never think..."do I answer this truthfully or should I be a bit vague?".
From my point of view, if a guy I am attracted to is going to be bothered by my past, he probably isnt the guy for me.
It depends on how that history came about... it can say a lot about someone's character.
If you are simply talking about a numbers game, then no, but it is never that.
It is always far more complicated than that, so my answer will be yes, I care.
However, it can be a good or bad thing, regardless of the numbers. The behavior is what I look at as the determinant for my reaction.
i don't really care. i have a "history" too, so i expect her to have one also.
as long as she wasn't a hooker or the likes, i think an active sexual history is great.
if she's in a good place now and we connect, then what does it matter?
if she's in a good place now and we connect, then what does it matter?
Got to agree, twenty. As I see it, anything before the two got together is history and starting over from 'now' is what's important. If you stay together long enough, the facts will eventually come to light and it really shouldn't matter.
right. and like i said, i have a past too, and it would be unrealistic and judgmental for me to expect any different from her.
what side of the planet are you on?
what side of the planet are you on?
Right now, I'm in Kansas, USA, but plan on being in New Zealand soon.
Really? What part of NZ?:D
I have some friends in different cities, but will probably end up staying in Taranaki [that's where 'HE' is:heart-on: ]
Darn...there's already a "he".....
I shall just have to go back to my life of celibacy...[on topic....would a LACK of history worry a lady seeking a prospective partner? At what point does a guy become unsaleable due to rust?]
As to the question originally posed.......A lady's history is fairly low on my list of essential characteristics. I'd have to know her fairly well before enquiring into her previous lives, and even then,I'd only ask discreetly, and would not persue the point if she doesn't give me a 'blow by blow' account[sorry, couldn't resist].Unless she talks of simoultaneous or overlapping relationships, or exes who gave her herpes, the subject is of little relevance. I've decided already that I like her for who she is, not who she's been.
i've always approached it as "you've been with at least one person, but fewer than a million? cool - me too." i don't want to know anything else. i sure as hell, won't be talking about my past.
I like the way you think, Lookout :)
Why should the sexual history of someone who LOVES sex be compared (unfavorably) with someone who maybe doesn't?
I think some guys play a double standard--it's cool for us to have fucked 20 or 30 women, but if a woman has had sex with 3 or more people, ewww!
I've been that way at times. Now, it would depend on the circumstances.
Lookout, I would hope that at the very least that if you don't talk about your past, you would at least get checked for STDs.
I think it speaks to how a person views their sexuality as part of their whole person.
Is it something that they can separate out and use for recreation with multiple partners, and little or no emotional entanglement? If so, then I would have little in common with that person, and it would raise red flags for me in the relationship.
Have they been in multiple relationships that that reached a stage of mutual commitment and trust where sexual intimacy was an integral and healthy part of the relationship? If so, what happened? do they habitiually choose bad partners and then break it off? Or is there something in them that becomes progressively revealed as they get deeper connected in a relationship that is a deal-breaker? I know these aren't the only options, but these are the questions that would come to mind if I found out that my relationship partner had been with dozens of sexual partners.
I honestly don't know that there's a healthy answer for why someone in their late 20s or so would have dozens of sexual partners. It would suggest to me that they either view sexual intimacy as a recreational activity, or that they make emotionally immature decisions about commitment to people.
flame on.
syc - past sex isn't a taboo subject for me, but I refuse to talk about the number of people we've been with. A) I'm not proud of my past, B) I don't really want to know who my potential lover has been with.
what i want to know is A) are you clean? B) how do you know? C) is it ok if I bring my swing or would you prefer the Sybian?;)
Ya know what? Just lie about it.
Some guys want to know if she had sex with someone they know or are likely to meet. You know, just to be prepared for any sniggering or strange comments. It's an ego thing. ;)
i'm far more interested in finding out how many guys they plan on being with in the near future.
Some interesting comments.
I get where you are coming from SmoothMoniker, I dont neccessarily agree but I was looking for other views besides my own and it has given me some food for thought.
The double standard thing has always puzzled me, I dont get why women are sluts if they freely admit to liking sex and have had several partners...but men are legends if they shag numerous women....even better if they do a couple in a nite :p
i think its different if the girl has had sex with guys she still hangs around and sees a lot then it can be a bit weird. if a girl said to me,
"ive had sex with 20 guys over the passed 3 years, i cant remember their names or faces". id be like "as long as im 21 and theres no 22 until we're through"
Anybody who would come right out and ask a woman how many men she has been with does not deserve an answer. That should be a huge red flag to you, and you can bet that if you are stupid enough to talk about your history to him, you are going to regret it. Another red flag is if he persists in asking "Am I the best you have ever had?" or "Who was the best lover you ever had?" Lose him, no matter what your answer is you will never hear the end of it.
Of course it is different if you are with your life partner or, at the least, with somebody who knows you so well in every other way and shares himself with you and not just his "free time". When a person has been with you for a while and you have some "history" of your own together, he or she will come to talk with you about past experiences as a matter of course, and it will not be an inquisition. Even then, each person should have the right to their privacy if they choose to invoke the privilege. If you are sleeping with somebody and do not even have a clue whether they did the entire Seventh Fleet, you might have other things to worry about. But otherwise, let it be.
I agree with Smoothtalker - The circumstances surrounding the situation are as, if not more, important than the number of partners, of course age will also have a major impact. Theres a huge sifference between being 20 and having had 10 partners whereas someone who is 40 with the same number. Then again it is a good indicator of your lifestyle choices. Either way, the past can and usually is a good indicator of the future.
What I'd really like to know is the gender of the past partners ;)
Right now, I'm in Kansas, USA, but plan on being in New Zealand soon.
i'm jealous. my wife and i are moving to aussie soon, but new zealand sounds WONDERFUL !!!
Im glad my SO has no interest in knowing my number. I dont even know my number, I just know I dont like it. What he does know is that Ive never had more than one partner at a time (meaning I never cheated....), and I was safe, and that I get a clean bill of health every year...
Thats what is important...
I think a lot of women regret their highschool/college days... If I could ignore those days my number would immidiately drop down to 3, including my boyfriend....
Ya know what? Just lie about it.
Now there's a great way to start a relationship. :rolleyes:
Definition of a slut: A woman that fucks everyone.
Definition of a bitch: A woman that fucks everyone but you. ;)
As far as I'm concerned, as long as they are disease free, I'm unconcerned with the number of partners. If anything, maybe they can teach me something.
I have some questions for you all... does someone of the same sex count in your number? And what is a lot of partners for a woman to have? Is it like a ratio, where 10 in 10 years is good, but 10 in 1 year is bad type thing? What is good and bad as far as ratios are concerned?
I don't think that it should count, if you WANT it to count, then count it....but if not, don't worry about it. I'm sure some people would consider it countable...and some not...a matter of opinion.
So here's another question for the group...If someone should meet someone and they are honest with the other person about the past, and it just so happens that there ISN'T a clean bill of health, what would be your response to this person. Is there enough feelings toward that person to stay by them, or do you split? And they didn't get that "thing" from being promiscuous, but just past partners were never honest with them. Is this getting confusing yet?
Uhuh Sully, I'm confused...dont worry though, it happens easily :blush:
Anyways, Iggy, I would say same sex counts...if it was a sexual act. Dunno about a number, it seems a tough call.
It doesnt phase me in the least, so I wouldnt care or ask the number of my partner.
10 in 10 years? shit, I dont know, too many other things come into play. What if you had a partner for 9 years and 11 months, then just went out and screwed around a bit?
Too hard :right:
When in doubt, shut your mouth seems to be a good thing.
Sully, would depend on the "thing" for me and my feelings towards the guy.
I would like to say I would stay around regardless, but..well..I'm not perfect.
I don't think that it should count, if you WANT it to count, then count it....but if not, don't worry about it. I'm sure some people would consider it countable...and some not...a matter of opinion.
So here's another question for the group...If someone should meet someone and they are honest with the other person about the past, and it just so happens that there ISN'T a clean bill of health, what would be your response to this person. Is there enough feelings toward that person to stay by them, or do you split? And they didn't get that "thing" from being promiscuous, but just past partners were never honest with them. Is this getting confusing yet?
I didn’t really think it counted, but I wanted to know other’s opinions on it too.
Hmmm… I think it really depends on the circumstances Sully. If the person is comfortable with it, then I think that they should stick around. Also, if you are being honest with them then they should stick around. My response would depend on several things. Like how long I knew them, what wasn’t clean about them, and if there was any way I could keep from getting it.
I think that if the person got it from a dishonest partner, it would make me more likely to be willing to do something with them. But the fear of catching it would still be there. There is a huge difference between being promiscuous and having dated a dishonest person.
So here's another question for the group...If someone should meet someone and they are honest with the other person about the past, and it just so happens that there ISN'T a clean bill of health, what would be your response to this person. Is there enough feelings toward that person to stay by them, or do you split? And they didn't get that "thing" from being promiscuous, but just past partners were never honest with them. Is this getting confusing yet?
Not confusing at all. I can only speak for myself here. It depends a lot on waht they had...If its HIV or AIDS, I doubt I would continue the relationship. It is sad, but Im being honest. I want a family eventually and contracting AIDS wouldnt help. If it was anything else and I enjoyed the persons company, I would continue to see them but would probably refrain from any kinda real sexual contact until we were totally commited. After that...play it safe. I wouldnt end a relationship because of it.
Its a sad fact that in this day in age, a very large portion of the population has had an STD. Some are more serious than others... I just wouldnt judge someone for it and risk missing out on a great relationship.
Also, its not always promiscuity OR dishonesty. There are some STDS like HPV (warts) that are really only detectable if you have an outbreak. People can be a carrier and never have an outbreak...therefor infecting someone without even knowing it.
Thanks for the thoughts, I had trouble with this in one relationship and couldn't figure out what to do exactly. Luckily, I didn't HAVE to find out because the relationship ended on other terms that had nothing to do with STD's or anything of the sort.
So what I'm hearing people say is that if it's something extreme like AIDS or HIV, that would alter the relationship, but for the most part, if it's an STD, and the relationship is honest and good, you'd stick around? I'd hope so if the feelings are there. That was one thing that he was worried about, worried about not being able to find anyone because of this virus. I've read several articles and statistics before...and you'd be AMAZED about the percentage of people, even college aged students, that have these diseases. About 2/3 of all college students have this. Amazing isn't it?
Now there's a great way to start a relationship. :rolleyes:
My feeling is this: You're obsessed with the number of men/women I've slept with? Go fuck yourself.
Just my feeling on the matter.
Then tell the guy to go fuck himself. At least you're being honest. Don't lie to him.
My comment was about the lying not about whether the number of partners is important. Lying is a surefire way to torpedo a relationship.
My feeling is this: You're obsessed with the number of men/women I've slept with? Go fuck yourself.
Just my feeling on the matter.
Could I just hear about the women? :o
Could I just hear about the women? :o
and see the pictures?
Funny, I've actually had quite a problem with this for the past two months. I was dating this wonderful girl for about two years. Initially, she told me she had slept with 13 guys previous (we're both 23 for the record). My feelings were, sheesh that's a lot of people, but I didn't say anything to her. I didn't want to make her feel bad or act like a judgemental prick. I was actually impressed that she was able to be honest with me about it.
Unfortunately, I found out about two months ago that she's actually been with 23 different people. YIKES! I discovered the lie when I found out that she had slept with one of my roommates good friends a few years back. It brought out the worst in me and I started quizing her on the subject and watched in horror as her number went from 13 to 15, 16, 18, 20 and finally 23.
My opinion on sexual history is this. It is history, but it if you love someone there shouldn't be lies. I wouldn't have liked hearing 23 early on, just as I didn't like hearing about 13. However, I initially loved that she was so honest. In the end, I broke up with her not because of her promiscuous past, but because the lie seriously fractured my ability to trust her. The lesson here, if you're not comfortable discussing sexualy history say, "I want to start with a clean slate and I don't think this is relevant to our relationship."
Say anything, but don't lie. My ex lied about it at least 7 times. She didn't understand that the number isn't what mattered, I just wanted to hear the truth.
the truth is ALL ways best , the lies will fall apart eventualy ( spellin )
Pman - your best response at finally hearing the magical number 23 would have been, "ok, now we've covered your family... how many non-family members have you been with."
then again, i'm not exactly the relationship guru these days.
pman-wow...I'm really impressed. That reflects on so much of your character. Compliments to whoever raised you and taught you well. Your value of honesty and integrity are high, which is rare to find in this day. I think we need more people like that, especially since this is what society has to deal with now. If more people were open and honest, forgiving and accepting, I think things would be a heck of a lot different. She would have been so lucky to have someone like you in her life, but because of her choices, it costed her. Thanks for the story..it's given hope to those of us who haven't met anyone like that before!
I never really kept count of my sexual partners but one day the girls and I were having drinks and it came up as a topic of conversation. We all ended up sitting around counting out the different blokes we'd been with and we were all amazed to realize that we'd all been with far more men than we'd have said if asked the question and the answer had been expected on the spot. I know I for one was reminded of one or two who I'd 'forgotten' about for one reason or another.
I would say that I've had a fairly colourful past as far as sexual partners is concerned, but I don't think it's really anyone's business but my own. If someone asked me how many men I'd been with - and it has been asked before by men I'm no longer with - I'd say, enough to know how to please you, but not enough to know how to please your father.
It's true though that women who have had multiple partners are viewed differently than men with the same figures. But the people that matter don't judge you for it, and that's the important thing. If someone can't accept you for who you are and where you've been, then they're not worth having anyway.
If you get into the conversation, you need to tell the truth... If you don't plan on telling to truth you need to say so. "None of your business" or "I don't want to say/talk about it". If you lie, you get what you deserve when it comes out.
I'm not a fan of promiscuous behavior for men or women. However, I know there's a double standard and that's not cool. I'll just say this -there are some reasons for that double standard. In general, women have far more opportunities for sex. By nature, men are usually the pursuer when it comes to sex (notice I said usually, there are definitely exceptions to the rule).
With that being said, men (at least those looking for a relationship and not a one night stand) prefer those ladies that show some restraint when it comes to sex. We know that most women could go out every night and find a willing guy to do the nasty with (that's a scientific term). As crass and unfair as it is, most guys I know tend to separate women into two categories: those you take home to see Mom, and those you take home for the night.
When it comes to a long-term relationship, men want to be with those women that have shared their bodies with only a few deserving people. It makes us feel like we're getting something special. Is it stupid? Maybe. Egotistical and unfair? Probably. But that's the way it is. When it comes to serious relationships, men will always prefer women that have been more selective over those women with a more promiscuous past.
Ahh , but experence RULES !!! on both sides !!!
" No I don't like to do that , BUT I do like to do this !!! "
P-Man...I don't think it's fair of you to suggest that 'men will always prefer women that have been more selective over those women with a more promiscuous past'. For one thing, I don't think you can speak for all men. That implies that you think your moral views are superior to others. For another thing, I know for a fact that your statement is not true.
Definitely not true.
I wouldn't get too pissed off at a woman who threw me a white lie on her number, early in the relationship. To do so, is admitting there is a double standard, then almost arbitrarily punishing the woman for living according to it.
The point at which the double standard doesn't apply and honesty is the rule, is the point at which I make clear, as a man, that I don't work by this double standard, and don't care if the number is 3 or 30 or 300 because the past is the past. If she still lies at that point, there is a problem in the relationship.
OK, sorry if I caused a little stir there. Among the guys I know, that's definitely the preference though. That's not to say that none of us will date a woman with a past. Just to say that given a choice (and all other factors being equal) the guys that I know would rather date a woman who hasn't been promiscuous. I also don't think that it's a stretch to say that most men would prefer a less promiscuous women.
I'm not saying that it's a deal breaker. Would I trade in a promiscuous girl that treats me like gold for a virgin that treats me like crap? Hell no. First, I don't want a virgin, secondly, that's just not a good trade. All I'm saying is that given a choice, most guys I know (there's your disclaimer) prefer to seriously date girls who have been selective. Sorry if I've offended everyone. NOt my intention.
this whole discussion supports my belief that it is ridiculous to even have that conversation. who cares who has been with how many in their past? important questions are:
1) are you disease free?
2) are you sleeping with anyone else right now?
3) monogamy, yes or no?
I agree, it can definitely be a touchy subject. The original poster asked "Do guys really care about a girls sexual history?" My feelings are, yes to a degree we do care. I wouldn't be thrilled about a girl who has slept with tons of guys and given the choice, would prefer to marry someone who has showed some more restraint. HOWEVER, honesty is WAY more important than ones past.
I would take a woman with 35 partners that could tell me honestly any day of the week over a woman with 6 partners who lies and tells me 3. Would I love the fact that the woman has been with 35? No, I (and many guys I'm sure) would prefer less of a sexual history. But honesty is one thing that I treasure.
I guess I'm of the school of thought where I don't want any subject to be off limits with the woman I marry. That doesn't mean that I need or want explicit details, just an honest answer. Trust is paramount.
I'm going with P-Man, in that most guys want to know if the woman they're with has had sex with anyone he'll be running into in his normal course of events.
Nobody wants to show a picture of his new sweetheart around at the sports bar and have them say, "Oh, we had her." or "I've got a video of her."
So if her former lovers remain faceless strangers it doesn't(shouldn't) matter.
In the same vein, I doubt many women want a guy that's screwed all her girlfriends. :2cents:
I've never dated a girl with any sexual history at all, to tell the truth, so... I guess I dont have any real input to give here at all.
In the same vein, I doubt many women want a guy that's screwed all her girlfriends. :2cents:
Only in pursuit of revenge against a girlfriend. It's in the rulebook, page 14, third paragraph, the one under the illustration.
I want to know all - if I'm told a bit
But I'de rather not know a thing - If i'm not told anything
In the same vein, I doubt many women want a guy that's screwed all her girlfriends. :2cents:
I have a incestrous lil group. One of my best friend married my old boyfriend, my other friend has dated 2 of the guys I have been with.
Such things dont bother me so much.
I haven't run into this at all (20yo, first year of eng. school no time for sex), but maybe I can offer a new angle. I see alot of girls who are taking the approach of "I'm in college and I've got a great body so I'm going to sleep around a bit. Later on I'll look for a guy I really want a relationship with. However, this leads to the following problem. The nice guys who treat women well and don't toss them out with the morning garbage do not take kindly to being told to wait on the sidelines till you've had your fun. Trust me, we don't take kindly to being passed over because she wanted to brag about banging the 1st string quarterback. People do not change radically in 4-5 years, and the best way to predict a persons future is to know their past.
That's not true engineer.....you're setting the "double standard" for those girls. Guys do that all the time, and what happens to the nice girls? They finish last as well. It flows both ways honey....and if you don't see that, well, there's something wrong with you! Guys in college always look for the first bang they can get, they take it even if she doesn't wanna give it. Nice girls finish just the same as nice guys. The girls that want to have the relationships are tricked by "nice guys". Guys that SAY they wanna settle down, but in all reality they just want one thing, even if that means they have to work at it or wait for it, they'll do whatever it takes to get it and when they do, they kick the girls to the curb.
And about people changing over time, it's possible, VERY possible. I've known several people, girls and guys, that were promiscuous in college, but have settled down after graduating and decided that they finally want a real relationship and be serious. Just because they decided to be free sexually early on doesn't mean that reflects what the future holds. In fact, if you ask me, it tells NOTHING about the future, maybe just that they know how to please!
I see a problem here that everyone, including myself, is painting views with broad brushes. People are individuals, all different, all unique.
Therefore the question that was first posed, really can't be answered. :smack:
Therefore the question that was first posed, really can't be answered. :smack:
:blush:
I see a problem here that everyone, including myself, is painting views with broad brushes. People are individuals, all different, all unique.
Therefore the question that was first posed, really can't be answered. :smack:
Exactly, Sully's description was insulting to everyone and not my experience at all. I married my college girlfriend while still in school, we dated for three years and are still married thirteen years later.
"Guys in college always look for the first bang they can get, they take it even if she doesn't wanna give it." (kinda sounds like rape doesn't it?)
-From my experience, that's not really true. I will graduate this Sunday from The Ohio State University and after spending five years here (I had to stretch the typical four year program), I've learned a thing or two. Almost every guy I know is looking for love. Not just a quick bang. Not just a night of pleasure.
However, most of us are incapable of turning down easy sex. Only problem with easy sex is afterwards, it takes the girl out of the running for potential girlfriend material. Me and my friends know that if we got it easy, chances are that there's a lot of other guys that are getting it easy. And that's not attractive among my circle of friends.
This is an ongoing discussion between me and my guy friends. Where have all the good girls gone? Where are the women that make you wait for sex? The ones that make you earn their respect before they give up their body? Those are the ones we want to settle down with. Guys like a girl that challenges them. Me and my friends respect those girls more and when it comes down to it, those are the ones that we'll probably marry.
The issues of sexuality between men and women will always be unequal. Not because of any social, cultural or inheriting condition but because of biology.
Women CHOOSE!
Men wait to be chosen
It is this 180 degree difference that gives rise to the false impression of a double standard. It’s not a double standard but a fact of our biology.
Sex does not take place unless a criminal act occurred or the women choose to agree to sex. This reproductive power is a Darwinian evolutionary response. Women have culled the gene pool for millions of years through this sexual power of choice.
A women that sleeps around is consider a slut because of the low moral character that defines there use of there sexual advantage. This reckless use of power and contempt for it is a character issues that will arise through out there life in the form of critical decision making around many other of life’s challenges and is reflective of there values and beliefs. All of us are walking billboard displays of our values and beliefs.
Furthermore, there is the issue of bonding. A woman that has many sexual partners is unlikely to ever form deep physical or spiritual bonding with a man. The divorce rate is over 50% and its rise in our culture runs parallel to women’s so called “sexual revolution.” Statistics show that 80% of divorces are imitated by women.
Men do not deserve the reputation of “players.” A small, very small, minority does but the attitude that men do it so its ok if I do it is fatuous. Most men want a deep committed relationship so they can have a steady supply of sex. Ask most men if they would choose sparse and random sexual encounters or steady tail, they will choose the steady tail 9 X out of 10. Men are vastly less promiscuous as women and have been for eons.
The biggest secret women hold is there sexual history. If men knew the real number they would be shocked. For every 1 sexual partner a women admits to, multiply that by 5. Its that sexual power thing. Women have it and men don’t. A 30 year old American woman is likely to have had 30 to 50 sexual partners. An American woman at age 25 could have as high as 30.
Think of women’s sexuality like a bank. Women own the bank. They can write checks anytime they want as much as they want anywhere they want. Men are like borrowers that have to apply for a loan. Men have to show the bank they are worthy of the loan and deserve credit.
Any bank that gives away the store doesn’t appear to be a solvent concern and the decision process of the banker displays the banker’s character and moral center. Can the banker change? Sure. But like any thing else’s we value in life your history makes a difference. Your schools wants to know the history or your academic achievements, your employer your work record, the government your civil obedience. History matters.
Sorry girls, with great power goes greater responsibility.
WOW, welcome to the Cellar bmwmcaw. What an entrance!:thumb:
Very generalized. May be true for many, but was not my experience. I got laid when I wanted to, turned down many and often.
How was that generalized?? It was probably the best laid post on the subject so far. You just don't think it applies in your case which may or may not be the case
I guess the guys I hung out with were different in college & while working, being theatre majors & professional actors. I married in school, but never had the problems I heard about and neither did any of my peer group until I came back to this small town.
It was probably the best laid post on the subject so far.
You're kidding, right? :worried:
Well I don't agree with ALL of it, but most was very well put. Everyone is judged on their past. Like it or not it's the best indicator of who you are. The idea that sex only occurs when women want it to? Shaky. Guys with half a brain aren't going to jump into bed with the first woman who unzipps her pants. Overall though it was fairly well put, explain where you're comming from if you have major issues with the whole thing.
If there is a love between each-other then the sexual history is not important thing for relationships.
Guys and girls should understand for each-other - we are all a people and have own senses.
IMHO.
Sex is a choice regardless of gender.
People get horny regardless of gender.
Some people, especially when they are younger, choose to have sex for pleasure regardless of gender.
Some people don't meet their "ideal" for many years, but do not choose to remain celibate, regardless of gender.
Some people get hurt emotionally by someone who don't equate sexual intimacy with emotional intimacy regardless of gender.
Some people generalise this experience to include everyone.
Some don't.
Regardless of gender.
Personally, I love the assertion that a 30-year-old woman is "likely" to have had between 30 and 50 partners. That really seals his credibility right there. :rolleyes:
I have issues with the whole post, 9th. "Women who've had many sexual partners won't be able to form strong, emotional bonds with one man"-? Pul-Eaze! Gimme a break! The post smacks of the black and white thinking typical of teenage boys. "Unless a criminal act occurs, women chose to have sex..." Oh, really? Women are never on the fence or seduced by men into having sex? Women never feel pressured into giving bj's? Sex is much more complicated than your friend here imagines. The 'responsibility' for sex is not contingent on what sort of sex organs a person possesses! Complete bullocks!
The post could have been written by my exfather-in-law. He doesn't believe in dinosaur fossils, or the moon landing, or equal rights/equal responsibility either!
I went to school with a guy who was vastly promiscuous, after he got it from a girl he tended to treat her a little meanly. He and I were always friends though!
One of my friends from since the 7th grade always had a few fuckbuddies. If she was feeling a little horney she just called one of 'em. This included when she had a guy that she was specifically interested in.
I have only been with one man, and I don't plan on tryin anyone else out, does this mean I've actually been with 10 men and am often out looking for more? "Its raining men!"
I've gone to church for years and have known several great guys who don't even want to get in a situation where it might be hard to turn down. I've spent hours on the phone with one who had a "ready to go" girlfriend who was trying to get him in bed, I think he made the right decision when he broke it off with her instead.
My older sister is a devout Christian and holds her virginity in the highest respect. She doesn't even want to kiss until the day of marriage!
I think it is your choice rather to have sex or not to have sex. This goes for both men and women...so P-man if you would sleep with a woman who proves to be easy, then you yourself are easy. I personally would choose to have a partner who has had no others, that way they aren't bringing any history to bed (memories of how other women did things, looked ect.). I have to say you really shouldn't disregard a person just because they are virgin. The bedroom (and the tent, car, beach...) can be alot of fun when your discovering each other.
I like the whole 'women aren't supposed to be sexual and if they are, they are bad, bad girls' kind of thinking. Very American Taliban.
Ya, I definately think the statement about 30 - 50 sexual partners is wacked:lol: It's over the top and far too strong (needs to be watered down and given a :chill:), but if you cut out the outrageous parts and apply it to both genders (I should have mentioned that earlier:o) it works out pretty well. I don't think that someone (guy or girl) who has had alot of sexual partners will never be able to form a lasting emotional bond with just one, but none of their partners are going to think that sex imparts much importance to the relationship. Suddenly, having sex means about as much as eating lunch with them.
The 30 to 50 came strait from Cosmopolitan magazine.:rolleyes: I read it some time ago and they based it on an average 3 boyfriends per year since sexual activity begins around 18 years old. Yes, I do admit that there may be some over generalization or simplification.:eyebrow:
Yet the issue of sexual choice being female is highly document by many sociologists. As well in naturalist who see this fact repeatedly in other species of animals. In fact there are many books on this subject. I didn’t just make this up on this board.
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?12.008
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/5817.html
http://human-nature.com/books/geary1.html
These selections are only a tip of the iceberg of studies.
Facts are facts, and it’s empirically obvious that it’s the female that gives the green light for sex not men. Men haven’t been buying sex for thousands of years for nothing. You don’t see many male prostitutes vying there trade servicing women.
The lack of emotional bonding is another thing I didn’t make up. Without getting to religious here, the bible is replete with this message, a message that has stood the test of time. It’s not just in the bible, it’s taught through out cultures and societies from western civilizations to the tribes of the amazons. In many of theses cultures this message is taught in females dominated cultures by the female matriarchs. Ask yourself girls if you don’t feel you could take back that sexual history. Don’t your girls sell your chastity when you meet a guy you really like and want to stick around? Isn’t hypocrisy to claim your past or sexual experience means nothing and yet is the 1st thing you try to conceal.
Rationalization is just another word for denial.
Well, it's impossible for me to try to refute the empirical and, no doubt, immaculate research methods of the Cosmo Team that you identify as your source. I myself once relied upon the Wisdom of Cosmopolitan (I was 15) and I understand your confusion as they WILL set the exploits of their editorial board up as regular Joe-and-Josephine examples.
As far as your claim that 'men have been buying sex for thousands of years for nothing'-- I SO beg to differ! Men buy sex for a very sound [I]something[I] indeed! That something is called orgasm! It's worth the price! You should try it some time! I also see Plenty of male prostitues! Just because it's the men who are buying doesn't negate the value of the experience or the trade.
As far as the theory that 'too many sex partners for a women means she can't be emotionally or spiritually attached to ONE GOOD PERSON!' goes--try plying that to the millions of men who have and will love many, many women in their lives---men of accademe, of religion, of public service, of Greater Good. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a known philanderer---would you swat down all his works because he was an adulterer?
People are flawed. Women are flawed. All women--even your Virgin Mary.
In many of theses cultures this message is taught in females dominated cultures by the female matriarchs. Ask yourself girls if you don’t feel you could take back that sexual history. Don’t your girls sell your chastity when you meet a guy you really like and want to stick around? Isn’t hypocrisy to claim your past or sexual experience means nothing and yet is the 1st thing you try to conceal.
Rationalization is just another word for denial.
This is pure misogyny.
And to answer your juvenile question--I never try to conceal my sexual history.
Fess up--you're fifteen.
Paging Troll-y McTrolls-a-lot... your mom says to get off the computer, it's time for dinner, and did you look for a job today you lazy good-fer-nothing?
You sound like you have some growing up to do yourself Clodfobble.
Your assertion of misogyny is pretty loose Brianna, although I don't think what bmw is saying only applies to women it's not hate in the sense you're projecting it into. I could validly accuse you of misandry on the same principles you're using. Stick to addressing what you disagree with and leave the smear attacks and name-branding at the door.
I don't agree with what he's saying within his given context and limitations, but you're giving us a very telling look at of you with your style of rebuttal. Only took one post to go from debate to personal smear and credibility attacks.
Sex is a choice regardless of gender.
People get horny regardless of gender.
Some people, especially when they are younger, choose to have sex for pleasure regardless of gender.
Some people don't meet their "ideal" for many years, but do not choose to remain celibate, regardless of gender.
Some people get hurt emotionally by someone who don't equate sexual intimacy with emotional intimacy regardless of gender.
Some people generalise this experience to include everyone.
Some don't.
Regardless of gender.
Well that's painting with a rather broad brush.
You sound like you have some growing up to do yourself Clodfobble.
SNAP! C'fob schooled by an engineer! (as if)
Your assertion of misogyny is pretty loose Brianna, although I don't think what bmw is saying only applies to women it's not hate in the sense you're projecting it into. I could validly accuse you of misandry on the same principles you're using. Stick to addressing what you disagree with and leave the smear attacks and name-branding at the door.
How dare you refer to Brianna as loose? Young man, I throw down my gauntlet. Since xobruce is offline right now, I'll defend her honor. She offered her honor. I'll honor her offer, and all night long it shall be honor and offer.
I don't agree with what he's saying within his given context and limitations, but you're giving us a very telling look at of you with your style of rebuttal. Only took one post to go from debate to personal smear and credibility attacks.
I actually agreed with everything he said. Then I read a few of the responses and agreed with everything they said. Then I read "but you're giving us a very telling look at of you" and it all went to hell right there.
Now I have a headache and I wish I was a hot 21 year old slutty virgin so Icould get laid. Or something. Maybe I'll watch Truffaut's 400 blows. Netfilx just sent it to me.
"peace outside"
"peace outside"
WHOA. Please tell me you are quoting the Chinese mock rapper I think you are. That just made my evening, right there. :thumbsup:
Tai Mai Shu!
My favorite cmep2 hit.
If all thats true....I'm so screwed!! :rolleyes:
A conversation at the local pub on Saturday nite (there were only 3 girls in the pub, my bestest and myself being 2 of them)....I walked away wondering why its soooo hard for guys to believe that girls sometimes just want to get laid, they arent always looking for the one, to fall in love etc etc and why is it sooo bad??
I just dont get why having sex with whomever and whenever one wants is a bad thing? ....so long as its done safely and neither party are disillusioned with whats exactly happened.
Anyone who knows me for more than 15 minutes knows I'm a sexual being, I dont bother with the whole *pure n innocent* charade as it just doesnt sit.
You either fall for me the way I am...or buh-bye!! Except for that rather strange experience I mentioned last weekend - I've never had any problems, have been in love, have had my heart broken, havent had commitment problems and havent been labelled a slut :)
I just think this whole thing takes on a different perspective as you get older, there's less mucking around and game playing.
Now I have a headache and I wish I was a hot 21 year old slutty virgin so Icould get laid. Or something. Maybe I'll watch Truffaut's 400 blows. Netfilx just sent it to me.
Dude, that's not a porn film.
Dude, that's not a porn film.
...If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...
i'm learning more from the reactions to his post than his post. I've heard the multiply by 3, divide by 3 saw in regards to female/male stated sexual history. nothing new there. the only thing really new in his initial post was the bank analogy.....which i found amusing. 9th, you're missing clodfobble's point. she's calling him a troll because his very first post is a resentful poke at womankind. seems like he may have been having some hard luck with the ladies, if you ask me. perhaps you percieved that already and identify with him? Brianna's posts are the ones that lift MY eyebrows.
Bri, the part that bothered you the most was plainly the bit about a supposed inverse relationship between the number of sexual partners and the ability to feel true love? It's horseshit, I agree, but why does it bother you so? You're an introspective person. Is this familiar ground to you? have you pondered the sometimes empty feelings that you've shared here, and wondered if your past is inhibiting your ability to feel? If anything the opposite would be true, i think. recognition of the difference(between a sexual and a spiritual relationship) should be easier for the contrast. the naive are the ones that mistake sex for love. romance for love. excitement and discovery for love.
new guy seems smart and thoughtful.....if grammatically challenged.....but, i agree with cloddy....i hear the simplicity and certainty of idealistic youth. i guess that's the result of book larnin about people instead of applied learning.
at any rate....i just wanted to say that my sex credit score is over 700. gimme some sugar, baby.
have you pondered the sometimes empty feelings that you've shared here, and wondered if your past is inhibiting your ability to feel?
I don't think that's it. I object to the assertion that women who have (or had) lots of partners are emotionally and spiritually damaged to the extent that they won't be able to bond with one man. Sticks in my craw. And new guy plainly stated that this was a female problem, not a human problem, since females have the 'goodies'--I find that offensive.
As for 9th telling me that I'm name calling when I call a post misogynistic in nature--that's not name calling. That's calling it as I see it. Calling 9th a Zombie Engineer would be name calling.
Well that's painting with a rather broad brush.
:lol2:
In the interest of full disclosure--my own 15 year old is driving me batty. Batty, I tell you!
Wow, um yeah well OK Lemme think here. OH hell I need more time - thats an awful lot to absorb this early and without coffee.
Brianna, I’ll make this to your point.
The idea that sex in and of itself is isolated in a person psychology is self-delusional. As much as we would like to compartmentalize our life experiences our mental and emotion present is a tapestry of our past. You are no more than what has come before.
If sexual intimacy was so irrelevant then why is its exclusivity so prized? Why get married at all if sex is insignificant. Without sexual intimacy and exclusivity your partner is merely a friend. Would we think of marriage the same if our sexual choices didn’t matter?
Do you think soldiers that come back from the battlefield don’t suffer from post-traumatic stress? No matter what you do in life it stays with you and how you deal with it defines you. Things that have the greatest impact stay with you through out your life. Imagine if you will your future mate being materially and family wise great but as a lover poor. You will fantasies about some past lover and in doing so cheapen your bond with your current mate. Essentially, betraying them.
If you believe in marriage then you believe in sexual chastity. If you believe in sexual chastity then you are admitting that promiscuity is detrimental. I not saying that millions of promiscuous men and women can't eke out a relationship and marriage but look underneath and you will find bad relationships and broken families.
At first glance my position looks anti-female but it really isn’t. My point has been that women have a greater responsibility based on there biology. Women have been and continue to be the gatekeepers. I think every women who could choose (all things being equal) between a man that is a virgin and one that’s sleep around would rather take the virgin. Its called emotional investment. Are you all in or do you save some chips for another hand.
I’ll tell you from my own experience. I can tell if a girl has sleep around. The way she looks at you. The way she talks to you. The things she talks about and her body language. Most guys on the “prowl” can spot a slut in a bar from a mile away. You will never convince me that being a slut doesn’t carry over into any relationship they have.
bmwmcaw - if you're still here and posting on different topics in a couple of weeks time I might bother taking your posts seriously and refuting them.
Too sleepy this afternoon to be baited.
One more tip-bit. Something women never seem to get.
Women will always know who's baby there having. Men will never truly know. Modern DNA testing aside (and see how well thats recieved upon request) men for thousands of years don't want to raise another mans child.
This is why one of the reasons being a slut has for thousands of years had such negitive social impact.
Well I finally got my coffee! I think there is some merit to that which bmw speaks in that women are more in control of whether or not a sexual encounter occurs, but thats about where it ends. The fact that on average a woman has "x number of partners at age whatever" is a completely ficticious number. There are too any differences in our societies and cultures to paint all women, or men for that matter, with such a broad brush. He corroborates his information with an article/poll from cosmo. To me that is a much more telling issue. Dude, what the hell are you doing reading or even believing in cosmo????????? Get a clue and simply respect that we are all individuals with our own quirks pasts and beliefs.
Yesman,
I never said the numbers are written in stone. Cosmo has the largest circulation of any female oriented magazine. For women, written by women, about women. Would it have been more credible if it came from Maxim Magazine? What do your think Sex In The City story line was all about...rationalizing promiscuity in women.
My gal-pal has it lying around her place and when in the reading room one reads.
Got to go and makes some trades...CYA all later.
Yesman,
I never said the numbers are written in stone. Cosmo has the largest circulation of any female oriented magazine. For women, written by women, about women. Would it have been more credible if it came from Maxim Magazine? What do your think Sex In The City story line was all about...rationalizing promiscuity in women.
My gal-pal has it lying around her place and when in the reading room one reads.
Got to go and makes some trades...CYA all later.
I think porn mags/movies were started for the use of men...I
might be wrong but I doubt it. Porn shows greater promiscuity in men then it does in women...yes in recent years (off and on since about the 20s in the US) there has been an increase in
obvious female promiscuity, but that is just women execising a freedom they have been historically denied. Men have always been encouraged to "sleep around" which does have a biological bases since a woman can only be pregnant once every 11-12 months (lets give 'em a bit of a break) and is only to have so many before it wears her out. Men on the other hand can father an unfathomanble amount of children in their lifetime...even continuing into the 80s and 90s...women normally give out (if they've taken it easy) around 50.
So although I don't hold with promiscuity, I do support women in the right to share equal blame with men for their promiscuity...equal opprotunity :-P.
Neither Cosmo nor Sex in the City would I refer to as credible sources. I have been in the print media for 15 years and know all too well the inner workings of mags. As far as their "data" I find it rather humorous that anyone would base anything on what they say. I equate it to that of the talking heads and their misinformation on politics. Not many people of any credibility would answer the questions put forth by those "pollsters" anyway. I find it better to live treat each person as they are, not what a poll or survey tells me they are apparently like. Then again, thats just me. and I personally wouldn't fit into any category you could try to squeeze me into.
I can tell if a girl has sleep around. The way she looks at you. The way she talks to you. The things she talks about and her body language. Most guys on the “prowl” can spot a slut in a bar from a mile away. You will never convince me that being a slut doesn’t carry over into any relationship they have.
I assume that this applies to frequently fucked males as well, right? Or is it only women who can be sluts?
male sluts are called satyrs.
Women will always know who's baby there having. Men will never truly know. Modern DNA testing aside (and see how well thats recieved upon request) men for thousands of years don't want to raise another mans child.
The reason babies look like their fathers is so the fathers don't eat them. True.
Where are the women that make you wait for sex? The ones that make you earn their respect before they give up their body? Those are the ones we want to settle down with.
So, just out of curiosity, how long is long enough?
So, just out of curiosity, how long is long enough?
five and three quarter inches?
five and three quarter inches?
aroused or not aroused? my boy's is about 3 pez sticks aroused...depends if he's cold and what not otherwise...
tha'ss an odd unit uv mayzure, to be sure. ay hoop i's no' an eendication uv 'is girth, lass. brings eemages uv troween a 'hot doog douwn a 'allway, it does.
I don't think bmwmcaw is yanking anyones chain. Although I think he makes some vadid points, experience, personal and observed, tells me other points are way off base.
Keep in mind his post was not a scientific disertation, just an opinion...the world acording to bmwmcaw.
I think if he truely believes what he posted, there are others, at least in his peer group, that feel the same way. It's evidently another valid scenario to put in your data bank of possibilities to be considered, when you're pondering....... "what the hell was that guy thinking". :whofart:
Bruce - I do honestly try to take other people's opinions on board. But these are rather... unusual opinions for this time and place (especially if he has read some of the other threads in Relationships) and they are put across quite forcefully.
It is hard not to react when someone tells you that women who have had more than one partner (aka sluts) have effectively damaged their own ability to form emotional bonds. I just don't see how someone could have come to that conclusion.
If you sleep with every man that shows a passing interest, your promiscuity is a
symptom of your inability to have a relationship and possible self esteem issues. It is not the cause.
Imagine if you will your future mate being materially and family wise great but as a lover poor. You will fantasies about some past lover and in doing so cheapen your bond with your current mate. Essentially, betraying them... snip
I not saying that millions of promiscuous men and women can't eke out a relationship and marriage but look underneath and you will find bad relationships and broken families.
This is effectively backdated cheating. I believe that cheating in a relationship can change the dynamics, rocking it to its core so that the majority probably do not survive it. But the idea that I've spoiled myself for apples by eating an orange just doesn't make logical sense to me.
I think every women who could choose (all things being equal) between a man that is a virgin and one that’s sleep around would rather take the virgin. Its called emotional investment.
Oh come on! Maybe if you're in your first relationship and it's your first time. Definitely if you have strong religious or moral beliefs. But every woman? I'm afraid the NHS is a hotbed of sluts as a straw poll of my colleagues revealed only one who actually considered it. And even she decided it wouldn't make a difference to her, rather than replying "One virgin, extra large, wrapped to go please"
I’ll tell you from my own experience. I can tell if a girl has sleep around. The way she looks at you. The way she talks to you.
Like the word "slut" this is an inflammatory statement. At a rough guess, most of the men I am in contact with at work and socially have slept with more than one woman. And?
Most guys on the “prowl” can spot a slut in a bar from a mile away.
Again. Men go on the prowl, women are sluts. He probably thinks he can smell their ripe pussies as well.
You will never convince me that being a slut doesn’t carry over into any relationship they have.
I could shrug & give up. But it bugs me by being SO irrational if this is not a troll.
There was an interview in the newspaper this morning with Gary Barlow (boy band member, may not be known in the US). He estimated he slept with over 200 women while he was living the popstar lifestyle. He is married now, has been for 7 years and is happy and settled. He managed to subdue his inner slut somehow I guess.
Well, that's off my chest anyway. I disagree with most of bmwmcaw is saying on this topic and part of me will believe it is chain yanking until I see proof otherwise.
I'm a suspicious slut today ;)
Your post is proof that he indeed did yank your chain, but I doubt that was his specific intent. I tend to believe his opinion is real because I've heard it, with some variation, many times before. Moreso when I was that age (in the '60s) than later, but my contact with that generation is somewhat limited....at least with guys.
That said, Hearing it from older guys doesn't surprise me, however, I'm a little surprised to hear it from a young guy. It makes me wonder if it is flourishing?
Your rebuttal is reasonable and well thought out, but it makes me believe you're a slut and should give me directions to your house immediately.:yum: :hugnkiss:
tha'ss an odd unit uv mayzure, to be sure. ay hoop i's no' an eendication uv 'is girth, lass. brings eemages uv troween a 'hot doog douwn a 'allway, it does.
lol its doesnt' even get close to the girth... actually it was really late when I posted that for some odd reason it seemed like pez sticks would make a good measurement unit :-) I really have never measured...doesn't seem relevant.
Thanks Sunday girl - you made a very concise cogent argument - much better than I. Guess I can recognize greatness better than I can create it.
Sundae, as usual, is right on.
Women with X number partners=slut
Men looking for poon='on the prowl'--after all, boys will be boys, eh? The moral high road MUST be taken by the women as men are incapable of controlling themselves!
Women who fool around? A pox upon them! And may their dirty, dirty girl parts fall off.
Now. Shall we talk about all the sluts who got raped 'coz they "asked for it"-? (and, you know they liked it. Secretly, they did.)
Sundae Girl,
Your rebuttal, which I loosely call, is exactly the rationalization that takes place once the milk get spilled.
Your premises are: Guys do it so why don't we. If it feels good then do it. Why take responsibility for your actions if your can rationalize it away.
Your cause and effect explanation isn't wrong so to speak but off target. ONE of the points being made was the lack of emotional investment by women that have had multiple partners. The betrayal in thoughts is as real as in the body. “Backdating?”
"But the idea that I've spoiled myself for apples by eating an orange just doesn't make logical sense to me."
Huh! What is this have to do with emotional bonding? You know the thing that irks you.
As for choosing a virgin over a "player." Using part of your questionable analogy, why buy an apple with worms when you can get fresh one off the tree. Quality counts in every purchase or investment, and money and looks have nothing to do with emotional quality. Are you going to rationalize away the obvious now? If your “friends” say it doesn’t matter then they are poor judges of what really matters in life.
For the men around you that you assume have had more than one lover, its irrelevant. You should reread my past post. Men do not have the sexual advantages of women! That’s why men who are successful bedding women are considered by some in our society as successful. I don’t think a man that presents himself as a possible long term mate then humps and dumps is a successful or moral man. But mans sexual success is base entirely on effort, where as women’s is a matter of choosing to say yes or no. WOMEN CHOOSE AND MEN WAIT TO BE CHOOSEN.
There is no double standard and sexual “freedom” isn’t free. My understanding of women’s liberation was about careers out side the home not about pulling there pants down and using false comparisons to justify it.
This string is about a women sexual history. It does matter for all the reasons I stated and to date other than opinions and kowtow from posters I haven’t seen or read one single rational or reasonable refutation. :eyebrow:
Your premises are: Guys do it so why don't we. If it feels good then do it. Why take responsibility for your actions if your can rationalize it away.
I thought the premise was that guys and girls both do it, why is it only considered bad for girls?
I have had far more sexual partners than my husband has. He's pretty happy with the outcome. ;)
I guess that makes me a slut, but then again, don't 'all' men want a slut in the bedroom, a chef in the kitchen and something else somewhere else? (can't remember how that one finishes cause I think it's a load of tripe. I just thought I'd pop it in there for the benefit of bmw since he seems to believe in so many other stereotypes)
Relationships based on sexual history or performance will almost always fail because relationships aren't about sex. Sex is a benefit of being in a loving relationship and definitely something to look forward to, but it's not why you have the relationship in the first place - unless you're incredibly emotionally immature.
Some people enjoy living in the dark ages - bring on the inquisition I say!
...like how many, who, how etc??
My gfs and I were discussing this last nite and it seems guys can still be a bit weirded out by a girl who has a fairly ...err...impressive? (not the word I was looking for :lol: ) sexual history.
Is it true? Do I need to dull down my resume?
Do guys just want sex from the ones that put out, or can they still fall in love with them??
I have this problem where I always say the first thing that comes to mind, so if I get asked a question...I never think..."do I answer this truthfully or should I be a bit vague?".
From my point of view, if a guy I am attracted to is going to be bothered by my past, he probably isnt the guy for me.
I don't see what importance ones sexual history is. Of course, you have to consider this era of record breaking STD's. Then of course you would probably like to know what kind of person you are dating before you get all kinky and shit.
I think if some guy gets all bothered to the point of becoming ballistic about a womans past sexual escapades. Then that guy has an insecurity issues. Same goes for the woman too.
How many of us are virgins by the time we hit 20 years of age? If someone asks you that, well why do they want to know. How do you answer? You don't. Unless you really want to find out what this person is all about (find out just how insecure he or she really is). Then again, say you say you had 15 partners. They say nothing but want to get you into the sack anyway. Follow your gut here. Some concern is normal reaction. Extreme concern is not normal and no concern is not normal.
Did I tell my wife 24 years ago? Yes. Did she tell me? Yes. Her reaction was more involved when I told her than when she told me. She reacted, I reacted but neither of us reacted to an extreme. More questions came out as our relationship grew. The reactions never increased. They actually decreased. Eventually (over the years) they never came up again (no point in it). Married, two kids. Who gives a shit who you slept with 24+ years ago? Not us!
Point is: watch for overeaction. That would be a flag.
Use common sense too. If they're 30 and a virgin they deserve a gold medal for overcoming natural human desires. If they're 30 and they haven't invented a word for that number - eh... think twice before you indulge.
If you sleep with every man that shows a passing interest, your promiscuity is a symptom of your inability to have a relationship and possible self esteem issues. It is not the cause.
This brings us back to the original question. I sometimes used my (obviously limited) knowlege of sexual history to screen potential partners because I could see the symptom, if not the underlying problem. Dating the town bicycle was never an option for me, since I wasn't a guy slut. Everyone has qualities they look for in their loves, a reasonably temperant approach to sexuality is one for many of us. Don't be insulted that people want different things, many folks want sex to be free of comittment and easily aquired but that doesn't fly for some of us so just cross us off your list of suitors. Some guys care and some guys don't, you decide which guys you want to date.
Of course people are entitled to apply their own criteria in choosing a partner. And entitled to their own opinion as to what does/ does not make a woman a slut.
I don't agree that your sexual HISTORY follows you around like a bad smell. I'm not talking about people who have a long term cavalier approach to sexual partners, who wake up in a different bed or against the back wall of a bar every weekend. And neither was bmwmcaw from what I can tell. I'm talking about people who have had a number of relationships which have involved healthy, monogamous and emotionally satisfying sexual intercourse.
In my mind they have not cheapened themself, they are not damaged goods, wormy apples, sluts or bikes.
I also disagree with the idea that a man can be proud of the sluts he's nailed. He worked for it. He was the hunter and his was the prize. Whereas the dirty sluts should hang their heads in shame. They laid back with their open door policy and let anyone with a pulse do the nasty.
That is what I have a problem with. Not with someone saying that they waited until they were married and personally their opinion of women who don't is pretty low.
But I know I can't come to an agreement with bmwmcaw on this.
I agree that the double standard is nonsense.
Undertoad - Give us a breakdown on the #'s - whats it all mean? Seems like men and women are pretty equal for the most part as far as the # of partners - no?
It would be neat to see more precise data to see if there is a normal distribution curve, but it looks real enough if you just divide the numbers.
- actually the men have generally had 2-3 more partners.
- bmw's Cosmo numbers are, as expected, entirely bogus. The typical 25-y-o American woman has had three partners, and only 6.9% at that age have had 15 or more partners.
- men are more likely to be sluts by far. By age 45, 34% of men will have had 15 or more partners, while only 11% of women.
- men are more likely to sleep around in their late 20s-30s. Between age 25-45, the median number of partners for women goes from 3.5 to 3.8. In that same timeframe for men, the number goes from 5.9 to 8.2.
- fewer women are virgins by age 19; 37.8% to 43.5%.
Damn at 42 if I wanna get up to the "average" I better start sleeping around soon. I'm in that low 5%. OK, I need about a dozen women willing to help me out! Any volunteers?? ;)
Well if you can stomach a bite of a wormy apple....? ;)
LOL, thats great Sundae! ! ! I'll schedule you in when I make my european tour. If I'm gonna do this, I'll probably have to go out of the states too! And I prefer a wormy apple - the worms know which ones are best!! !! ;)
It's an interesting chart for sure.
If you are average when you are younger, and then end up in a good monogamous marriage, then your number never increases, and you slowly drop out of "average" and into the lower edge of the bell curve. Looking at this chart, I see that you are all a bunch of horn dogs! :D
Here's another bad thing about being a slut. I was pretty indiscriminate for a few years in my 20s, so when I was tabulating my numbers to see where I fit in this chart, I found that I couldn't remember them all in one go. Now, random parking lot encounters with drunk girls are popping into my head, and I remember that the one thing they (and I) all had in common was really low self-esteem. I can REMEMBER about 35-40. Who knows what I've forgotten.
So, as an expert in this field, I think I can say with some certainty that promiscuity = low self esteem. Personally, I don't want to be with a girl who currently acts like I used to act, because that means they are as broken now as I was then. I've been celibate for 2 years, and if I ever break my streak, I hope it's because I've found "the one", and not because I get horny.
Undertoad,
The CDC stats are from interviews. Men always over report (inflate) there sexual experience and women under report it for all the reason stated on this board.
Again my point is character.
If you’ve been in a successful relationship for years with a whore-bag then god bless you. Personally I wouldn't want to be teaching my children that pulling your pants down no matter what age you are out wed-lock for the sheer “fun” of it is good and moral behavior.
The choice we make in our life make us the people we are. No matter what age you where when the choice was made.
Your sexual history is important because its reveals your character.
I never said that women that sleep around are unredeemable I just answered the question. Yes your history matters. Your employment, academic, civil obedience and credit history mean a great deal to others that want to judge your character. Saying sexual history is some how irrelevant denies the obvious. All the history criteria above reflect your character and the choices that have defined it.
People can spend there whole life in denial and everybody can convince themselves of anything.
No go ahead tell me those other history criteria regarding choices made in your life doesn’t matter either.
I have a question for bmw, what qualifies a woman to be a slut (in your mind)? What if she has had several (let us say 3) serious relationships in her lifetime and was monogamous in all of them? She has slept with more than one man, but she has been cautious with her partners.
As far as men having made an accomplishment if they have slept with many women, I think it is a load of horseshit. Men that sleep around are no more noble than women who do the same. Sometimes a woman is the gatekeeper, but there are many times when the man pressures the woman into it. Pressuring someone to do something they don’t want to do is not an admirable trait in any person.
In my experience, women that sleep with anyone that has a penis have underlying emotional issues, and like Sundae Girl said, it is a symptom of something else. The only “sluts” I know* have been molested, most by family members. What do you say about women whose virginity was taken through molestation or rape? Are they damaged goods too?
When you say you can “spot a slut from a mile away” I suspect you are talking about those damaged women who have been abused and don’t know how to respect themselves. But that doesn’t mean that just because a woman has had several partners that she is a slut. Far from it. Again, like Sundae Girl said, if they have healthy loving monogamous relationships then I don’t see how on earth you can say they are a slut. But it would help to know the answer to my first question before I say that you are over generalizing.
*I should say that for a woman to be a slut in my mind she has to not care who she sleeps with and she doesn’t have healthy relationships with the men she does sleep with (and of course sleep with lots of men but that will happen if she doesn’t care who she sleeps with).
aroused or not aroused? my boy's is about 3 pez sticks aroused...depends if he's cold and what not otherwise...
Is that Pez *pieces* or Pez *dispensers*? Either way... :eek: Oh...and, interesting measuring system you've got there, lady.
bmw are you saying that if I stole or shoplifted something as a child then my moral character as an adult should be taken into question? I mean there are a million things I can think of that children do which you are saying make us immoral or of low character. I'd really like to know what vaccuum of a planet you were raised on cuz if what you say is true then there are absolutely ZERO "good" people here on earth. What a shame to have a belief system without any forgiveness or compassion. I truly feel sorry for you - what a bitter person you seem to be.
Yesman, and can you stop being one for a minute, stealing a candy bar and have sexual intercourse is simply not in the same ballpark. That’s what I think the academics call and inappropriate comparison. But, let’s not stop there. Do you think it was wrong to steal that Twinkie? Isn't that the real question or answer to your point?
Right and wrong and taking responsibility for it.
stealing a candy bar and have sexual intercourse is simply not in the same ballpark.
...
Right and wrong and taking responsibility for it.
Or in this case, wrong and right.
Stealing a candybar is wrong. Sex is not.
I have a question for bmw, what qualifies a woman to be a slut (in your mind)? What if she has had several (let us say 3) serious relationships in her lifetime and was monogamous in all of them? She has slept with more than one man, but she has been cautious with her partners.
[COLOR="Blue"]Willful sexual acts and reckless behaviour.[/COLOR]
As far as men having made an accomplishment if they have slept with many women, I think it is a load of horseshit. Men that sleep around are no more noble than women who do the same. Sometimes a woman is the gatekeeper, but there are many times when the man pressures the woman into it. Pressuring someone to do something they don’t want to do is not an admirable trait in any person.
[COLOR="blue"] Again you miss the point of sexual advantage women have. To those who are given much, much is expected[/COLOR]
In my experience, women that sleep with anyone that has a penis have underlying emotional issues, and like Sundae Girl said, it is a symptom of something else. The only “sluts” I know* have been molested, most by family members. What do you say about women whose virginity was taken through molestation or rape? Are they damaged goods too?
[COLOR="Blue"]Ah, the abuse excuses. I never met a women that didn't claim to not have an excuse for there Undesirable behaviors.[/COLOR]
When you say you can “spot a slut from a mile away” I suspect you are talking about those damaged women who have been abused and don’t know how to respect themselves. But that doesn’t mean that just because a woman has had several partners that she is a slut. Far from it. Again, like Sundae Girl said, if they have healthy loving monogamous relationships then I don’t see how on earth you can say they are a slut. But it would help to know the answer to my first question before I say that you are over generalizing.
[COLOR="blue"]See previous answer.[/COLOR]
*I should say that for a woman to be a slut in my mind she has to not care who she sleeps with and she doesn’t have healthy relationships with the men she does sleep with (and of course sleep with lots of men but that will happen if she doesn’t care who she sleeps with).
[COLOR="blue"]
Jack Nicholson said it best in the character he played in” As good as it gets."
He answers a women’s question in an elevator on how he's able to write about women so well "its as if you know us."
[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"]
His answer..."I think of a man and take away all reason and accountability."[/COLOR]
[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]
If anyone has ever explain women better I've never heard it.[/COLOR]
Ah, go :doit: yourself
:lol2:
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. :eyebrow:
[SIZE="1"]<damn, I'm glad there are plenty of people who disagree with you>[/SIZE]
Stormie
I told you guys he's a misogynist.
He's not getting laid, either. What a huge surprise.
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?
[COLOR="blue"]Jack Nicholson said it best in the character he played in” As good as it gets."
He answers a women’s question in an elevator on how he's able to write about women so well "its as if you know us."
[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"]His answer..."I think of a man and take away all reason and accountability."[/COLOR]
[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]If anyone has ever explain women better I've never heard it.[/COLOR]
So now you are quoting a movie to defend your argument? Yeah, that gives your argument credibility. :neutral:
I see we will not come to an agreement. Willful sexual acts within a trusting, loving, and long term* relationship do not make a slut. I can agree with the "reckless behavior" part though. If any person (regardless of gender) is completely reckless with their bodies I would say they are a slut/man whore.
I think you are putting way too much stock in the "advantage" that women have. What about the ugly girls that have to fight with the man to get them to have sex with them? They obviously have to wait for the man to open the gate for sexual encounters, so should they be applauded for promiscuity? I think not. No one should be.
But you are going to believe what you want to believe since you don't have really have a reasonable argument anyway.
[SIZE="1"]Edit: *By long term I am referring to at least over a year.[/SIZE]
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?
Not sure, the *chase* is a bit more exciting, but not sure whether the inevitable outcome will differ.
Seriously, I think I live on another planet at times....I've had long term relationships (3yrs+), plus a few shorter term ones (over 6mths) and except for the first one (aged 16), I havent withheld the sex.
[COLOR="Silver"]**Proof reading would be a good thing [/COLOR]
So now you are quoting a movie to defend your argument? Yeah, that gives your argument credibility. :neutral:
Not just that, but a hateful, mysogenistic, antisocial character in a movie...
The chase? That's it? So it all boils down to the hunt for sex then...
Just to clear something up, bmwmcaw, I am assuming from your arguments that you are in fact a virgin, correct?
Are, and will be it seems...
The chase? That's it? So it all boils down to the hunt for sex then...
:right: Its not about the hunt for sex, but its been mentioned that if a girl doesnt put out straight away, she appears more unobtainable/ desirable....therefor, the *chase* is more appealing, because, well...there IS a chase I guess.
Whether or not there is a chase or sex is given up straight away, wont change if the relationship is going to work or not...IMO.
Is that Pez *pieces* or Pez *dispensers*? Either way... :eek: Oh...and, interesting measuring system you've got there, lady.
The sticks that are used to refill the dispenser...I got bored with the Standard and Metric system...so I decided to make up my own. The full pez stick is now my inch and the single pez piece is my centimeter...I am on a mission to spread my new delicious form of measurement to everyone!
WOMEN CHOOSE AND MEN WAIT TO BE CHOOSEN.
I have chosen and waited to be choosen (is that even the correct spelling?)...I'm pretty sure I'm not a hemaphidite...wait one sec...*checks*...nope only a vagina...
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.
"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.
[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.
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.
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. :rolleyes:
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
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 ;)
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." :crazy:
Of course, when religion is involved, there is no limiting the crazyness.
That, of course depends, on your perspective.
Of course, when religion is involved, there is no limiting the crazyness.
I know, right? I hear there are even some people who limit their sexual activity because of moral concerns! Ludicrous.
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.
when did I say bmw was my friend???:eyebrow: 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...
you still haven't said a thing about his misogynistic outlook.
Oh the irony of somone doing what they are accusing you of, as the basis for their accusation.
he breaks my cardinal rule of holding men and women both to the same level of accountability.
Do I have to use the term misogynist for it to count?? He thinks that women should be held to different standards then men, I said I don't agree with him. Do I need to say I hate him and he should be banned from the boards to boot?
Just what do you mean by that Flint?
Just what do you mean by that Flint?
When people have to imply a mis-characterized version of another person's statements in order to criticize them, it strikes me that this is an extremely ironic way to carry out a crusade against intellectual dishonesty. This is a general observation, apply it where you see fit...
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.
:D
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 stop going to work.
:D
I bet if it does insurance won't cover it.
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.
And if my dick isn't hard it ain't happenin either buddy - I'm good, but not that good.
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.
Gee and every woman wants a guy coming home smelling like a hooker??? What planet are you from?
Men do not want to father another mans child brought about through infidelity.
The statistic hers 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.
And How many men fathered children out of wedlock without sharing the glorious news with their spouses???
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.
You maybe, not me - even if its Susie thumb and her four sisters
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.
I can honestly say that my Johnson has never been put into a hole in a 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.
Perhaps some women are not interested in the 30 second sex you are offering them. That is more frustrating to them then not getting any at all, is less than satisfying and creates a lot of pent up frustration. Furthermore,m Perhaps women would be more inclined to indulge in sex if they didn't have to work all day as hard or harder than their male counterparts for the same pay. Then go home and be expected top run the house, do laundry, taxi children, cook meals, and so on while you sit on your lazy ass drinkin a beer. Hmmm.
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.
You need a new cookbook dude.
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.)
Puhlease - my girl gets one every time and I'll pass out trying to get her there if need be. Otherwise toys fingers, tongue ect. will suffice.
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 pick routine at bars would be in women got as much enjoyment from sex as men?
Wrong again - I have had both mind-blowing orgasms and relatively mild ones. In fact I have satisfied my girl without getting or needing to get one.
I just cannot understand your antiquated logic and feel that you are doing way too much reading and not enough acting on the subject. Have you really had a committed sexual relationship?? Cuz from what you say it sure doesn't sound it and you seem to be rather bitter about the whole subject - perhaps you are sexually frustrated??
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.
:D
Is this April Fool's day? This has to be April Fool's day...
"Sexual addiction in men is a real thing." I have researched sexual addiction and none of the information dismiss that women can have this problem too. In fact I was researching it for a female friend who thought that she was a sexual addict...and guess what? she is.
"Sex doesn’t occur without the expressed consent of women."
So i'm guessing you think that rape is just an invention of women? Or yes we want men to painfully force themselves inside us, sometimes hold us captive for a significant amount of time and then kill us. What about the young girls who are raped...they chose that? When they are too young to even understand what sex is???
Using Uniform Crime Report data for 1994 and 1995, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that of rape victims who reported the offense to law enforcement, about 40% were under the age of 18, and 15% were younger than 12.4
I am deeply sorry for whichever women might have come in contact with you, and even more so for those who made the mistake of sleeping with you. That must have been extremely uncomfortable for them. :(
I think every woman suffers from some penis envy.
No, thanks...I don't know how you guys walk around with those things. Now, if you had a jar of peanuts I'd be pretty jealous.
OMG - I just thought of something - please don't reproduce
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).
I'm sorry, that's not clear enough. You could be talking about masturbation, or you might not be.
Are you, or are you not, a virgin? This is an important clarification of the character behind your arguments.
"You put a few drinks in a man and he will stick his Johnson in a hole in the wall."
Well, this person is crazy, but he does have a way of turning a phrase.
OK, guys: how many of you have put your dick through a hole in a wall, and if so did you know what was on the other side?
bmwmcaw reminds me of that Canadian dude who got banned a while back
I'm surprised anyone is still responding to this twerp.
I'm surprised anyone is still responding to this twerp.
He's a skilled troll. That's why he reminds me of that Canadian guy who got banned. People couldn't resist replying.
I'm surprised anyone is still responding to this twerp.
Because this
:brikwall:
is our 2nd most favorite activity.
Well foot, I'm pretty sure he's not that Canadian guy because I've had similar discussions with him about this sort of thing and his views do not concur with bmw's. I suppose he could be just trying to yank people's chains though, in which case, he's doing a good job of it. Again though, I don't think it's him.
I don't think it's him, just that there is a similarity in keeping people hooked into his crap, and his being willing to keep it up after most people would have said yeah whatever
"You put a few drinks in a man and he will stick his Johnson in a hole in the wall."
Well, this person is crazy, but he does have a way of turning a phrase.
OK, guys: how many of you have put your dick through a hole in a wall, and if so did you know what was on the other side?
Over here it's called a Glory Hole, and is used by gay men in toilets. They know what is on the other side :)
I'm surprised anyone is still responding to this twerp.
Personally I'm not responding to
him, but I do still find the thread interesting. I don't think I realised what a liberal crowd I socialise/ work with. It's always worth hearing another opinion, even if it's one I vehemently disagree with.
In fact 9th Engineer, I'd like to hear more from you on this subject. I doubt we'll agree, but you don't seem to be making sweeping generalisations. And of course it's a relief to read posts that don't ignore the rules of grammar.
Lot of complaint but little added insights.
No real refutation, just insults.
Sundae Girl, rapes was addressed in prior posts.
That’s the rub on this or other message boards. Poster fail to carry on a thought or point. A discussion is based on compounded information not regurgitation.
Women can become sexually addicted as well as have all the traits of male sexuality, but they are an EXTREME minority.
Why not save your false assumptions and useless reprints of my quotes without adding dime-one to the topic. You “poster” claim the high ground yet talk nothing but trash.
I’m this I’m that, spare me the juvenile tit-4-tat.
Got something to add, add it.
Take issue with the point, read the post and then take it on.
I am ABSOULTLY not impress with name calling and self-serving disparaging comments employed to evade the topic.
No evasion here. I just disagree with your "opinions" and I continue to do so. Your opinions are faulty, illogical and antiquated. And that is nothing more than my opinion. I no longer feel the need nor point in arguing about it. Its like trying to convice someone in the 13th century that, indeed, the world is round.
Oh and by the way - it is.
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.
And if my dick isn't hard it ain't happenin either buddy - I'm good, but not that good.
[COLOR="Red"]One word..Viagra.[/COLOR]
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.
Gee and every woman wants a guy coming home smelling like a hooker??? What planet are you from?
[COLOR="Red"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]GOT YOU!!![/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]So if the roles where reversed then the man being "picked up" would be a slut/whore. I know what planet I'm on do you know that you just craped-out (gambling term.)[/COLOR]
Men do not want to father another mans child brought about through infidelity.
The statistic hers 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.
And How many men fathered children out of wedlock without sharing the glorious news with their spouses???
[COLOR="Red"]Inappropriate and false comparsion. Pregnacy from consentual sex is not the same as infidelity. [/COLOR]
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.
You maybe, not me - even if its Susie thumb and her four sisters
[COLOR="red"]To each his own.[/COLOR]
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.
I can honestly say that my Johnson has never been put into a hole in a wall
[COLOR="red"]Let’s see you with half a 5th of Jack Daniels in you and a skanky bitch with her legs open and we'll see.[/COLOR]
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.
Perhaps some women are not interested in the 30 second sex you are offering them. That is more frustrating to them then not getting any at all, is less than satisfying and creates a lot of pent up frustration. Furthermore,m Perhaps women would be more inclined to indulge in sex if they didn't have to work all day as hard or harder than their male counterparts for the same pay. Then go home and be expected top run the house, do laundry, taxi children, cook meals, and so on while you sit on your lazy ass drinkin a beer. Hmmm.
[COLOR="red"]Women are “over worked" point is exaggerated. Guess what men work long hours too and do lots a work around the house. Have sex to short and its not enough, have sex to long and its to much and you get complaints. Do you hear many men complaining about time and frequency? Good luck with your future or present Goldie Locks. Bottom-line is I stand by what I posted.[/COLOR]
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.
You need a new cookbook dude.
[COLOR="red"]Off topic and useless.[/COLOR]
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.)
Puhlease - my girl gets one every time and I'll pass out trying to get her there if need be. Otherwise toys fingers, tongue ect. will suffice.
[COLOR="red"]What did Elaine Tell Jerry, FAKE<> FAKE <>FAKE. Ya, your all that until you see her with another "dude" and then come and do your bragging.[/COLOR]
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 pick routine at bars would be in women got as much enjoyment from sex as men?
Wrong again - I have had both mind-blowing orgasms and relatively mild ones. In fact I have satisfied my girl without getting or needing to get one.
[COLOR="red"]That’s too bad I think self-delusion is the worst possible thing a person can do to themselves. [/COLOR]
I just cannot understand your antiquated logic and feel that you are doing way too much reading and not enough acting on the subject. Have you really had a committed sexual relationship?? Cuz from what you say it sure doesn't sound it and you seem to be rather bitter about the whole subject - perhaps you are sexually frustrated??
[COLOR="red"]
Based on your hollow and meandering pointless retorts I would say your "experiences” are more wishful and fantasy based. You'll see.[/COLOR]
No evasion here. I just disagree with your "opinions" and I continue to do so. Your opinions are faulty, illogical and antiquated. And that is nothing more than my opinion. I no longer feel the need nor point in arguing about it. Its like trying to convice someone in the 13th century that, indeed, the world is round.
Oh and by the way - it is.
[COLOR="Blue"]
You need another slogan for your user name.
[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]You need another slogan for your user name.
[/COLOR]
Gasp! You're not engaging in name calling, are you? Gasp!
Gasp! You're not engaging in name calling, are you? Gasp!
[COLOR="Blue"]
HUH?[/COLOR]
[COLOR="blue"]
I'm not the one making the claim Yesman makes, I am simply stating his slogan is unjustified. Now how is taking that position "name calling?" Its no wonder your having a difficult time with my post, you don't understand what your reading[/COLOR]:cool:
I stand by my last post -
I am simply stating his slogan is unjustified. Now how is taking that position "name calling?"
You implied he isn't a "Deep Thinker" . . . so you were either name-calling (then) or hair-splitting (now). Take your pick.
You know, I was going to post a whole bunch of stuff just rebutting all of the stuff that has been said by bmw, but then I got to thinking....You gets your stats from Cosmo (Oh, yea, that’s scientific and no, it wouldn’t make a difference if it was coming from Maxim) and the Kinsey (not Kinsley) report which is over 50 years old, but the CDC data from 2005 is not credible because all people lie no matter what. Well, then how are your arguments so truthful? Why can’t people lie to Cosmo and Kinsey *gasp!*
He doesn't concede to any valid points being made, there have been many. It is like arguing with a child (not name calling, but a comparison). They are right no matter what is presented to them, ignoring valid statistics for those that fuel your argument. You make it impossible to even debate the issue or converse about it because no one is right but you.
All I have to say on the subject is that to have this much hate for women, someone, some where must have fucked you up royally, and for that, I feel sorry for you.
heh... geez I ought to plumb the depths of the cellar more often than I have been.. might need some cleaning out down here.. anywhoo, not that the original thread topic is in any way shape or form still being addressed.. having degenerated into name calling and hair splitting (which I have to say is 1/2 the fun of the internet). no. I do not believe that a persons sexual past/history ought ot be a point of contention in a relationship.. I mean we all have done things we're not proud of.. some more times than others, then again.. If you worked in a donkey show in mexico. .I think that ought to come up at some point fairly ealry in the relationship. then again one never knows what another person might find attractive or stimulating? so I suppose it depends on what the nature of the relationship is. (serious/fuck-buddies etc.) and what the presons involved might view as a 'future' and in what context that relationship evolves..... anywhoo! cat on lap typing difficult must go..
You're right cowhead. At least, in my opinion you are. I'd also add that if you're just fuck buddies, then there's got to be an advantage to having a partner with vast and varied experience right? And if you're serious, then of course you'd never judge the person for what came before. Only what cums next. ;)
[QUOTE=bmwmcaw I am simply stating his slogan is unjustified. [QUOTE]
You're the judge? YOU know best? Your statements are laughable to say the least, your thinking warped and your mind a dank and dreary place.
I'm done with you, you misogynistic ape! Done!
(howzat for name calling? And I didn't even mention your lack of basic spelling and grammar! You're welcome.)
You implied he isn't a "Deep Thinker" . . . so you were either name-calling (then) or hair-splitting (now). Take your pick.
Oh, ps--thanks for trying to explain it to him, Flint, but I don't think he grasps abstract meanings or concepts.
I mean we all have done things we're not proud of
I would judge someone taking this attitude much differently than someone taking the attitude that they had every right to do what they did and don't give a damn what you think about it (which seems to be commonly voiced here). A big chunk of the rhetoric being thrown by Shawnee and the like is that anyone who thinks that a persons history has
any impact on the here and now is a bigot and ought to just bring themselves up to date and shut up. That's really the attitude I've been fighting against here.
I believe that everyone is a conglomaration of all past experiences, none of which ever go away and all of which are relevent to predicting a persons future behavior. We got sidetracked for a while on whether or not everyone cares about the predicted outcome, but none-the-less it is there.
Even if you love someone deeply you would have to be a complete fool to disregard their past. Doing so will lead to nothing but heartache and leave you on the side of the road wondering "why?!?:thepain:...". Love by itself, especially any love less than a decade old and strong, is the weakest hinge on which to hang a commitment like marrige. Like it or not, love does not conquer all. The only place this exists is in fantasy and movie scripts.
In the end, you have to base your choices on what people do, not what they say. We often take that advice in dealing with people in other ways, it also applies to relationships, commitments, and sex.
I agree with you, 9th Engineer. Of course, people are a conglomeration of their past experiences.
However, just what is meant by "sexual history"? The number of times? The number of partners? For me that means nothing.
On the other hand, if "sexual history" includes the quality of the relationships - if there was meanness or deceit of some kind of other bad action, then that is certainly relevant. However, it is a bit hard to know that until it is too late, unless you have some kind of independent knowledge of what the person has done.
Wow! and I was beginning to think I was fighting this all alone - thanks all.
Wow.... I sure have had a very different life, when it came to sex, than others!
Women did not "own" sex. Both of us were in there and both of us wanted it equally... actually, often, they pursued me.
I have never felt jealous of any past lovers and never cared about previous history because I had no right to complain due to my previous exploits & would not want them to feel bad about them. The sex they had had nothing to do with me any more than my previous experiences had anything to do with them.
It is absolutely simple.
Double standards are games... I don't do games.
This guy is hysterical. Apparently, we are seeing first hand the symptoms of semen poisoning...
& this juvenile reaction is supposed to make what point?
Gee thanks gang for all those our piercing and insightful rebuttals.
I can't get to excited by the insights posted by other posters when they just hold themselves to some superior knowledge they can't seem to share.
Opinions are like butt-holes, everyone got one.
Somebody tell me what they observe. Being an observer of life myself and seeing humans in there best and worst conditions I come to understand a little something of how the world works.
Being that many of you are young and I can see it in your posts, your idealist. That’s normal. I was when I was young too. Some of the posters are a bit older and have in some way supported some what the points I've made.
I answered the threads question as I have seen and come to know about the world and the interactions between men and women.
If anyone would read ancient Greek and Roman plays and the writings of great authors such as Shakespeare and William James this subject matter is not new nor are the point I make mine alone.
There is the world we want and the world that is and as you get older you begin to see the difference. It doesn't mean that you can't have both, in some way; it just means you see the difference. We are fortunate to live in a culture and society where we can indulge ourselves in our illusions and reach for more than what we can grasp. Humans under stress tend to revert to base instincts.
Men and women are equal but not in identical ways. That’s where idealisms and reality between the sexes part ways. A women’s sexual history isn’t a non-factor and no matter how you want to believe its not, no man, being honest with himself, can’t deny weighing it.
Okay...here's my point. Misogyny is bad, m'kay?
not much of an insight...:neutral:
not much of an insight...:neutral:
Coz you have no insight to draw upon, you amazing asshat. Go read what stupendous bmwbmouth here wrote on the "Merry...I want a divorce" thread about obtaining catalogue brides from macho countries.
You've hitched your wagon to a real star. I wish men like you and your pal would emigrate from the country. To, maybe...Indonesia? You can still beat your woman there with impunity. Sounds like a match made in heaven.
Men and women are equal but not in identical ways.
Like blacks and whites are
equal but not in
identical ways, right, sugar?
Goddess, I hate myself for letting this troll piss me off. Look bmwbmouth, I'll pray for you, kay? good luck getting your dick out of that coke bottle...
Let me tell you a story, purely fictional, of course.
There was once a man whom I will call Beemer. He had a lot of trouble getting women to go out on dates with him. When he did manage to get one to accept his offer of a date, she wouldn't put out and he would go home at the end of the night, frustrated and unfulfilled.
Finally, Beemer found one that seemed to really like him and who had sex with him. He thought the sex was pretty good and figured the panting and moaning his ladyfriend was doing meant she was having an orgasm as well. She had been in previous relationships, unlike himself, but that was fine with him because she wanted HIM this time. He was enthralled and promptly asked his girl to marry him.
She accepted and they married, eventually having a child(ren). He assumed they had a good marriage, however, one day Beemer found out that she was having an affair with another man. When he asked her why, she told him she that she had never been sexually satisified in their marriage and this other man was wonderful in bed. She even brought up some past sexual mistreatment as one of her motivating factors. In any case, she took their child(ren) and left to be with this other man. Over time, Beemer became extremely bitter and even wondered if the child(ren) were his.
Beemer came to the conclusion that her infidelity was due to her sexual history (it certainly had nothing to do with him!). He felt used and deceived. He talked angrily to other men in similar situations and they discussed how the women in their lives had hooked them with the power of their almighty pussies. He did some research and found plenty of articles and some statistics that seemed to back up his opinion. He concluded that the only way to be sure the next women wouldn't do the same thing to him was to find someone with no sexual history at all.
Since most virginal girls in the US weren't interested in someone older like Beemer, he figured the best place to look for a new bride was in third world countries. A nice plus to this was these women were often subservient and insecure. They would not dare go off and have an affair behind Beemer's back.
And one day, Beemer happened upon a message board where they were discussing the issue of a girl's sexual history. Unfortunately, his well thought out and statistically proven posts were met with a definate lack of insight and the seriousness they deserved.
To be continued......
Let me tell you a story, purely fictional, of course.
There was once a man whom I will call Beemer. He had a lot of trouble getting women to go out on dates with him. When he did manage to get one to accept his offer of a date, she wouldn't put out and he would go home at the end of the night, frustrated and unfulfilled.
Finally, Beemer found one that seemed to really like him and who had sex with him. He thought the sex was pretty good and figured the panting and moaning his ladyfriend was doing meant she was having an orgasm as well. She had been in previous relationships, unlike himself, but that was fine with him because she wanted HIM this time. He was enthralled and promptly asked his girl to marry him.
She accepted and they married, eventually having a child(ren). He assumed they had a good marriage, however, one day Beemer found out that she was having an affair with another man. When he asked her why, she told him she that she had never been sexually satisified in their marriage and this other man was wonderful in bed. She even brought up some past sexual mistreatment as one of her motivating factors. In any case, she took their child(ren) and left to be with this other man. Over time, Beemer became extremely bitter and even wondered if the child(ren) were his.
Beemer came to the conclusion that her infidelity was due to her sexual history (it certainly had nothing to do with him!). He felt used and deceived. He talked angrily to other men in similar situations and they discussed how the women in their lives had hooked them with the power of their almighty pussies. He did some research and found plenty of articles and some statistics that seemed to back up his opinion. He concluded that the only way to be sure the next women wouldn't do the same thing to him was to find someone with no sexual history at all.
Since most virginal girls in the US weren't interested in someone older like Beemer, he figured the best place to look for a new bride was in third world countries. A nice plus to this was these women were often subservient and insecure. They would not dare go off and have an affair behind Beemer's back.
And one day, Beemer happened upon a message board where they were discussing the issue of a girl's sexual history. Unfortunately, his well thought out and statistically proven posts were met with a definate lack of insight and the seriousness they deserved.
To be continued......
[COLOR="Blue"]
There once was a novelist that couldn't sell there rags so they found a message board where they though people would be interested in there fiction.
Don't quit your day job![/COLOR]
Coz you have no insight to draw upon, you amazing asshat. Go read what stupendous bmwbmouth here wrote on the "Merry...I want a divorce" thread about obtaining catalogue brides from macho countries.
You've hitched your wagon to a real star. I wish men like you and your pal would emigrate from the country. To, maybe...Indonesia? You can still beat your woman there with impunity. Sounds like a match made in heaven.
[COLOR="Teal"]
Coming from a multi-divorcée, I'll take that as a complement.
Sssssssssizzle[/COLOR]
People hate hearing the truth.
Coz you have no insight to draw upon, you amazing asshat. Go read what stupendous bmwbmouth here wrote on the "Merry...I want a divorce" thread about obtaining catalogue brides from macho countries.
You've hitched your wagon to a real star. I wish men like you and your pal would emigrate from the country. To, maybe...Indonesia? You can still beat your woman there with impunity. Sounds like a match made in heaven.
:whofart: Ummmm.....where in holy heck did that come from?!? What does my comment have to do with bmw? All I said was that saying that "Misogyny is bad." isn't saying much. Of course it's bad, sort of like saying that racism is also bad. If I have to say this yet again, I DO NOT LIKE OR AGREE WITH BMWMCAW! End of story, yeesh. I also haven't read the lastest on the christmas divorce thread, I don't read every thread here (now I'll have to read it on principle I guess).
Look Brianna, I'm not sure how I can convince you at this point that bmw and I aren't sitting side-by-side and high-fiving each other when you get pissed off. Just because I don't agree with everything YOU say doesn't mean I'm on the side of your most hated enemy, you'll just have to take my word for it I guess...
[COLOR="Teal"]Coming from a multi-divorcée, I'll take that as a complement.
Sssssssssizzle[/COLOR]
How exactly stupid ARE you?
PS--This will piss you off--I'm V. rich, RE: divorcee-wise.
Ssssssssssizzle! Gotcha!
PS--did you, umm, ever go to high school? coz your command of basic grammar and English is really--uh...pathetic to say the very least. Are you Taliban? Plus, you raving idiot, my latest comment was directed at 9th--or did that nuance escape you?
dude--you DID get that coke bottle off your dick, right?
After reading the last few entries in that thread I have no problem with saying that bmw has definately crossed over into the creep zone in my book. None the less, please ease off the coffee a tad Bri, you're only making his day by letting him know how pissed off you are.
Hmmmm...well at the rate this thread is degenerating I'm sure one of the bosses will have to close it fairly soon. ;)
But we don't really do that.
I know...but sometimes there's room for dictatorships. :)
:whofart:
Look Brianna, I'm not sure how I can convince you at this point that bmw and I aren't sitting side-by-side and high-fiving each other when you get pissed off.
pssst, 9th. but you guys are PMing each other ^5s when Bri gets pissed right?
shhh, she's coming back...;)
Children childern get a grip. 9th Eng, good luck trying to post the truth on this board. This place is all about PC. I bet if all the posters on this board played a game of softball there wouldn't be any winners. Don't want to hurt other people feelings. "Its a draw" so lets all go down to the fantasy malt shop and toast to our ignorance.
Let me know when they take off the training wheels around here.
This place is all about PC.
This is about the funniest thing I have ever read! :lol:
You haven't looked around much in the Cellar, have you Beemer? "All about PC"....LOL ROFLMFAO :eyebrow:
You haven't looked around much in the Cellar, have you Beemer? "All about PC"....LOL ROFLMFAO :eyebrow:
Your right.
I should have confined the label (for the time being) to this string. Yet, if these same posters, you included, talk the same kind of pointless yak on other strings then I stand by my label.
Your right.
"you'RE right" You're=you are. It's a contraction.
Hey. *IF* I cared at all about a girl's sexuality, it would be about her future, not her history. You all have it sdrawkcab.
I know I'm not the runnin around type, and if the girl I'm dating isn't either, then things are cool no matter how many she's been with in the past. I'm the present and if she's not a cheater then there's no reason to be apprehensive towards her and sex. Granted we've both been tested and whatnot.
Children childern get a grip. 9th Eng, good luck trying to post the truth on this board. This place is all about PC. I bet if all the posters on this board played a game of softball there wouldn't be any winners. Don't want to hurt other people feelings. "Its a draw" so lets all go down to the fantasy malt shop and toast to our ignorance.
Let me know when they take off the training wheels around here.
:lol:
Oh yeah, this place is so PC that we hardly dare to make posts here. EVERYONE here checks with their PC guru before they hit the "send" button.
You just have a problem with the fact that, on the Cellar, people are going tell you what they think in no uncertain terms. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. Go home, little boy, until you get old enough to play with the big kids. :rolleyes:
1) Research proves that there are more men than women fathering children to another while married. You alsomixed your info on the 30% that you quoted. There were 2 different studies one in which 30% of the women admitted to cheating or knowing a friend who cheated, and 30% of THOSE thought that the child born MIGHT not be their husbands.
2) I did my own research and conclude that women attempt to pick up men at bars at an almost equal rate. My test sample was quite small, relatively speaking, but nonetheless it was a sample.
3) Women and men can go indefinitely without sexual satisfaction - period. There is nothing NOTHING anywhere that hints proves or implies anything to the contrary - nothing credible anyway.
4) Women, I have learned, enjoy sex just for sex as much as men. Unfortunately they were so repressed by their male counterparts for so many years, decades and centuries that they were unable to express their own values, opinions and/or desires without severe repercussions from their male "controllers." (this is opinion), now that women are as outspoken as their male counterparts, many men cannot handle the supposed equality, they are fearful of women and intimidated by strong minded females. Hence the type of antiquated, broad-based BS that was spouted here earlier.
5)"Most men have sex for pure pleasure." On this point I agree - only problem is - that men are typically selfish and do it primarily for their own pleasure whereas women have been conditioned to be the "caretakers" of society typically sacrificed their own pleasure for their partner. Fortunately, that is not as common as it used to be and I stand by my statement earlier, that I will continue to do whatever I can to assure that my partner achieves all that she wants from our lovemaking. Maybe thats it - you say sex and I say lovemaking. There is a distinct difference to me. Most men, like you, just want to get off and miss most of the fun and the point - in my opinion.
6)"Men have out of body experiences at 100%." I have made love without achieving an orgasm and had little or no need to do so. Especially after round 2 or 3 - I derive more pleasure giving pleasure to my partner than receiving. And I have found a partner who feels the same way - therefore it is far more intimate than just getting laid or "having sex". Yes, I have heard of "fakin it" and I know the difference - (no need to get explicit) especially when there is no reason for it - we have that kind of honesty with each other.
7)". . .females claim to have and orgasm at only 20%." That was also incorrect - "A" Cosmo survey said that women only had orgasms 20% of the time during sex with strictly penile penetration ONLY- NO assistance. Not news sir - simply restates how inadequate and/or unfamiliar most men are with respect to the female body.
I think we can separate the question here into two components 1)Does your sexual history have relevance to your sexual future 2) Does everyone care about this.
My thoughts
2) Obviously no, we've more than established that here. This is the personal opinion part of it that's been throwing people off I think
1) I think the answer is yes once you remove the thoughts and feelings of anyone (including yourself) from the equation. We acknowledge that it is appropriate to look at the past to make educated guesses about the future, if this wasn't true we wouldn't have the justice system, banking and financial system, or education system we do.
So what people have been saying is a reflection of both of these put together which really boils down to your stance on #2. People who do say the history of their partner has no relevance to them are really saying that they don't care about what it says, most actually included the caviet "unless their history contains one of these senarios...". So they give up that even they would judge it in certain circumstances, which means that #1 must be true.
Isn't the question really "Is there ever a situation where past behavior isn't a good predictor of future behavior?"
Usually the answer is no, unless the subject is sex. Then, we're all clean slates every time we hook up with someone new. I dunno if I buy it.
Most guys I've been serious with have tended to take almost zero interest in my past affiliations with other males--I've always been the one to volunteer information first. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has been serially involved with people who've had next to zero sexual history, and having come from a background of silence about sex: I'd be more inclined to put greater faith in a relationship where both parties came with some experience at least under their belts... But that might be too simplistic :neutral: Beyond the basic questions of 'how much of a physical health risk am I taking by sleeping with you?' I'd be more concerned with what they feel they've learnt from previous partners rather than simply condemning/praising/whatever for the sheer number value of previous partners.
Sex can be as complex a phenomenon, or as simple as you want it to be--One boy I know (who, as a previous poster mentioned, may well suffer from poor self-esteem) who's been promiscuous in years past is now bending over backwards trying to preserve his first emotionally significant relationship. Other friends have spoken of how they're in favour of open relationships because sex is mainly physical and fun and they feel secure in their emotional attachments to their partners to allow for said flexibility. On the other hand, we're all relatively young and haven't been forced to accept 'adult' life quite yet. I'm in favour of faithfulness within relationships, and especially within marriage, if for no other reason than it reduces emotional dramas >_<
Boils down to having compatible world/life viewpoints, I suppose. If your ideas of what love and intimacy mean to you are inextricably linked with the properties of exclusivity within your relationships, then it'd obviously be easier on the mind and soul to be with someone who feels the same way. I tend to play in a grey area where I and my partner/s are concerned here--still trying to work it out for myself :juggle:
Oh, and /agree with previous posters who've pointed out the futility of trying to generalize in this area.
1) Research proves that there are more men than women fathering children to another while married. You alsomixed your info on the 30% that you quoted. There were 2 different studies one in which 30% of the women admitted to cheating or knowing a friend who cheated, and 30% of THOSE thought that the child born MIGHT not be their husbands.
2) I did my own research and conclude that women attempt to pick up men at bars at an almost equal rate. My test sample was quite small, relatively speaking, but nonetheless it was a sample.
3) Women and men can go indefinitely without sexual satisfaction - period. There is nothing NOTHING anywhere that hints proves or implies anything to the contrary - nothing credible anyway.
4) Women, I have learned, enjoy sex just for sex as much as men. Unfortunately they were so repressed by their male counterparts for so many years, decades and centuries that they were unable to express their own values, opinions and/or desires without severe repercussions from their male "controllers." (this is opinion), now that women are as outspoken as their male counterparts, many men cannot handle the supposed equality, they are fearful of women and intimidated by strong minded females. Hence the type of antiquated, broad-based BS that was spouted here earlier.
5)"Most men have sex for pure pleasure." On this point I agree - only problem is - that men are typically selfish and do it primarily for their own pleasure whereas women have been conditioned to be the "caretakers" of society typically sacrificed their own pleasure for their partner. Fortunately, that is not as common as it used to be and I stand by my statement earlier, that I will continue to do whatever I can to assure that my partner achieves all that she wants from our lovemaking. Maybe thats it - you say sex and I say lovemaking. There is a distinct difference to me. Most men, like you, just want to get off and miss most of the fun and the point - in my opinion.
6)"Men have out of body experiences at 100%." I have made love without achieving an orgasm and had little or no need to do so. Especially after round 2 or 3 - I derive more pleasure giving pleasure to my partner than receiving. And I have found a partner who feels the same way - therefore it is far more intimate than just getting laid or "having sex". Yes, I have heard of "fakin it" and I know the difference - (no need to get explicit) especially when there is no reason for it - we have that kind of honesty with each other.
7)". . .females claim to have and orgasm at only 20%." That was also incorrect - "A" Cosmo survey said that women only had orgasms 20% of the time during sex with strictly penile penetration ONLY- NO assistance. Not news sir - simply restates how inadequate and/or unfamiliar most men are with respect to the female body.
You're a "Sally."
A "Sally" is a guy that talks like a women to smooge and gain there acceptance. Your broad "apology" also suggest your being obsequies.
Now before I address your completely absurd and ridiculous positions, let me state first they're absurd and ridiculous.:biglaugha
The issues of paternity which I made mention of was in the context of men not wanting to raise and support children that they didn’t father. Try reading before you rush to post and show everyone what a “Sally” you are.:muse:
“Your own research.” Oh stop it. It’s exactly this type of comment that rings of such pathetic and needy emotional issues you need to take care of. Gets some help.:help:
Who said anything about being able to go without sex? What lap-dog butt kissing angle are you going with here?:vomitblu:
Well now you said something of note here, and that being…"Women, I have learned, enjoy sex just for sex as much as men.”
Men don’t need to “learn” to enjoy sex period and what a stupid comment, yet women DO! That’s where the rubber meets the road Sally.:driving:
Yea, yea, yea, men have been oppressing women for thousands of years and three sheets to the wind and 3 coins in the fountain. Notice that when they decided to demand a vote and equality how quickly they got it. Seems to me the social differences and roles where mainly a results of biological exigencies. Industrialization, medical advancements, and most importantly “free time” played a substantial role in women’s political and social evolution then men suddenly deciding to stop “oppressing” them. :violin:
I am not one for name calling but you’re a dope.:dunce:
I'm not one for name calling either, so I wont tell you what a fuckwit you are bmw. :)
I'm not one for name calling either, so I wont tell you what a fuckwit you are bmw. :)
Why all the anger? Are you frighten of something?
Just post relevant comments and spare me the anger, cause it ain't got no traction with me pumpkin.
Impress me with your intellect not your backside.
I'm not angry Mr Potato Head. :) In fact, if anything, I'm amuzed by your inability to differentiate between humour and anger.
bmw, you're not exactly impressing us with intellect, yourself.
BM, Well I said what "I" believe, and what I found out to be the facts. You immediately retorted with namecalling (of which I was accused of previously. Nuff said you have no position and this is something which we will just have to agree to disagree upon. You take your views, opinions and beliefs into the world and I will do the same with mine.
By the way YOU asked for researched FACTS to back up my stance and all you came back with was calling me a "Sally." Pretty weak - nah very weak indeed! Even though I completely disagree with you, I expected you would have something - anything to reply with. Again you disappoint. Oh well, as you said "Just post relevant comments and spare me the anger" BM. In fact if you have nothing pertinent to add - it is probably better that you add nothing at all.
People who do say the history of their partner has no relevance to them are really saying that they don't care about what it says, most actually included the caviet "unless their history contains one of these senarios...". So they give up that even they would judge it in certain circumstances, which means that #1 must be true.
This I do agree with. But the original question was, after all "Do Guys Really Care" and not "Does Sexual History Have Any Relevance".
I think we have established that the majority of men in the Cellar do not care, or at least care about it less than almost every other factor.
Some men on this board do care, which suggests there are also men in the real world who do too. And more (and more vocal) than I had anticipated.
Live and learn. Learn how to use the ignore list anyway :)
[SIZE="1"]Edited to clarify there are no Engineers on my ignore list[/SIZE]
Slam dunk Sundae!
"Sally"
Isn't the question really "Is there ever a situation where past behavior isn't a good predictor of future behavior?"
Usually the answer is no, unless the subject is sex. Then, we're all clean slates every time we hook up with someone new. I dunno if I buy it.
Are you talking about cheating or promiscuity?
One has nothing to do with the other.
"Sally"
Hey, bm, I thought you were a big advocate of not calling people names. Then YOU go and do it. You're sending mixed messages and I'm so confused!
Oh, wait. Now I get it! You can call others nasty names but others can't call YOU nasty names!
re: rkzenrage
I'm not singling out either behavior. The question applies to both, as well as every other sexual behavior. Let's say I'm your partner (wink wink). If I used to like X, and it's something that you can't deal with, you better rethink our relationship. I haven't stopped liking X just because I'm hooked up with you. If I like you well enough, I might make a huge effort to stop X'ing, but that's no guarantee. If I stopped X'ing prior to meeting you, great. It's still, however, a part of me that might resurface later.
The point is, people existed prior to your knowing them, so don't expect that they are going to make wholesale changes just because you're in the picture.
With that in mind, it's perfectly acceptable to decide whether or not to date someone based on any criteria you set, whether consciously or not. It's not "unfair" or "judgemental" or anything else. It's your life, and you get to decide who's in it.
Using part of your questionable analogy, why buy an apple with worms when you can get fresh one off the tree.
I regret it, but I'm gonna get involved in this too.
Your entire argument hinges on this concept, prettymuch, no?
Sometimes, you gotta put up with a couple worms for the best damn apple youve ever tasted. You obviously aren't willing to, and quite frankly, that's relieving, because it means you will not keep yourself in the gene pool. You've socially darwinized yourself out of reproduction, and thats a relief to people everywhere.
EDIT: and Aliantha says it better that I ever could in her thread...
Other than that, I don't really care how many partners they've had. Only that the [men] they have chosen to have relationships with have been treated with dignity and respect from start to finish.
After all, sex is one thing...love is something entirely different.
I regret it, but I'm gonna get involved in this too.
Your entire argument hinges on this concept, prettymuch, no?
Sometimes, you gotta put up with a couple worms for the best damn apple youve ever tasted. You obviously aren't willing to, and quite frankly, that's relieving, because it means you will not keep yourself in the gene pool. You've socially darwinized yourself out of reproduction, and thats a relief to people everywhere.
EDIT: and Aliantha says it better that I ever could in her thread...
Over 30 post and you nit-pick one sentences to launch from. Good luck and somebody wake me when this "person" says something of a real rebuttle.
...Because that sentence encapsulates your whole argument.
Well BM I think its unfair of you to attack Ibram, I personally disputed every facet of every argument you had, with proof, and your (not you're) only reply was "Sally". I understand now that once you have nowhere else to go you tell someone they're (not there) a "Sally". You reverted to namecalling like a child when you realized that your opinion (and thats all it is) was faulty, lacked basis and was discounted with facts. I agree with Ibram when he said - "it means you will not keep yourself in the gene pool. You've socially darwinized yourself out of reproduction" Thank goodness!
Oh, and bmw? Call me a 'sally' all you want... Hell, even call me a queer or worse if you like. You'd be right, and I'd be proud. People like you is what makes me hate the fact that I'm male.
I secede from maledom.
I had no idea what "sally" meant? Is bmw for real? For pete's sake...someone give that guy an enema.
Course, with friends like us, who needs enemas?
Ibram don't be upset - BM (pun intended) was calling me a Sally, cuz I destroyed his BS argument and baseless points, not you. Although I'll call you Sally if you'd like. I think it was meant to be an insult to me as in someone who is a feminine male or one who is less than a "manly man" - I really don't care what he means. For his opinion to affect me I would have to respect him or anyone in some way and he certainly hadn't earned any of mine - not with his opinions, spelling nor grammar.
Nonono, that was a pre-emptive 'go ahead, call me one, i dont care'
Well BM I think its unfair of you to attack Ibram, I personally disputed every facet of every argument you had, with proof, and your (not you're) only reply was "Sally". I understand now that once you have nowhere else to go you tell someone they're (not there) a "Sally". You reverted to namecalling like a child when you realized that your opinion (and thats all it is) was faulty, lacked basis and was discounted with facts. I agree with Ibram when he said - "it means you will not keep yourself in the gene pool. You've socially darwinized yourself out of reproduction" Thank goodness!
Another "Sally" comment.
Another "Sally" comment.
Your mom is a "Sally" comment.
I had no idea what "sally" meant? Is bmw for real? For pete's sake...someone give that guy an enema.
Course, with friends like us, who needs enemas?
A "Sally" is a nice way of calling an obsequies effeminate pussy-whipped mommas-boy that does more pom-pom waving than debating. These "Sally" think by being sickly agreeable with others insults they believe they can benefits without the responsibility. That’s what pussy-whipped mommas-boys are. Talk tough in groups and level accusation then run behind mommas skirt when it time to put up.
I suppose you might call them some other term, around where I live we just call them "Sallys."
I don’t let a jackass bother me to much but when they hew-haw so much you have to treat them like a jackass.
BTW, why ask if I’m for real. Why don’t you say something real before you pass judgment? Where’s your insightful rebuttal. Talk the talk, walk the walk baby.
Your mom is a "Sally" comment.
Ooooooooooh, you done brung it!:3eye:
Oh, and bmw? Call me a 'sally' all you want... Hell, even call me a queer or worse if you like. You'd be right, and I'd be proud. People like you is what makes me hate the fact that I'm male.
I secede from maledom.
Let me encapsulate your retort..."Sally."
"People like you is what makes me hate the fact that I'm male."
How pathetic. Don't fret about your maleness; get a sex change, a poodle, and a house with a dry well in the basement. "Its puts the lotion on." :speechls:
Hey do put on makeup and tuck your maleness behind your cross legs and stand in front of a full length mirror twirling about. :lol2:
bmw, wouldn't you be happier somewhere else? I realize the name calling started long ago, but you brought it to a new low. If it were up to me, you'd get the banhammer. There is no call for that.
mrnoodle - Don't worry, Even the lowest forms of life need to exist - otherwise we wouldn't know how wonderful the other forms are. Its the balance of nature.
BM(pun intended) - You asked Where’s your insightful rebuttal." " (BTW - that should have a question mark on the end of it.) My insightful rebuttal which you conveniently have not replied to since it crushed your bogus argument with fact and data is post #224 - if you can count that high. Its been there a week now.
Wow, that is a very simplistic way at looking at relationships noodle. I dated for many years before marrying my wife and just quit... it was easy, so was no longer living by myself, something I also had done since I was very young (my own room, that is) as well as on my own since sixteen... your argument makes no sense when compared to all other behaviors.
The IDEA of marriage is change.
Hey do put on makeup and tuck your maleness behind your cross legs and stand in front of a full length mirror twirling about. :lol2:
Let me tell you, it's quite fun. Not that you need me to tell you I'm sure.
Men are jerks. End of story. There are exceptions, many of the men here are exceptions, but you arent. You are a typical, selfish, stupid, woman-hating man. I have nothing but contempt for people like you.
I dont want to argue with you, you'll just drag it down to homophobia and namecalling like you do with every single other argument so far. But I also vote ban, if it comes to that, because youre losing your entertainment value fast.
[Paul Anka]
To stop those monsters 1-2-3
Here's a fresh new way that's trouble free
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...
[Lisa]
Guarantee void in Tennessee!
[All]
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
There's a morbid compulsion to look, similar to that which we feel when we pass a car wreck. You know you're not going to like what you see, but you can't help but look. (in most cases anyway) I also think that there's a part of all of us that just wants to be understood, so we continue to argue our point because from where we're sitting we're doing the right thing. We just keep looking for that tiny bit of common ground from which to create mutual understanding.
Well, either that or it's just because we're enjoying taking the piss.
Wow, that is a very simplistic way at looking at relationships noodle. I dated for many years before marrying my wife and just quit... it was easy, so was no longer living by myself, something I also had done since I was very young (my own room, that is) as well as on my own since sixteen... your argument makes no sense when compared to all other behaviors.
The IDEA of marriage is change.
What doesn't make sense about it? I mean, maybe it doesn't, but what specifically? Of course you make lots of changes when you get married...I'm talking about things that are real incompatibilities.
A "Sally" is a nice way of calling an obsequies effeminate pussy-whipped mommas-boy that does more pom-pom waving than debating. These "Sally" think by being sickly agreeable with others insults they believe they can benefits without the responsibility. That’s what pussy-whipped mommas-boys are. Talk tough in groups and level accusation then run behind mommas skirt when it time to put up.
I've been stayin away from this, but I couldn't let this blatantly sexist comment go. You're using a female name to label a yellow bellied snake. Thats derogatory, and you must not know that many
real women to be able to slander our gender that way. Talkin tough and talkin logically are two different things. And men who listen to their mommas make good huspands...as long as momma likes the wife. If momma aint happy, aint nobody happy. There is a good reason for that sayin. You're the only and worst cheerleader we have here at the cellar.
morethanpretty - What did you just call me???
Let me tell you, it's quite fun. Not that you need me to tell you I'm sure.
Men are jerks. End of story. There are exceptions, many of the men here are exceptions, but you arent. You are a typical, selfish, stupid, woman-hating man. I have nothing but contempt for people like you.
I dont want to argue with you, you'll just drag it down to homophobia and namecalling like you do with every single other argument so far. But I also vote ban, if it comes to that, because youre losing your entertainment value fast.
That was as offensive as anything he has said.
Ah, but mine's simply an opinion, simply how I feel about people like him, wheras his is 'EVERYONE SHOULD LISTEN TO ME BECAUSE MY OPINION IS LAW".
I can't help it, I have a natural dislike of machismo and all that. I know not all men suck, but most men I've met do. If it helps, you certainly are intelligent enough to not be the kind of guy I hate.
ooo. let's analyze Ibram next. spill it, dude. Release your demons.
I'm queer, I dont like what I think of as 'typical' men, but love the cool ones, I think of myself almost as much a woman as I do a man, I like nonconforming but not for the sake of nonconformism... I think thats about it.
That's what all the nonconformists say...;)
what's the difference you feel in the fluttery bys when an attractive man walks out, as opposed to the girl? Do think you wanna do the guy first or the girl?
And why?
I have nothing to add here other than I truly laughed out loud when I read your last post noodle. lol
it's a good question! I really want to know. I will regret asking many questions tonight in my um...mood.
Depends who's sexier...
Like, if (70's) Bowie walked out with Angie, I'd be on Bowie in a second. If Jolie came out with Pitt, I'd be on her, Pitt's too macho.
I like really feminine dudes, by a long shot. Androgynous ones are the best, but androgynous guys are, inexplicably, hotter than androgynous girls.
Depends who's sexier...
Like, if (70's) Bowie walked out with Angie, I'd be on Bowie in a second. If Jolie came out with Pitt, I'd be on her, Pitt's too macho.
I like really feminine dudes, by a long shot. Androgynous ones are the best, but androgynous guys are, inexplicably, hotter than androgynous girls.
So is it:
2. having both masculine and feminine characteristics.
or
4. neither clearly masculine nor clearly feminine in appearance: the androgynous look of many rock stars.
or both?
[size=1]i had to look the word up, that makes me ashamed[/size]
70's Bowie is one of "many rock stars"...
