How many men is it ok for a woman to sleep with..? [Archive]

t020

30-09-2005, 00:47

Originally posted by Shiesh
And just to clarify most smokers when asked how many cigs they smoke per day generally quote less than their actually do!!

Drinkers quote less alcohol than they actually consume....

Come on....you know the figures are not realistic...you only have to watch these holiday rep shows to see the antics of the youth of today....IMO it was no better or worse 10-15 years ago just reality TV had not kicked in then!!

And where in the thread did I say I had actually slept with 25 or more....I didn't....just my opinion!! :heyhey:

It was an anonymous survey so I don't see why people would lie. Also, the programmes featuring holiday reps are hardly representative of the whole population. Not all young men down 12 pints a night, throw up in the street and walk about chanting "Engerrland, Engerrland". Not all young women flash their chests and have quickies down the side of clubs. This may be representative of common, "chav" culture but is certainly not a fair representation of the population as a whole. I prefer to look at the facts rather than the basis of some reality TV show designed to shock.

t020

30-09-2005, 00:52

Originally posted by medusa666
Well, in that case I lost my virginity earlier than average, have had more than average partners despite marrying around the average, and STILL have managed to be totally faithful and honest with all partners, and no, I don't consider myself to have ever 'slept around'.

That's how averages work - some will be below, others will be above - did you not do Maths at GCSE level?

Originally posted by medusa666

BTW please define the term 'sleep around'. I suspect that in common with other terms in this thread people can use this term to describe whatever they find unacceptable.

Obviously it's subjective.

Originally posted by medusa666

I have no wish to be offensive to you t020, but this sounds like you applying your own standards to the rest of society and finding us wanting (including enough of a double standard to ask the question only about women). Just because other people draw the line in different places doesn't mean that any of us aren't 'normal' just because we aren't average.

No, I was taking part in a discussion and expressing my opinion. As I said, people can, and obviously do, what they want. I used the stats to correct Shiesh's made up guesstimate figures.

Originally posted by medusa666

And as far as I'm concerned attending a GUM clinic is a mature health promotion choice, and not anything to be regretted or used against another.

I can't remember saying otherwise. What I did say is that, as a result of "lifestyle choices", STDs are on the increase - rapidly. The taxpayer foots the bill for this.

ToryCynic

30-09-2005, 00:52

Originally posted by t020
It was an anonymous survey so I don't see why people would lie. Also, the programmes featuring holiday reps are hardly representative of the whole population. Not all young men down 12 pints a night, throw up in the street and walk about chanting "Engerrland, Engerrland". Not all young women flash their chests and have quickies down the side of clubs. This may be representative of common, "chav" culture but is certainly not a fair representation of the population as a whole. I prefer to look at the facts rather than the basis of some reality TV show designed to shock.

I need to add a fact that you omitted from that post - the modern pronounciation of our country is not "Engerrland", but "Engerrlaaaaaand" - there's a tip for getting on in life.

:rollseyes: :D

Cheers,
:)

t020

30-09-2005, 00:57

Originally posted by kentboy119
I need to add a fact that you omitted from that post - the modern pronounciation of our country is not "Engerrland", but "Enderrlaaaaaand" - there's a tip for getting on in life.

:rollseyes: :D

Cheers,
:)

Thanks - I'll remember that tip next time I go on a binge drinking session in Chaviraki.

Shiesh

30-09-2005, 00:58

It's not that they intentionally lie!!

When I stopped smoking I assumed I smoked less than 10 a day until I worked out what I was spending on cigs over the weekends when not working but socialising/drinking...it averaged out then at over 15 per day etc

I am not getting at you as a person...so why immediately start getting at me ??? :confused:

The figures from 'surveys' don't add up to the 'reality on the streets' IMO!

If you think most teenagers start having sex at 17 you are very much mistaken - if you like statistics you will see that 'actual figures' for for teenage pregnancies in the UK don't quite tally with the surveys for sexually active teens!!

:P

t020

30-09-2005, 01:08

Originally posted by Shiesh
It's not that they intentionally lie!!

When I stopped smoking I assumed I smoked less than 10 a day until I worked out what I was spending on cigs over the weekends when not working but socialising/drinking...it averaged out then at over 15 per day etc

I think people can remember how many people they've slept with a lot better than how many cigarettes they smoke a day - it's slightly more significant.

Originally posted by Shiesh

I am not getting at you as a person...so why immediately start getting at me ??? :confused:

Really? What were you saying about my youth again, then?

Originally posted by Shiesh

The figures from 'surveys' don't add up to the 'reality on the streets' IMO!

As valid as your opinion may or may not be, it's largely irrelevant - surveys do often reflect the reality because research organisations put a lot of time into ensuring they get a representative sample.

Originally posted by Shiesh

If you think most teenagers start having sex at 17 you are very much mistaken

No, I never said *most*. The average is on the mean basis, not the modal basis. I'm well aware that in certain communities, particularly deprived, working class ones, a lot of teenagers have sex earlier and get themselves pregnant. But on average, the figure across the whole of the UK is 17.

Originally posted by Shiesh

- if you like statistics you will see that 'actual figures' for for teenage pregnancies in the UK don't quite tally with the surveys for sexually active teens!!

Really? Please could you perform an in depth statistical analysis on this theory? I'm sure it would make interesting viewing.

SHsheff

30-09-2005, 01:15

Originally posted by intooblivion
Before she becomes a whore?

Why did you use the word 'whore', intooblivion? It's just another word for prostitute, ie, a woman who has sex for money. This is Cyclone's point, but no-one else has particularly picked up on it.

I don't think you're suggesting that there reaches a point at which a woman who's had a number of sexual partners automatically starts charging, are you?

An emotive word imo, and one that indicates your misogyny (especially against sexually-active women), methinks. One for the next session with your psychotherapist, perhaps!

ToryCynic

30-09-2005, 01:19

Originally posted by t020
<snip>

No, I never said *most*. The average is on the mean basis, not the modal basis. I'm well aware that in certain communities, particularly deprived, working class ones, a lot of teenagers have sex earlier and get themselves pregnant. But on average, the figure across the whole of the UK is 17.
<snip>

Yes, there's definitely a correlation between pregnancies/young age and 'deprivation'.

I find the second point quite astonishing, as I thought it may be higher - maybe eighteen or nineteen - possibly my odd and old-fashioned views...

:)

medusa

30-09-2005, 01:33

Originally posted by t020
That's how averages work - some will be below, others will be above - did you not do Maths at GCSE level?

There's no need to get insulting when i've been respectful and polite when disagreeing with you. Yes, I did maths at GCSE, and yes, I did maths at A level. I also did applied maths as part of my first degree and I teach spreadsheets, for which I need to be able to teach learners all of the different forms of averages.

What I was referring to was the wording of your post which I'm sure many of the female SFers would be slightly offended by. Your assertion of not sleeping around implied that anybody who had had more than average partners was somehow inferior to those with fewer partners, and that more partners implied 'sleeping around', neither of which are true.

And BTW the whole point of the NHS is that the health care is free at the point of delivery, and that means that the NHS has footed a much bigger bill as a result of my cancer than it has as a result of my yearly checkup. All of us make choices in our life, and I'm sure that at least one of yours has left you needing medical attention at some point. I agree that the rise in STI rates is worrying, but for that more not fewer people should be going for GUM appointments to learn more and spread infections less. Some of us however go for a checkup as part of preventative medicine, not because our ignorance has caused us to become infected.

Shiesh

30-09-2005, 01:33

Originally posted by t020
Please could you perform an in depth statistical analysis on this theory? I'm sure it would make interesting viewing.

You post 'mumbo jumbo' statistics without credible links why on earth should you ask me to produce anything more to justify my opinion!

You immediately 'attacked' my initial response to the post title 'How many men is it ok for a woman to sleep with..?' because it is not 'in keeping' with your own personal thoughts...it is indeed an open forum so many individual opinions/experiences will be 'revealed' and 'discussed' but to 'discount' someones opinion because it doesn't meet to that of your own is quite an immature attitude !!

I do not feel the requirement to justify my comments further than I have already ...shalom!
;)

t020

30-09-2005, 01:38

Originally posted by Shiesh
You post 'mumbo jumbo' statistics without credible links why on earth should you ask me to produce anything more to justify my opinion!

You immediately 'attacked' my initial response to the post title 'How many men is it ok for a woman to sleep with..?' because it is not 'in keeping' with your own personal thoughts...it is indeed an open forum so many individual opinions/experiences will be 'revealed' and 'discussed' but to 'discount' someones opinion because it doesn't meet to that of your own is quite an immature attitude !!

I do not feel the requirement to justify my comments further than I have already ...shalom!
;)

But you didn't state an opinion - the way you said "25 was normal" before marriage reads like a fact. It isn't. That's what I was "attacking", and not you personally.

t020

30-09-2005, 01:39

Originally posted by medusa666
There's no need to get insulting when i've been respectful and polite when disagreeing with you. Yes, I did maths at GCSE, and yes, I did maths at A level. I also did applied maths as part of my first degree and I teach spreadsheets, for which I need to be able to teach learners all of the different forms of averages.

What I was referring to was the wording of your post which I'm sure many of the female SFers would be slightly offended by. Your assertion of not sleeping around implied that anybody who had had more than average partners was somehow inferior to those with fewer partners, and that more partners implied 'sleeping around', neither of which are true.

And BTW the whole point of the NHS is that the health care is free at the point of delivery, and that means that the NHS has footed a much bigger bill as a result of my cancer than it has as a result of my yearly checkup. All of us make choices in our life, and I'm sure that at least one of yours has left you needing medical attention at some point. I agree that the rise in STI rates is worrying, but for that more not fewer people should be going for GUM appointments to learn more and spread infections less. Some of us however go for a checkup as part of preventative medicine, not because our ignorance has caused us to become infected.

Or maybe, just maybe, certain people could keep their nickers on more and we could reduce STDs without the need to further burden the NHS.

medusa

30-09-2005, 01:41

Originally posted by t020
Or maybe, just maybe, certain people could keep their nickers on more and we could reduce STDs without the need to further burden the NHS.

Or maybe, just maybe, a whole heap of education could help reduce the burden. Where's the best source of information on STDs? The GUM clinic.

t020

30-09-2005, 01:59

Originally posted by medusa666
Or maybe, just maybe, a whole heap of education could help reduce the burden. Where's the best source of information on STDs? The GUM clinic.

Or maybe, just maybe, the correlation between increased (and from an earlier age) sex education and increasing levels of STDs/ teen pregnancies is MORE than a coincidence?

Shiesh

30-09-2005, 01:59

Originally posted by t020
But you didn't state an opinion - the way you said "25 was normal" before marriage reads like a fact. It isn't. That's what I was "attacking", and not you personally.

If I stated it as average then it would read like a fact...I didn't - I stated it as 'normal' ie., acceptable to me IMO!!

IMO normal for a retired prostitute would be a number far more than 25 unless she was very bad at her job and retired very early on in her career!!!
:hihi:

Oh and thanks for outlining the fact you were not attacking me personally, it was just my opinion - I'd hate to think you thought me a whore for the mere suggestion I made which was of course completely impartial to my own experience. :o

Don_Kiddick

30-09-2005, 06:11

In response to the original question,
who cares as long as I'm one of em! :D

:banana:

Fareast

30-09-2005, 06:14

It's o.k for a woman to sleep with 14 men .

BoppinBruce

30-09-2005, 06:39

are we talking all at once here or one at a time?

youwhatref

30-09-2005, 07:01

I think a woman can sleep with as many guys as she wishes to do. And great point by DonK :D

One of the problems is generally with peoples insecurities and hence the reason why people feel uncomfortable with having a partner who has slepped with many of the opposite sex. I'm sure this stands for both men and women. I may be wrong, but if a guy has slepped say with hundreds of women then women i feel have more of a trust issue.

However as with guys, T020 has a point, it makes men feel more uncomfortable (i'm sure not all) but that does make us hypocrites!

Cyclone

30-09-2005, 07:14

Originally posted by t020
Just to clarify: the average age of marriage for a female in the UK is actually 28. The average age that a woman loses her virginity is 17. Also, according to ICM research (2004), the average number of sexual partners was 10 for a man and 5 for a woman. Must just be you then...

So really you should be directing the accusations about spreading sti's at men in general, rather than women, since the men are apparently doing twice as much sleeping around!
Makes you wonder though, how is it that men have 10 on average and women 5 on average? Unless there's a large population imbalance (which there isn't) then how can that work? Someone's fibbing.

julz

30-09-2005, 08:12

On a jokey level there was a show recently on TV (can't remember what it was though) that implied to find the 'true' number of partners a person had 'had', you did the following:

For a man - divide the amount of sexual partners he says he's had by 3.
For a woman - Times the amount of sexual partners she says she had by 3.

sugarnspice

30-09-2005, 08:13

I'm still trying to figure out why it matters? You may have slept with 1 or a 1001. I cannot see a problem.

SHarper

30-09-2005, 08:31

I don't think that are any hard and fast rules; although I'm told that some women like it this way!

Sorry, but not got an opinion on this, just trying to be funny, but its getting harder these days... (there I go again)

youwhatref

30-09-2005, 08:34

I dont think there's is a problem Sugar and you are right whether it's 1 or 1000 it shouldn't make a difference.

I think the debate is developing into peoples attitudes towards women (or men) who have slept with a large number and whether this attitude is wrong.

As i put, men are hypocrites! :D

Plain Talker

30-09-2005, 09:10

Originally posted by t020
Or maybe, just maybe, the correlation between increased (and from an earlier age) sex education and increasing levels of STDs/ teen pregnancies is MORE than a coincidence?

No, t020, i have to disagree with you on that one.

In my opinion, it is not that pregnancies or STIs are more prevalent,these days, it's the PERCEPTION of the prevalence, because it's not hidden now. Girls who "made a mistake" are not now packed off to the bad girls' home, or the magdalen sisters, to have their babies in secrecy and shame, and have them taken away for adoption.

The important thing is education, both about sex, and the effect it can have on one's psyche, and how to have safe sex.

That is, without the shadow of STIs or unplanned pregnancies hanging over one.

You cannot physically stop kids from experimenting with sex, it's all part of our natural urges; what we CAN do is ensure that the kids have the options open to them that they can be as safe as possible, and have the info before them that they don't need to succumb to the pressure to have sex, if they don't want to. You canot make their mistakes for them.

I know that when I slept with my first boyfriend, at the age of 18, I was not really ready. And, knowing what I know now, if I had my time again, it would not have happened then, and especially not with HIM. However, hindsight is an exact science, as we all know. The words "stable", "door", "horse", and "bolt" come swiftly to mind!

Dubya, and the moral majority in the US have got it all wrong. They preach abstinence, as being the "only" way. The advisors are not allowed to teach safe sex. this is why the teen pregnancy rates are sky high, cos the kids aren't educated correctly, and don't know how/ where to access contraception, and STI advice. Teaching "thou shalt not..." only serves to awaken natural curiosity. It makes kids want to find out what the fuss is all about in relation to this "forbidden fruit"

Anyway, to get back on topic.

How many? As many as the woman herself feels comfortable with!

PT

Kthebean

30-09-2005, 09:58

t020..

You could catch an STD by just having one partner. And you could not catch an STD through a whole lifetime of sexual partners. Couldn't you?

You say 'the taxpayer foots the bill' as though there are two types of people, 'local bikes' and 'taxpayers'.

Not quite that simple, is it?

AtticusFinch

30-09-2005, 10:06

I don't view the amount of women someone has slept with as important, or even relevant. It's not my place to pass judgement on what someone has done in the past.

I can't help thinking that terms like "slag" and "slut" are christian in origin. Although the UK is a secular country, christianity is still the dominant religion. It's built on guilt and views sex as wrong. Therefore women who have lots of sex are viewed badly. The fact that its women who get picked on for this is probably somehow related to original sin etc.

Snook

30-09-2005, 10:22

Originally posted by Shiesh
Average person marries these days at 30 - average person partakes in sexual activity from the age of 15 - this number reflects less than 2 different sexual partners per annum...hardly prostitute status...:)

Weren't you popular t020 in your youth...?? Didn't you not live it up whilst it lasted???

Or are you just bitter coz these statistics don't reflect you??

:hihi:

I don't think it is only t020 that this is not a reflection of, but of most people. I recently read a survey that said most 30 year old women have had 2 - 3 sexual partners (about 60% of them I believe)... Now, I'm sure another 20% or so have had 25 partners, but It isn't the normal. Most people have long term relationships in their twenties, and this SHOULD bring the number of partners down.

I think as long as people are safe, it's fine... but people aren't safe, and I think people preaching the message that it is ok to sleep with as many people as you like helps with the spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancies... This goes for both men and women... I think that because so many people say (lie) that they sleep around, other people think that they should be doing the same thing, and it's not a healthy message.

banesmabes

30-09-2005, 10:23

The fact that you are only asking the question of how many sexual partners it is alright for a woman to have, and not how many sexual partners it is alright for any person to have, is suggesting that the number of partners acceptable is different based on what sex you are.

My question is this – why do we judge people on how many sexual partners they have? Surely that is entirely up to them and is nobody else’s business? I saw one response that said not many men would marry the local bike. Why is it assumed that a woman who has had more sexual partners than average is undesirable when it comes to marriage? What about all the other aspects of that person that you are completely ignoring because you are so blinded by such a trivial fact as how many sexual partners they have had? What makes you think that that person cannot be faithful just because they have chosen to sleep with a variety of people while they were single?

nick2

30-09-2005, 10:26

Personally I think people should sleep with as many people as they want/can while they are single.

medusa

30-09-2005, 10:27

Originally posted by Snook
I think as long as people are safe, it's fine... but people aren't safe, and I think people preaching the message that it is ok to sleep with as many people as you like helps with the spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancies... This goes for both men and women... I think that because so many people say (lie) that they sleep around, other people think that they should be doing the same thing, and it's not a healthy message.

That's why, if you read through the thread, most posters have said that having more partners is ok, providing safe sex rules are followed . The people who aren't currently doing this need education, and most of them will get this when they visit the GUM, along with free condoms to help them be safer next time. Nobody's advocating stupidity as a way forward.

Snook

30-09-2005, 10:30

Originally posted by banesmabes
My question is this – why do we judge people on how many sexual partners they have? Surely that is entirely up to them and is nobody else’s business? I saw one response that said not many men would marry the local bike. Why is it assumed that a woman who has had more sexual partners than average is undesirable when it comes to marriage? What about all the other aspects of that person that you are completely ignoring because you are so blinded by such a trivial fact as how many sexual partners they have had? What makes you think that that person cannot be faithful just because they have chosen to sleep with a variety of people while they were single?

I agree, it shouldn't matter how many sexual partners a woman has had any more than it seems to when it comes to men, but this is another case of when reality doesn't work in the same way we want it to.

It's a fact, i'm afraid, that many, many, men are put off by a women who has had a lot of sexual partners, and doesn't find them desirable when it comes to marriage or serious relationships... Women don't seem to have this concern when it comes to men... that's probably why it works the way it does.

I'm not saying it's right, but I'm just being realistic about it.

Originally posted by medusa666
That's why, if you read through the thread, most posters have said that having more partners is ok, providing safe sex rules are followed . The people who aren't currently doing this need education, and most of them will get this when they visit the GUM, along with free condoms to help them be safer next time. Nobody's advocating stupidity as a way forward.

I have read the thread, thanks. It's funny that everyone on here practises safe sex all the time, and yet in the real world it is a very different story! You can't have lots of sexual partners all the time and be 100% safe, so yes, there does need to be more education, I agree!

Cyclone

30-09-2005, 10:59

Originally posted by t020
Or maybe, just maybe, the correlation between increased (and from an earlier age) sex education and increasing levels of STDs/ teen pregnancies is MORE than a coincidence?

you might have the beginings of a point if that data were supported by any of our european neighbours, but it isn't. Indeed the opposite appears to be the case.
More education = lower rate of STI/unwanted pregnancy.

Kerry_Lou

30-09-2005, 11:20

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cyclone
you might have the beginings of a point if that data were supported by any of our european neighbours, but it isn't. Indeed the opposite appears to be the case.
More education = lower rate of STI/unwanted pregnancy. [/QUOTE

Yeah good point

Kerry_Lou

30-09-2005, 11:25

Doesnt the age of the women sort of change how many people she would sleep with, wouldn't it affect this number? the questions too general

Bobski121

30-09-2005, 11:56

I have to concede several points here, but can raise another!! I went out with a women well versed in the affairs of sexual encounters and learned quite a lot which I hope I have been able to pass on to other women to allow them to enjoy the 'pleasures of the flesh' . Surely it doesn't matter how many but how much qulaity is developed??:heyhey:

Kthebean

30-09-2005, 12:02

Why is it that men don't want to sleep with a woman who has had many partners? Apart from the risk of infection, which I understand..

I really don't get it :confused:

Any guy who would look down on me because of my past doesn't deserve my time.

t020

30-09-2005, 12:11

Originally posted by Snook
I don't think it is only t020 that this is not a reflection of, but of most people. I recently read a survey that said most 30 year old women have had 2 - 3 sexual partners (about 60% of them I believe)... Now, I'm sure another 20% or so have had 25 partners, but It isn't the normal. Most people have long term relationships in their twenties, and this SHOULD bring there number of partners down.

I think as long as people are safe, it's fine... but people aren't safe, and I think people preaching the message that it is ok to sleep with as many people as you like helps with the spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancies... This goes for both men and women... I think that because so many people say (lie) that they sleep around, other people think that they should be doing the same thing, and it's not a healthy message.

Very well said, Snook.

t020

30-09-2005, 12:14

Originally posted by kathythebean
Why is it that men don't want to sleep with a woman who has had many partners? Apart from the risk of infection, which I understand..

I really don't get it :confused:

Any guy who would look down on me because of my past doesn't deserve my time.

It's probably a natural instinct. At least I'm honest about it though and don't pretend that it wouldn't be a problem, unlike, I suspect, several other posters on this thread.

t020

30-09-2005, 12:15

Originally posted by Cyclone
you might have the beginings of a point if that data were supported by any of our european neighbours, but it isn't. Indeed the opposite appears to be the case.
More education = lower rate of STI/unwanted pregnancy.

Question: In the UK, how much sex education in schools in, say, 1960? What were the rates of STDs/ teen pregnancies then? Now compare and contrast with, say, 2005. Comparing with other countries isn't fair - every country has its own values, mentality and culture.

Cyclone

30-09-2005, 12:22

Originally posted by t020
Question: In the UK, how much sex education in schools in, say, 1960? What were the rates of STDs/ teen pregnancies then? Now compare and contrast with, say, 2005. Comparing with other countries isn't fair - every country has its own values, mentality and culture.

your comparison is pointless, it makes no effort to assign causality, you may as well compare the rates of STI and the decrease in family run businesses, without some effort going into determining which is the cause and which the effect (or whether they are even linked at all) the comparison tells us nothing.

Given that all european countries (of which we are one) suffer these problems, and that they all address them slightly differently, it is perfectly reasonable to consider the outcomes they achieve to determine which is the more effective way of addressing the problem.
The rates of teen pregnancy have fallen across all of europe, including here, but they have fallen fastest in those countries which have introduced the most and the earliest sexual education, not the other way around.

So, basically the rise in sex ed in this country is in response to the perceived problem, and indeed seems to be having the desired effect, it's only the half hearted way it's been done (probably due to strange moralistic objections from certain quarters) that mean it's been less effective than it could have been.

There were some very interesting posts recently (I can't remember who by) which illustrated that the rates of teen pregnancy have steadily fallen in this country for the last 40 years (having peaked in the 50's), so the correlation would appear to be that sex ed works, but more sex ed would work better.

KB - I can think of a few reason, as you said, there's the risk of disease. There's also possibly the feeling that you would be compared to the best of the previous partners and the fear that you wouldn't be good enough. And there's probably some people with stronger hangover puritanic morals from our victoria history than others.

koenigsinger

30-09-2005, 12:25

Originally posted by kathythebean
Thanks :)

I really believe it though. (Safe) Sex is fun, and good. We should all sleep with as many people as many times as we wish.

:banana:
What a gal!
would like to meet kathythebean

t020

30-09-2005, 12:27

Originally posted by Cyclone

KB - I can think of a few reason, as you said, there's the risk of disease. There's also possibly the feeling that you would be compared to the best of the previous partners and the fear that you wouldn't be good enough. And there's probably some people with stronger hangover puritanic morals from our victoria history than others.

Also, a woman who's "easy" is more likely to have an affair, or is at least perceived to be.

koenigsinger

30-09-2005, 12:32

ok, serious reply time.......

it is a long time double standard which hopefully will die soon
as long as two consenting adults are not hurting themselves or anyone else, it doesnt matter if they are partner number 1, r partner nuimber 1000.

peace.

Cyclone

30-09-2005, 12:34

Originally posted by t020
Also, a woman who's "easy" is more likely to have an affair, or is at least perceived to be.

and obviously the same isn't true of men.

t020

30-09-2005, 12:35

Originally posted by Cyclone
and obviously the same isn't true of men.

Of course it is, but since I'm a straight man, the potential faithfulness of other men is not, has never been, and never will be my concern (unless I ever have a daughter...). Also, the thread is about *women*.

Pseudonym

30-09-2005, 13:07

To me.. And I stress the "To me" part... A girl/woman that has many sexual partners without them being in a loving relationship, i.e. sex for purely personal gratification, or to get or keep a boyfriend, or even in some cases as 'payment' for being taken out (and that's not unheard of, the phrase "because he expected it" springs to mind) is in my opinion, showing amongst other traits, a marked lack of self-respect.

I wouldn't consider a relationship with someone I couldn't respect and if she didn't show respect for herself, how could I be expected to?

As for men and their conquests... Some of the so-called 'great birds' that some boast about 'pulling', have in the cold light of day, turned out to be the type that have to walk around with a mattress strapped to their backs in order to get guys in the first place! Beer-goggles can impair the vision and have a powerful aphrodisiac effect. I guess the guys are of the opinion that if 'it's there on a plate' why not? But unlike some, I drink little and I'm a fussy eater.

Men boast wildly about their sexual prowess, very few would like to be known as inexperienced, though I suspect that there are probably more virgin bridegrooms than brides, if the truth were known. Many men may not be quite so promiscuous as they would have others believe.

My thoughts on the matter are purely academic as I'm now well past my sell-by date, divorced after thirty years of marriage, indulged in a small flutter since and now searching for a safer and more peaceful pastime than co-habiting with a female... Learning to juggle with nitro-glycerine is one option that I've considered... ;)

ToryCynic

30-09-2005, 14:12

Originally posted by Cyclone

KB

Me or KathyTheBean?

Cheers.

nick2

30-09-2005, 14:16

Originally posted by Pseudonym
A girl/woman that has many sexual partners without them being in a loving relationship, i.e. sex for purely personal gratification......showing amongst other traits, a marked lack of self-respect.

Women can't have sex just for the fun of it ?

banesmabes

30-09-2005, 14:24

Originally posted by nick2
Women can't have sex just for the fun of it ?

Apparently not :suspect:

Men can of course

Snook

30-09-2005, 14:35

Originally posted by nick2
Women can't have sex just for the fun of it ?

Yeah, but it's more rare for a woman to do that, it is USUALLY due to lack of self esteem (not respect, that's different), loneliness and a desire to feel wanted and loved... But some people just wanna get jiggy.

I'm not sure why we are trying to make men and women seem the same when they are obviously not in their actions and thoughts.

banesmabes

30-09-2005, 14:39

So we assume that a woman who has a lot of sexual partners does so because she is lonely and has no self-respect? But if a man has a lot of sexual partners no one ever thinks "oh, how sad, he's so lonely and has no respect for himself".

Kthebean

30-09-2005, 14:43

Originally posted by banesmabes
So we assume that a woman who has a lot of sexual partners does so because she is lonely and has no self-respect? But if a man has a lot of sexual partners no one ever thinks "oh, how sad, he's so lonely and has no respect for himself".

I have to say Im with banesmabes on this one!

t020 I suppose some people would think that a 'slapper' is more likely to have an affair once in a relationship but I would suggest that if you have sown your wild oats (I know that phrase doesn't work as well for women! :hihi: ) and come home to roost, as it were, you are perhaps more likely to be faithful, ie, you have tried it all and settled for the one you like most?

( sorry sharpsinger I'm really spoken for! :D )

nick2

30-09-2005, 14:45

Originally posted by Snook
Yeah, but it's more rare for a woman to do that, it is USUALLY due to lack of self esteem (not respect, that's different), loneliness and a desire to feel wanted and loved... But some people just wanna get jiggy.

I don't think it is rare, I think women enjoy sex as much as men, especially young women.

I find the idea that women can't realy have a sex life until they are ina relationship, and that they live a desperate lonely unfulfilled lives until that day comes along, quite amusing.

As my mate said "if a vibrator could could change a tire we wouldn't need men at all".

banesmabes

30-09-2005, 14:49

Originally posted by nick2
As my mate said "if a vibrator could could change a tire we wouldn't need men at all".

How true! Actually, come to think of it, I don't have a car, so I don't even need anyone to change a tyre! That must be why I'm single and happy!

Kthebean

30-09-2005, 14:52

No, I like having my man, he is lovely and we have lots of fun together.

Plus, I can change my own tyres, I dont need no vibrator :)

nick2

30-09-2005, 15:00

Originally posted by kathythebean
No, I like having my man, he is lovely and we have lots of fun together.

Plus, I can change my own tyres, I dont need no vibrator :)

you can get double ended ones :)

Pseudonym

30-09-2005, 15:03

Originally posted by nick2
I don't think it is rare, I think women enjoy sex as much as men, especially young women.

I find the idea that women can't realy have a sex life until they are ina relationship, and that they live a desperate lonely unfulfilled lives until that day comes along, quite amusing.

As my mate said "if a vibrator could could change a tire we wouldn't need men at all".
Almost certainly women enjoy sex as much as men, in some cases, probably more so but it's only comparatively recently that it has become accepted that they are allowed to admit to it...

As for them living unfulfilled lives until they are in a relationship... I did say "has many sexual partners, i.e. is promiscuous and in being so, in all probability gains a reputation for being 'easy', I didn't say no sexual encounters at all!

Your mate has a point, the 'vibe' isn't widely known as 'a girls best friend' for nothing! ;)

t020

30-09-2005, 15:13

On a related note, why has the subject of women having sex with inanimate objects become so.... glorified... over the last few years? I know what type of reaction there'd be about a MAN that freely boasted about having sex with inanimate objects/ ****ing himself off all day. HE would be a "sad, lonely t*sser" whereas SHE, of course, would be a "sexually liberated 21st century lady who knows what she wants". Seems like double standards work both ways.

Pseudonym

30-09-2005, 15:30

Originally posted by t020
On a related note, why has the subject of women having sex with inanimate objects become so.... glorified... over the last few years?
LOL! Excellent question t020, why IS it acceptable for women and not men to do this?

Ruddy perverts, some (most?) women! :D

nick2

30-09-2005, 15:32

Originally posted by Pseudonym
LOL! Excellent question t020, why IS it acceptable for women and not men to do this?

It's perfectly acceptable to me for anyone to do anything with whatever they wan't, except food, thats unhygenic.

Kthebean

30-09-2005, 15:34

I have never objected to you ***king yourself off all day, t020.

Snook

30-09-2005, 16:59

Originally posted by nick2
I don't think it is rare, I think women enjoy sex as much as men, especially young women.

I find the idea that women can't realy have a sex life until they are ina relationship, and that they live a desperate lonely unfulfilled lives until that day comes along, quite amusing.

As my mate said "if a vibrator could could change a tire we wouldn't need men at all".

I think women enjoy sex as much as men... unless they've been lying to me... but they don't seem to be able to disassociate sex and love as much as men, and it would seem that it is more unlikely for women to go out looking for meaningless sex in the same way that a minority of men do.

I think most of us are looking for potential mates when we are single, and not many people just go out looking for sex.

sexibabe

30-09-2005, 18:40

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cyclone
[B]and by that you imply that it's not the same for men, which clearly, in my mind, makes you sexist, smiley or not.
Absoluteley!!!!!:mad:

debbie

30-09-2005, 20:01

Originally posted by t020
Of course it's this general attitude that is causing the spread of STDs to such a point that the NHS could cripple under the pressure.

So long as the woman isn't in a committed relationship (where both parties agree to be faithful to each other) then she can sleep with as many men as she wants. However, she shouldn't expect any decent man to ever want to end up marrying her. :hihi:

know summat???? i agree with u there t020

debbie

30-09-2005, 20:08

miniminch

30-09-2005, 20:10

t020

01-10-2005, 00:08

Originally posted by kathythebean
I have never objected to you ***king yourself off all day, t020.

Very amusing (although predictable). It also serves to prove my point - male masturbation is a put down/ insult, female masturbation is "21st century sexual liberation". Like I said, double standards work both ways.

xafier

01-10-2005, 00:55

After reading this it seems a lot of people are absolutly loving either backing saying men are making assumptions, or guys saying women are...

The most important thing anyone can ever hope to understand is that no two people on this planet are alike... were all different, we all percieve things differently, that includes what sexual actions are acceptable, how many partners are acceptable, whether male masturbation is acceptable, whether female masturabtion is acceptable...

My PERSONAL point of view is a person can have as many sexual partners as they like, but GENERALLY I am not impressed by EITHER sex bragging about how many sexual partners they've had, in both cases I GENERALLY think it's a sign of lack of self-respect... I do understand some people enjoy having sex purely for fun, PERSONALLY I like to think of it as a little more and as I may have lost my virginity at the supposed AVERAGE age of 17... at the age of 20 I think i most likely wont reach this average of 10 sexual partners for a guy as it still currently stands at the one person... but to hell if I care...

Personally I don't plan to "sleep around", I have turned down casual sex with women I find attractive purely because I don't ever plan on having a relationship with them, thats MY choice and you don't have ANY reason to gudge me on that, same as I have none if your a man or a woman and have slept with 10 people this week

It's all about self choice, if your having safe sex then thats fine, sleep however you want, but I personally have big issues with the amount of unprotected teen and non-teen sex, STD's are constantly rising and if were not careful were going to do serious damage to our country and planet and wipe ourselves out... if people haven't noticed HIV still doesn't have a cure... just because things aren't as bad as Africa here doesn't mean they won't be if we continue to have this re-make of the 60's "free love" going off with 13yr olds having unprotected sex!

end of my personal oppinions, feel free to make an idiot of yourself by quoting me and poking fun at me for having morals and personal beliefs!

ToryCynic

01-10-2005, 01:03

<snip> PERSONALLY I like to think of it as a little more and as I may have lost my virginity at the supposed AVERAGE age of 17... at the age of 20 I think i most likely wont reach this average of 10 sexual partners for a guy... but to hell if I care...

Personally I don't plan to "sleep around", I have turned down casual sex with women I find attractive purely because I don't ever plan on having a relationship with them </snip>

I agree with that in theory - having sex isn't something to fritter away - why do it with anyone if the person isn't (and knows) going to have a relationship with - that's having sex for that pure reason - for fun, and knowingly not to continue with the relationship.

Again, sleeping around - being unfaithful - wasting everyone's time; if you're with someone, stick with them - otherwise admit that they're not right for you, and move on.

*Digs out Daily Mail* (!)

P.S: txtVisualBasic; Option Explicit - cough, cough, cough...

(Cheers).

Apologies - that really is a candidate for "direly-worded post of the moth".

Cyclone

01-10-2005, 07:37

Originally posted by t020
Very amusing (although predictable). It also serves to prove my point - male masturbation is a put down/ insult, female masturbation is "21st century sexual liberation". Like I said, double standards work both ways.

I think it's generally accepted that most men are w*nkers (serious point though). So it's not generally a put down is it, although the word itself is offensive.

If I wanted to insult someone I certainly wouldn't come out with, "you look like you masturbate every day".

Fareast

01-10-2005, 07:42

After looking at the evidence of various posters , I think it's o.k. for women to sleep with 17 men , not 14 , as I said previously .

d1La

01-10-2005, 07:44

none...unless it's her husband..
really ,would you, yourself sleep with everybody?
i don think so~:rolleyes:

DragonofAna

01-10-2005, 07:51

Think I have to go along with pseudonym on most of what has been said.

I have no problems being a w*nk*r. I have no blooming choice at the moment ;)

Looking forwards to reaching the age where the only thing I care using 'it' for is the watering of the ceramic garden.

Dragon

skny

01-10-2005, 09:35

There is probably genuine psychological and biological reasons behind society's different perception of both sexes.....an alpha male in nature is supposed to go out and plant his seed as often as possible to ensure his genes continue. I think most guys who get lots of action ARE admired by their peers....I have known -some- women who are extremely confident and self-assured and pick and chose as many men as they want, but I tihnk they are the exception, rather than the rule. Most women of my experience who give it up easy dont fit that description. It does seem lopsided but thats how it looks to me...

venger

01-10-2005, 09:38

How many men is it ok for a woman to sleep with..?

As many as she wants.

PM me :hihi:

billy7

01-10-2005, 09:41

longs as u use precautions it doesnt matter how many people u sleep with. good adult fun!!

the_rudeboy

01-10-2005, 10:04

Any more than 3 or 4........a day.....would be considered greedy.....:hihi:

intooblivion

01-10-2005, 10:36

This is funny, so if a women sleeps around and enjoys being a modern women (sex) then she can't be taken home for Sunday lunch?!

What if she is subtle about it and no one knows? Hell though why should we not enjoy ourselves. That's ridiculous!!!!

skny

01-10-2005, 10:50

Is it because of sex and the city that some people seem to think women shagging a lot is somehow modern and sophisticated...?

If your significant other gives up the loving at the drop of the hat to lots of people, havent they just lost another reason to be special to you?

GazB

01-10-2005, 11:01

Originally posted by t020
Also, according to ICM research (2004), the average number of sexual partners was 10 for a man

Per year?

t020

01-10-2005, 11:17

Originally posted by GazB
Per year?

No, overall in their lifetime at the point when they were asked.

t020

01-10-2005, 11:57

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think it's generally accepted that most men are w*nkers (serious point though). So it's not generally a put down is it, although the word itself is offensive.

If I wanted to insult someone I certainly wouldn't come out with, "you look like you masturbate every day".

I think most people would agree (not necessarily on this forum where many people try to argue black is white, but in the real world) that the connotations held by society for male masturbation involve sad, lonely, trainspotting-type, anorak wearing, top-shelf-browsing perverts. In recent years, the connotations held by society for female masturbation (including, but not limited to, making love to a penis-shaped piece of plastic) involve modern, sophisticated, 'Sex in the City' socialites.

t020

01-10-2005, 11:59

Originally posted by intooblivion
This is funny, so if a women sleeps around and enjoys being a modern women (sex) then she can't be taken home for Sunday lunch?!

What if she is subtle about it and no one knows? Hell though why should we not enjoy ourselves. That's ridiculous!!!!

Think of a simplistic (but worthy) analogy: If you had a choice between 2 second hand cars, both 5 years old and with the same mileage on the clock, but one with 1 previous owner and the other with 10 previous owners, which one (honestly) would you buy? Most people would wonder why the latter had changed hands so many times (maybe something wrong with the car and it would seem more 'used', or in the case of women, maybe can't hold down a relationship very well and may like to 'put it about' and be more likely to have an affair) and as a result would plump for the former.

xafier

01-10-2005, 12:26

Cyclone

01-10-2005, 14:52

robbie

01-10-2005, 15:02

I think a limit of sleeping with 3 other people at the same time is only sensible. There is only so much a bed can take!

medusa

01-10-2005, 15:16

Originally posted by t020
Think of a simplistic (but worthy) analogy: If you had a choice between 2 second hand cars, both 5 years old and with the same mileage on the clock, but one with 1 previous owner and the other with 10 previous owners, which one (honestly) would you buy? Most people would wonder why the latter had changed hands so many times (maybe something wrong with the car and it would seem more 'used', or in the case of women, maybe can't hold down a relationship very well and may like to 'put it about' and be more likely to have an affair) and as a result would plump for the former.

There needs to be a distinction drawn here- some people (not just women) have short term realtionships that fall apart quickly, and I agree that this would worry me if I was going to consider a relationship with them, as their relationship skills/emotional stability seem a bit iffy.

Other people have no intention of a relationship, make no pretence of love, and have fun with each other. This tells people nothing about their emotional stability or relationship skills. Provided they are being honest about what they are getting out of it all then what's the harm? I agree that this CAN be a sign of lack of self respect, but it can also be a sign of somebody who doesn't fancy the 'solo sex' approach but doesn't want a relationship either.

If you were getting involved with them you are likely by this point to know whether this is your idea of what you want to get out of this, and I would suggest t020 that this is your cue to head for the door. You and this (hypothetical) woman are obviously looking for different things.

Personally speaking the 'no attachment' variety of sex leaves me pretty cold and would rather not do it at all if there's no respect and affection (I won't say love as it's a rather over-used word and seems to mean so little to some people).

But I'm not about to judge others who make different choices to me, providing I understand what their choices are before I am committed to anything with them.

Pseudonym

01-10-2005, 16:19

Originally posted by Cyclone
when you're single again t020 and going out looking for a potential relationship, let us know how well you get one when you ask for a service history and previous ownership details of girls that you are considering.
You've hit on a darn good idea there, Cyclone!

Women should come complete with a log-book... Listing all the times they've been serviced, how many owners they've had, any major bodywork alterations and genuine mileage they've covered, along with any known faults and average running expenditure of each particular model.

Men of course would need the equivalent of an M.O.T. certificate to prove their capability of performing to specification and their reliability for at least another year.

That way perhaps classic low-mileage models may be seen to be worth more and there'd be hope for me yet! :D

DragonofAna

01-10-2005, 17:06

I'm well in there in that case pseudonym. Only five previous owners in near 30 years - each one was a careful driver - very considerate until the end when they decided to go for a newer model/younger model.

Course - the engine works perfect and I can outpace many other newer cars but hey ho - their loss.

Dragon

Pseudonym

01-10-2005, 17:35

Perhaps the pet analogy might get a better result in our case, Dragon... ;)

Clean, fully housetrained, good with children, obedient, affectionate, looking for good home...? :D

intooblivion

01-10-2005, 18:37

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Perhaps the pet analogy might get a better result in our case, Dragon... ;)

Clean, fully housetrained, good with children, obedient, affectionate, looking for good home...? :D

Obedient?! haha like that

intooblivion

01-10-2005, 18:39

Originally posted by skny
Is it because of sex and the city that some people seem to think women shagging a lot is somehow modern and sophisticated...?

If your significant other gives up the loving at the drop of the hat to lots of people, havent they just lost another reason to be special to you?

I'm not talking about 'giving it up'when you're in a relationship. God no I'm faithful to the end. But what's so wrong if you're single?

Pseudonym

01-10-2005, 18:53

Originally posted by intooblivion
Obedient?! haha like that
Hey! Obeying orders is one of the first things you learn to do when you get married, if you want a peaceful time! ... On the surface, anyway... ;)

DaBouncer

01-10-2005, 19:13

Originally posted by xafier
I have to agree with you on that one, thats generally how I see it, I have no problems with people having sex for fun, sometimes it might be good to just go out and "get laid" if you haven't for a while... but constantly having different sexual partners all the time really wouldn't impress me if i wanted to start a r/ship with her... i like to pride in the fact I dont give my body away to every woman that makes an offer of interest... after all, I'm a sophisticated, modern 21st century male and if you want this body your gonna have to prove you deserve it with a couple of dates before I'm gonna give anything to you :P
And there was I thinking you just weren't getting any offers hence the sheffield singles site you setup Xafier ;)

For my opinion on this I'd say it comes dow to two factors:
1) How secure you are as a man to cope with the fact that your new lady has had a few sexual partners in the past. If you're a secure person then the amount she's been with (for want of a better phrase) wont even bother you.

2) How careful has she been if she has been promiscuous (sp?).
If she's had a fair few one night stands but been sexually careful then again it wont/shouldn't bother you. When it would bother me is if she's been with a lot of men (or any amount of men) as one night stands without protection... then the worry should set in. With the amount and ease of transfer of STD's (sorry STI's today), you need to know that she has taken precautions as hopefully you have too.

OK no one is perfect and I guess we've all done the deed with someone new without using anything, but the thought still stands.

So for myself, the amount wouldn't matter because I am comfortable and secure with myself not to let that be a factor... hey if she's got experience... I'm guessing it should be fun ;) The only fact that would matter to me would be how safe she has been when having her fun.

That's as honest an answer as I can give.

xafier

01-10-2005, 20:23

Originally posted by DaBouncer
And there was I thinking you just weren't getting any offers hence the sheffield singles site you setup Xafier ;)

Site doesnt exist anymore ;) and i setup up cus I'm always meeting the wrong women, that either are just after a bit of fun one night, or have a date and mess you around... either way not interested... but thats just me... and i totally agree with you in the fact numbers not totally important but being safe is... obviously unsafe sex with 1 person could be as bad as unsafe sex with 20... it only takes one guy/woman with HIV to ruin your life forever :?

t020

01-10-2005, 23:50

Originally posted by medusa666
There needs to be a distinction drawn here- some people (not just women) have short term realtionships that fall apart quickly, and I agree that this would worry me if I was going to consider a relationship with them, as their relationship skills/emotional stability seem a bit iffy.

Other people have no intention of a relationship, make no pretence of love, and have fun with each other. This tells people nothing about their emotional stability or relationship skills. Provided they are being honest about what they are getting out of it all then what's the harm? I agree that this CAN be a sign of lack of self respect, but it can also be a sign of somebody who doesn't fancy the 'solo sex' approach but doesn't want a relationship either.

If you were getting involved with them you are likely by this point to know whether this is your idea of what you want to get out of this, and I would suggest t020 that this is your cue to head for the door. You and this (hypothetical) woman are obviously looking for different things.

Personally speaking the 'no attachment' variety of sex leaves me pretty cold and would rather not do it at all if there's no respect and affection (I won't say love as it's a rather over-used word and seems to mean so little to some people).

But I'm not about to judge others who make different choices to me, providing I understand what their choices are before I am committed to anything with them.

But that's basically reinforcing what I've been saying - a woman who has had lots of partners is unlikely to appeal to a man wanting to find someone to *settle* with for the very reason that she's not likely to be suitable. If she's had lots of partners before, it's very likely she will have many more in the future. That's why women like that aren't targetted by men when they want someone to settle with, but are very popular for easy one night stands.

t020

01-10-2005, 23:54

Originally posted by Cyclone
when you're single again t020 and going out looking for a potential relationship, let us know how well you get one when you ask for a service history and previous ownership details of girls that you are considering.

When? I don't think so. But any single men looking for potential relationships should follow the above advice - ask for a full service history and previous owners details. Are you listening, Slimsid? I bet that's a technique he's yet to try and it would surely pay dividends.

venger

02-10-2005, 01:40

Some people write absolute nonsense.

Who are we to judge other people ?

t020

02-10-2005, 01:49

Originally posted by venger
Some people write absolute nonsense.

Who are we to judge other people ?

In the context of looking for a suitable potential partner, I'd say "judging" them was a pretty important aspect. Looks, personality, and a whole host of other things would be assessed for suitability in some way or another and in different measures by different people, and that includes, for a lot of people, sexual history.

venger

02-10-2005, 02:08

How many men is it ok for a woman to sleep with..?

Was the initial question.

If a book has many pages, it does not mean it lacks the best of content.

t020

02-10-2005, 02:12

Originally posted by venger
How many men is it ok for a woman to sleep with..?

Was the initial question.

If a book has many pages, it does not mean it lacks the best of content.

Yes, but the conversation moved on from there. I think we'd all agree that the only answer to the question is "as many as she wants". It's a free country and all that. But it would be naive to overlook the consequences - most men would be less likely to see such women as marriage material and such behaviour IS more likely to spread STDs, even with condoms (they don't stop everything, you know). Thinking otherwise would be delusional at best.

Cyclone

02-10-2005, 09:45

Originally posted by t020
Yes, but the conversation moved on from there. I think we'd all agree that the only answer to the question is "as many as she wants". It's a free country and all that. But it would be naive to overlook the consequences - most men would be less likely to see such women as marriage material and such behaviour IS more likely to spread STDs, even with condoms (they don't stop everything, you know). Thinking otherwise would be delusional at best.

I rather think that we might have narrowed "most men" certainly in this context down to "T020". So if you're views are shared by noneone who can be bothered to post on here, then they probably aren't that widespread IRL either.

skny

02-10-2005, 10:51

No, i think most blokes would rather their significant other hadnt had loads of other men in her bed previously. Its probably not very "right-on" to admit that though.

Lucy_Smith

02-10-2005, 11:06

Originally posted by Cyclone
I rather think that we might have narrowed "most men" certainly in this context down to "T020". So if you're views are shared by noneone who can be bothered to post on here, then they probably aren't that widespread IRL either.

I dunno I kind of agree with T020. Of course a girl can sleep with as many people as she likes. That is up to her. But there are going to be consequences, and she should accept that before she decides to sleep around.

I do think that decent men would be put off if a girl has had a large number of sexual partners and I can understand why. Obviously there are those girls out there who are completely self assured and have no strings sex just for fun and I see no problem in that. But having been friends with so many girls at uni who have one night stands I have began to realise they generally follow a pattern. They are usually blind drunk, and not even capable of thinking of the consequences. They usually do it because they really like the guy but don't want to appear "frigid". They usually hope the guy will date them afterwards, but don't have the self esteem to say lets wait for a bit until we know each other better. And they usually regret it terribly in the morning, but then do it again next week in the hope that some guy, one day will return their calls.

It all seems kind of pathetic, doesn't it? Couple that with the fact that some girls are actually too scared to ask a guy to use protection, for fear of looking stupid, and to be honest, you have a potentially lethal course of events.

I have already said that there are those people who are very confident and can enjoy sex without any emotional ties and I have no problem with that. It's just the behaviour above that really bothers me.

Just to add as well that I think it is totally the same for a guy. My bf's best mate is the "stud" on the rugby team, but after three years of gracing kingdom he's having difficulty getting a decent girl nowadays. Word has spread he is a notorious "link em and leave em" kind of guy and now girls don't really want anything to do with him. (Oh except his poor girlfriend who despite being cheated on in excess of 50 times doesn't have the self esteem to leave him :( )

Snook

02-10-2005, 11:09

Zenmaster

02-10-2005, 11:11

This may have been said already but:

How many women is it ok for a man to sleep with..?

Does this question ever come up, or is it a concern?

Anyway I wouldn't start a relationship with someone who had, had numerous sexual partners. Simply because it wouldn't make me feel that special. And I'd question how much they think of the other person they sleep with. I think now I'd only sleep with people I really care about.

Anyway a women can sleep with as many people as she likes. But I probably wouldn't start a relationship with someone who has had more than about 10 sexual partners. Cos then i'd question their values.

t020

02-10-2005, 11:17

Looks like I'm not the only one afterall, Cyclone. ;)

Cyclone

02-10-2005, 11:23

Originally posted by t020
Looks like I'm not the only one afterall, Cyclone. ;)

not the only one, but still not most.

Snook

02-10-2005, 11:25

Originally posted by Cyclone
not the only one, but still not most.

I don't that could be proven one way or the other, but most men I know feel the same... If they are really honest about it. I'm not saying it would make them break up with someone, but certainly give them pause for thought.

t020

02-10-2005, 11:27

Originally posted by Cyclone
not the only one, but still not most.

I'd say it was most, actually. But like skny said, it isn't the "right on" opinion to have and may come across a bit old fashioned. The difference for me is that I don't care what anyone else thinks, I'll post my honest opinions. Some men will admit it would be a problem, a lot of men would pretend to others that it isn't but actions speak louder than words, and a small percentage of men genuinely wouldn't find it a problem.

Pseudonym

02-10-2005, 12:07

Originally posted by Cyclone
I rather think that we might have narrowed "most men" certainly in this context down to "T020". So if you're views are shared by noneone who can be bothered to post on here, then they probably aren't that widespread IRL either.
Think again, Cyclone! ;)

It seems that T020 is far from alone in his views, some of us share many of them in this particular matter, myself for one, though we may not express them repeatedly and so vehemently.

DaBouncer... You say "If you're a secure person then the amount she's been with (for want of a better phrase) wont even bother you." If she had a 'reputation', was the local 'bike' or even an ex-working girl, then the amount of men she'd been with would bother me greatly... Whether I was a 'secure person' or not, for many of the reasons listed by T020 and others... I'm evidently not alone in feeling this way!

Lucy_Smith writes very revealingly about certain types of 'good-time girls' that she's known and explains some of the reasons behind their behaviour. Whilst these reasons can't be applied in all cases, they do seem to accurately fit the profile of many, showing, as she says, a lack of self-esteem, a character trait that men may take advantage of, but not something that most men desire in a long-term relationship.

Despite so-called liberated-thinking, a promiscuous female is liable to get the reputation of being 'easy', or worse... A promiscuous male is more likely to be regarded, often enviously, as 'a bit of a lad with the women'. It isn't fair I agree, but that's the way that society in general views the situation and it's unlikely to change any time soon.

venger

02-10-2005, 12:28

I think Lucy Smith has a reasonable point but comes across as bias in my mind.

Lucy_Smith

02-10-2005, 12:38

Originally posted by venger
I think Lucy Smith has a reasonable point but comes across as bias in my mind.

Bias to whom? Obviously I am just talking about people I have known, but I think they are fairly representative of a group of 20 somethings. I think that women who sleep around purely for the enjoyment of sex and have no self esteem issues are pretty rare. I know one at uni, in a group of at least 20 girlfriends.

robbie

02-10-2005, 12:52

Lucy raises some good points.

from a sociological perspective there is an argument that some girls sleep with lots of men as they are continuosly searching for a partner. They sleep with the lad to get him to like them and genually hope/think that more will come from it.

there is also a theory that women sleep with men because they are looking for someone to father their children. (Which I don't agree with)

From my point of view it is more important to me whether the girl has a history of cheating on boyfriends then how many people they have slept with. I'd rather they hadn't slept with anyone I know but as long as they are clean and faithful I don't see why numbers matter.

it is likely that girls who go through uni will slep with more lads than those who don't. simply because they are likely to be out and drunk more.

venger

02-10-2005, 13:09

Originally posted by robbie

it is likely that girls who go through uni will slep with more lads than those who don't. simply because they are likely to be out and drunk more.

I agreed with what you wrote until that happened.

Generalisations man !

robbie

02-10-2005, 13:15

Originally posted by venger
I agreed with what you wrote until that happened.

Generalisations man !

I said it is likely........and of course it is a generalisation I've not polled a 1000 graduates and non graduates you kinow!

nick2

02-10-2005, 13:30

t020

02-10-2005, 14:37

Originally posted by nick2
A simplistic and frankly quite insulting analogy, does you girlfriend like being compared to a second hand car (or did you get her from new ?)

I wasn't comparing her to anything - I was using the analogy in the general context of men seeking long term girlfriends and how someone with several previous sexual partners could be off putting (as has been proved by many comments throughout this thread, despite how PC we're being pressurised into being).

depoix

02-10-2005, 16:57

the worst thing i saw relating to this happened in the elm tree pub in the seventies,a girl turned up out of nowhere one weekend, over several weeks she must have dated well over half the lads in the pub,one night she turned up with a stranger, while he was at the bar ordering drinks one lad gave him a wink and said.youll be alright there mate

it turned out it was her husband,on leave from the army,there was an almighty bust up,he left her,she ended up on her own but no one bothered with her any more,last i heard she moved away

DaBouncer

02-10-2005, 17:15

Originally posted by Pseudonym
DaBouncer... You say "If you're a secure person then the amount she's been with (for want of a better phrase) wont even bother you." If she had a 'reputation', was the local 'bike' or even an ex-working girl, then the amount of men she'd been with would bother me greatly... Whether I was a 'secure person' or not, for many of the reasons listed by T020 and others... I'm evidently not alone in feeling this way!
Well that's where you and I differ.
However the analogy is a little extreme.

Local bike (a mans phrase), what would you class as the local bike? Does she have to have slept with 1 - 10 - 100 men?
The number wouldn't bother me since I am secure in the fact that if she loves me then she'll be faithful to me.
Let's not confuse sleeping with a lot of people as the same as being unfaithful... it's not. So long as she'd been faithful, or the guys she's slept with have just been a laugh then the number wouldn't bother me. However how safe she had been while sleeping with these men would be a factor.

Provided that side of things is fine, why should I worry or care?
You might! I make no judgments on how secure you are or old fashioned.
Why is it OK for a man to sleep around but not a woman?

On the subject of the working girl I cannot comment since I've never been in that situation. However that would affect me, only in that most working girls do it to support a drug habbit... don't care if they use protection or not and generally have little self respect (not necessarily their fault) to look after themselves. Again it wouldn't be an amount of people she'd slept with that would concern me.

Hey... I guess I'm just a modern guy who can accept people all have a past and I judge people for how I find them not what they've done before they met me.

Pseudonym

03-10-2005, 00:07

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Well that's where you and I differ.
However the analogy is a little extreme.
I'd be surprised if we didn't differ ;) and I agree the analogy IS extreme but I was trying to make a point because you'd said that as a secure person then the amount of men she'd been with wouldn't bother you.
Local bike (a mans phrase), what would you class as the local bike? Does she have to have slept with 1 - 10 - 100 men?
Obviously I don't have the right to class any woman as the 'local bike' and I certainly wouldn't want to quantify the number of men she needs to have slept with in order to gain that reputation, though usually it's a lot. The operative word here is 'reputation' and whilst to some men a woman who has a reputation for sleeping around is attractive as an 'easy lay', she's rarely attractive to many as a prospective life-partner.
The number wouldn't bother me since I am secure in the fact that if she loves me then she'll be faithful to me.
Let's not confuse sleeping with a lot of people as the same as being unfaithful... it's not.
I personally would be extremely doubtful that she even knows what love means and consequently, in my opinion, she'd be highly likely to revert to her old ways, but then I'm a hardened cynic.
So long as she'd been faithful, or the guys she's slept with have just been a laugh then the number wouldn't bother me. However how safe she had been while sleeping with these men would be a factor.
I can understand that safety would be a factor but it's something you can never be absolutely certain of. The greater the number of previous partners, coupled with the circumstances of the encounters (note that Lucy_Smith has said how haphazard, unplanned and careless some of these couplings can be), plainly increases the amount of uncertainty. Common-sense therefore dictates the fewer the better, as it minimises the risk.
Provided that side of things is fine, why should I worry or care?
You might! I make no judgments on how secure you are or old fashioned.
I maintain that you can't be sure that 'that side of things' IS fine and whilst I may or may not be secure or old-fashioned, I'd like to think that I was reasonably sensible, especially when it comes to self-preservation.
Why is it OK for a man to sleep around but not a woman?
Morally, there should be no difference but society decrees otherwise. Although, probably because of societys' influence, I admit to thinking the same way... And I'd find it very difficult to justify my views.
On the subject of the working girl I cannot comment since I've never been in that situation. However that would affect me, only in that most working girls do it to support a drug habbit... don't care if they use protection or not and generally have little self respect (not necessarily their fault) to look after themselves. Again it wouldn't be an amount of people she'd slept with that would concern me.
Actually, the working-girls that I've met (not as a customer, may I add), call-girls, not street-corner pro's, had a great deal of self-respect and took pains to look after their health. They made stupid amounts of money and did their utmost to avoid the risk of getting 'sick'. Some were well-educated and invariably were very attractive-looking. They saw themselves as 'professionals', providing a service and generally had a very low opinion indeed of the girls that 'put out'... But I understand what you say about drug use being prevalent amongst the street-walkers.
Hey... I guess I'm just a modern guy who can accept people all have a past and I judge people for how I find them not what they've done before they met me.
I think that most of us accept that people have a past and I don't think anyone is judging anyone else from what I've read so far, we all have the right to do as we please within reason.

In this instance I'm arguing (amicably I hope!) with your statement that the amount of previous partners (and here I use the term 'partners' loosely), doesn't matter.. I believe that it does, certainly as far as I'm concerned and I hope that I've explained why.

banesmabes

03-10-2005, 08:11

Having read through the replies from the weekend, I’d like to add the following:

First of all on the masturbation topic, I think you need to look at how masturbation for both sexes has been viewed through the ages. It has been acknowledged for a long time that men masturbate. As a result a whole vocabulary has grown up around it. It is treated as derogatory because a man is often judged on his sexual success with women – using this judgement, a man who needs to masturbate is a failure. It’s a load of rubbish of course, as men in relationships also masturbate. For women however, masturbation has not been widely spoken about or even acknowledged until fairly recently. There are no widespread slang terms for female masturbation as there are with male masturbation. Partially as a result of this it is very hard to put a woman down because there is no equivalent word to w****r for women. Acknowledgement of female masturbation has broadly come as a result of the feminist movement and has therefore be talked about in broadly positive terms (because it is not the feminist’s job to put women down!). It is seen as empowering women because for many women masturbation can be physically much more satisfying than sex with a man (face it guys). It is much more difficult for a woman to orgasm than it is a man, and it is often much easier (in general) for a woman to make herself orgasm than getting a man to do it. This doesn’t mean that women don’t find sex with a man enjoyable, but a lot of women find more emotional fulfilment from sex rather than the physical fulfilment they get from masturbation. However some women are lucky enough to find sex with men very physically fulfilling as well, so choose to have sex more, be that with the same partner or with various partners. This is no different from the way men have sex.

Secondly, why should it matter more how many sexual partners the woman has had versus how many partners the man has had? For instance, as some seem to be advocating that a woman with many sexual partners is not relationship material (again I would question why you would let that issue blind you to the rest of that person), then how many partners can a man have before he cannot possibly make an issue of how many partners his new partner has had?

Next, if you were in a new relationship with someone and they asked you how many sexual partners you had had in your past would you really answer this honestly? Maybe you would if you had not had many partners, but if it had been more than a few would you be honest and tell that person? Especially as the fact they are asking means that it obviously matters to them. I think a lot of people would ‘prune’ their figure to keep the relationship going, so you can never really know how many partners anyone has had. I was in a relationship once where the guy initially lied to me about how many partners he’d had – the topic came up after he had asked me the question, and as the number was quite low he felt the need to reduce his own figure to 10 partners. He later admitted that he had lied because he was ashamed of the real figure of more like 30. I used to think that the number of sexual partners did matter in a relationship, and had I known he’d had 30 partners from day one I probably wouldn’t have gone anywhere near him – but that would have been my loss. The fact that I didn’t find this out until much later in the relationship meant that I learned that it really didn’t matter. A person is not defined or made by the number of sexual partners they have had.

Finally (I know, a long post!), I know I personally have felt pressured into having sex because it is sort of expected once you reach a certain stage of a relationship. This stage is now earlier in a relationship than it ever has been. It used to be after you got married, now it is more like the infamous third date (where, if certain research is to be believed, many men will lose interest in a woman if she does not sleep with him). I no longer allow myself to get into the physical aspects of a relationship earlier than I am comfortable with anymore, but there are times when I did, and I am sure this is true of a lot of women. This is a big reason why people have more sexual partners now. I personally use it as a test of how interested a man is in me rather than in just getting laid.

t020

03-10-2005, 12:37

Originally posted by banesmabes
Having read through the replies from the weekend, I’d like to add the following:

First of all on the masturbation topic, I think you need to look at how masturbation for both sexes has been viewed through the ages. It has been acknowledged for a long time that men masturbate. As a result a whole vocabulary has grown up around it. It is treated as derogatory because a man is often judged on his sexual success with women – using this judgement, a man who needs to masturbate is a failure. It’s a load of rubbish of course, as men in relationships also masturbate. For women however, masturbation has not been widely spoken about or even acknowledged until fairly recently. There are no widespread slang terms for female masturbation as there are with male masturbation. Partially as a result of this it is very hard to put a woman down because there is no equivalent word to w****r for women. Acknowledgement of female masturbation has broadly come as a result of the feminist movement and has therefore be talked about in broadly positive terms (because it is not the feminist’s job to put women down!). It is seen as empowering women because for many women masturbation can be physically much more satisfying than sex with a man (face it guys). It is much more difficult for a woman to orgasm than it is a man, and it is often much easier (in general) for a woman to make herself orgasm than getting a man to do it. This doesn’t mean that women don’t find sex with a man enjoyable, but a lot of women find more emotional fulfilment from sex rather than the physical fulfilment they get from masturbation. However some women are lucky enough to find sex with men very physically fulfilling as well, so choose to have sex more, be that with the same partner or with various partners. This is no different from the way men have sex.

If women can get so much satisfaction from making love to a piece of plastic, then good luck to them. If you take a "zoomed out" view of it though, it's a bit superficial and meaningless.

Originally posted by banesmabes

Secondly, why should it matter more how many sexual partners the woman has had versus how many partners the man has had? For instance, as some seem to be advocating that a woman with many sexual partners is not relationship material (again I would question why you would let that issue blind you to the rest of that person), then how many partners can a man have before he cannot possibly make an issue of how many partners his new partner has had?

It matters because it's indicative of what type of person they are - their morals, how they view sex, etc. To me, sex is something that is only done between people in a loving relationship. If someone had had 30 previous partners, they'd clearly not be compatible with me. That's why it's important. As for how many a man can have, that would be up to the woman who he is trying to date.

Originally posted by banesmabes

Next, if you were in a new relationship with someone and they asked you how many sexual partners you had had in your past would you really answer this honestly? Maybe you would if you had not had many partners, but if it had been more than a few would you be honest and tell that person? Especially as the fact they are asking means that it obviously matters to them. I think a lot of people would ‘prune’ their figure to keep the relationship going, so you can never really know how many partners anyone has had. I was in a relationship once where the guy initially lied to me about how many partners he’d had – the topic came up after he had asked me the question, and as the number was quite low he felt the need to reduce his own figure to 10 partners. He later admitted that he had lied because he was ashamed of the real figure of more like 30. I used to think that the number of sexual partners did matter in a relationship, and had I known he’d had 30 partners from day one I probably wouldn’t have gone anywhere near him – but that would have been my loss. The fact that I didn’t find this out until much later in the relationship meant that I learned that it really didn’t matter. A person is not defined or made by the number of sexual partners they have had.

Yes, people will often lie about it. If I was you though, I'd be annoyed that your relationship was essentially built on a lie and that he effectively tricked you into a relationship. Also, with people who have had many partners you're much more likely to find out if they're lying about it because, for obvious reasons, they're more likely to have a reputation or you're more likely to bump into one of their exs.

Originally posted by banesmabes

Finally (I know, a long post!), I know I personally have felt pressured into having sex because it is sort of expected once you reach a certain stage of a relationship. This stage is now earlier in a relationship than it ever has been. It used to be after you got married, now it is more like the infamous third date (where, if certain research is to be believed, many men will lose interest in a woman if she does not sleep with him). I no longer allow myself to get into the physical aspects of a relationship earlier than I am comfortable with anymore, but there are times when I did, and I am sure this is true of a lot of women. This is a big reason why people have more sexual partners now. I personally use it as a test of how interested a man is in me rather than in just getting laid.

I agree. Sex should be as part of a loving, long term relationship and not expected on the third date.

nick2

03-10-2005, 12:56

It looks like most of the guys seem to think women should stay virgins until they are "lucky" enough to get married ?

Fareast

03-10-2005, 13:21

The more posts I read on this fascinating topic , the more I have to keep revising my original figure . !
I now , definitely think it's o.k. for a woman to sleep with 15 blokes .

banesmabes

03-10-2005, 15:12

Originally posted by t020
If women can get so much satisfaction from making love to a piece of plastic, then good luck to them. If you take a "zoomed out" view of it though, it's a bit superficial and meaningless.

Hence why I said it was physical satisfaction only from masturbation (and note I mentioned masturbation, not necessarily with a vibrator), and not emotional satisfaction that you can get from sex.

Originally posted by t020
Yes, people will often lie about it. If I was you though, I'd be annoyed that your relationship was essentially built on a lie and that he effectively tricked you into a relationship. Also, with people who have had many partners you're much more likely to find out if they're lying about it because, for obvious reasons, they're more likely to have a reputation or you're more likely to bump into one of their exs.

I wasn't annoyed that he lied because to me it was a lie about a superficial thing. By that stage our relationship had developed to something much more important than a number. The relationship was not as you put it, 'built on a lie', because it was not built on how many sexual partners each of us had had.

GazB

03-10-2005, 15:29

If I poked a girl on a first date, I doubt very much I'd have her as a girlfriend. Call me a hypocrite if you like.

Most women would lie about it if they'd slept with more than say, 15 men.

t020

03-10-2005, 15:49

Originally posted by banesmabes

I wasn't annoyed that he lied because to me it was a lie about a superficial thing. By that stage our relationship had developed to something much more important than a number. The relationship was not as you put it, 'built on a lie', because it was not built on how many sexual partners each of us had had.

It was "built on a lie" - if he'd have told you the honest amount at first, by your own admission you wouldn't have been interested in him. Hence your relationship only took place as a result of that lie - it was the foundation of your relationship.

Whether or not past partners is a "superficial thing" is very subjective, but to me (and most men I know) it is regarded as very important.

Cyclone

03-10-2005, 15:53

nick2

03-10-2005, 15:55

Originally posted by t020
It was "built on a lie" - if he'd have told you the honest amount at first

The strange thing is I've never asked a partner how many people they have slept with before me. At what point do you ask your potential girlfriends, when you first meet them ("hi im xxxxx, how many men have you slept with ?") or do you leave it until the second date ?

t020

03-10-2005, 15:57

Originally posted by Cyclone
just so long as you understand how shallow and hypocritical that is then I guess it's okay. Oh, did I mention puritanical and just a little bit sad?
I guess not everyone fits the whole 'modern man' thing.

It isn't hypocritical since I don't sleep around myself - check the dictionary for the definition. ;)

I don't think it's shallow as it shows an important personality and moral trait of an individual. Seeking someone with similar morals and personality traits is anything but shallow. Seeking someone because they've been around a lot and "know what they're doing" is.

Cyclone

03-10-2005, 16:12

True, but I suspect that some of the people saying that they would consider it to be important wouldn't apply the same standards to themselves (or at least not voluntarily).
Morality is such a funny thing, but yes I suppose finding someone with compatible morals is sensible. I'm still puzzled by how you find out though? Do you just slip it into casual conversation at the bar?

Plain Talker

03-10-2005, 17:57

Originally posted by GazB
If I poked a girl on a first date, I doubt very much I'd have her as a girlfriend. Call me a hypocrite if you like.

Most women would lie about it if they'd slept with more than say, 15 men.

so how is it, that this hypothetical woman would be good enough to be (quote) poking (unquote) material but not good enough to be considered material for a long term relationship?

you would be adding to this woman's reputation, surely, if you would "poke" her, but have no thought to her and treating her with respect, rather than as an unpaid prostitute?

PT

SHsheff

03-10-2005, 18:03

BrainThrust

03-10-2005, 18:06

You know, I've never had to ask. It isn't something that has ever occured for me to ask. What does it matter?

I can't see how anyone can think different. Surely it's just the now and how you and they feel that matters?

As for lying about it, if the question is asked I suppose it's better than a 'does it matter?'. As long as you aren't doing it because somehow you feel guilty about it yourself.

Wilf

Plain Talker

03-10-2005, 18:13

Originally posted by SHsheff
I think the main message that's coming out of this thread is erm, who's counting? Or, more to the point, who's going to give an honest answer? It sounds like, 'Awwww three, but none of them really made me feel it was worth doing, darling, until YOU!' is the required response.

Duh!

shsheff, the thud you just heard was me falling off my chair with laughter!

*snorts*

PT
XX

Plain Talker

03-10-2005, 18:18

Originally posted by julz
On a jokey level there was a show recently on TV (can't remember what it was though) that implied to find the 'true' number of partners a person had 'had', you did the following:

For a man - divide the amount of sexual partners he says he's had by 3.
For a woman - Times the amount of sexual partners she says she had by 3.

so as I have had one husband, and two "live in" (I.E. long term partners), does this then reckon up to having married three husbands and that I've lived with six men? (I wish i'd been aware of them, in order that i might have enjoyed my hypothetical time them!) chuckles...

PT

Lucy_Smith

03-10-2005, 18:22

Originally posted by Plain Talker
so how is it, that this hypothetical woman would be good enough to be (quote) poking (unquote) material but not good enough to be considered material for a long term relationship?

you would be adding to this woman's reputation, surely, if you would "poke" her, but have no thought to her and treating her with respect, rather than as an unpaid prostitute?

PT

Personally I feel the only way to stop men behaving in this way is to not offer it as women in the first place though. If a woman is saying "you know what, don't worry about getting to know me, just sh*g me now" then I think most single guys are gonna be like, wahey!

I know others disagree and think it is a fundamental flaw in society that men want to treat women "like unpaid prostitutes" but I personally feel it is up to us to set the boundaries and to deal with the consequences of them. My boyfriend has always told me one of the main reason he considered entering into a relationship with me was because I wasn't like all the other girls he had met, to whom all he had to say was "rugby team" and they were more than eager (to put it politely ;) ). I think that is sad and feel a woman like that only has herself to blame when she gets a reputation and nobody wants to get into a relationship with her.

Cyclone

03-10-2005, 19:03

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
Personally I feel the only way to stop men behaving in this way is to not offer it as women in the first place though. If a woman is saying "you know what, don't worry about getting to know me, just sh*g me now" then I think most single guys are gonna be like, wahey!

I know others disagree and think it is a fundamental flaw in society that men want to treat women "like unpaid prostitutes" but I personally feel it is up to us to set the boundaries and to deal with the consequences of them. My boyfriend has always told me one of the main reason he considered entering into a relationship with me was because I wasn't like all the other girls he had met, to whom all he had to say was "rugby team" and they were more than eager (to put it politely ;) ). I think that is sad and feel a woman like that only has herself to blame when she gets a reputation and nobody wants to get into a relationship with her.

what's more sad is that some people seem to accept that it's okay for men to shag around, but somehow not for women.
It's a good job you didn't apply the same criteria to your boyfriend as he did to you, otherwise you'd not be together.

Snook

03-10-2005, 19:07

Originally posted by Cyclone
what's more sad is that some people seem to accept that it's okay for men to shag around, but somehow not for women.
It's a good job you didn't apply the same criteria to your boyfriend as he did to you, otherwise you'd not be together.

I personally don't see a difference between what men and women do, but I think that this hypocritical attitude comes largely from women's views on the subject.

Women don't seem to have a problem with men that have had quite a lot of sexual partners, so it isn't looked down on in the same way... On the other hand, most men look down on women who have slept around, and so this isn't so acceptable.

Until either men or women change their views on the opposite sex, there will be this difference.

DaBouncer

03-10-2005, 19:19

Lucy_Smith

03-10-2005, 19:22

Originally posted by Cyclone
what's more sad is that some people seem to accept that it's okay for men to shag around, but somehow not for women.
It's a good job you didn't apply the same criteria to your boyfriend as he did to you, otherwise you'd not be together.

Actually I did...luckily he didn't actually sleep with many of these silly girls. I don't think it's acceptable, and regularly take the mick out of his friends for it. As do loads of other people. It's a bit of an urban legend that men are "studs" and women are "slags", times are actually changing and more and more women are beginning to think it isn't acceptable.

D2J

03-10-2005, 19:24

Some men and women see it as an achievement which has always had me wondering 'WHY' ?

Maybe I'm old fashioned but over the years I've come to realise I want sex to mean something. I'm not saying I've not had the odd one nighter (one of them being a forummers fault :suspect: but we won't go there), we all have, but some just grow out of it..

I await to be gunned down and laughed at..

SatanInHeels

03-10-2005, 22:35

I think I was called a whore on a regular basis before i had every slept with anyone!

...but I think in depends on the woman to decide who she sleeps with, some may have the same sexual partner all their life, some may want many, some may want none. etc. who is to say who someone can and cant sleep with, as long as she is being carefull and not spreading diseases and popping out different children to different men all over the place then what does it really matter? it doesnt for a bloke does it? X

banesmabes

04-10-2005, 07:50

Originally posted by t020
It was "built on a lie" - if he'd have told you the honest amount at first, by your own admission you wouldn't have been interested in him. Hence your relationship only took place as a result of that lie - it was the foundation of your relationship.

Whether or not past partners is a "superficial thing" is very subjective, but to me (and most men I know) it is regarded as very important.

With all due respect you know nothing about this relationship. It was not built on how many people he had slept with. I stated that I probably would have steered clear of him had I known his ‘number’ from day one. However I did not even know the fake number until some time after the relationship had started, by which point the real number would not have bothered me. As I said, if I did have this information from day one then it would have been my loss if I had then made the stupid decision not to have anything more to do with him on the basis of his sexual past. If this had happened then it would have been me who was in the wrong for judging this man before I even knew him properly, not him for having slept around a bit.

What I was highlighting with this example is what you can miss out on by holding stupid statistics like this is high regard. I used to think just the way you did, that lots of sexual partners = lack of morals, etc. Looking at what you write is like looking at me in the mirror 5 years ago. Then I got into a relationship with a man who it turns out had quite a few partners in his past – and guess what? I realised that people who have more than the average number of sexual partners are no different from anyone else. They are just as capable of building a lasting relationship, they are just as capable of being faithful, they are just as capable of holding the highest moral standards. What you are doing is stereotyping these people. You are judging each individual on your own prejudices. As a result you may miss out on the love of your life (who often turn up in forms that you never expected).

Cyclone

04-10-2005, 07:53

Originally posted by Snook
I personally don't see a difference between what men and women do, but I think that this hypocritical attitude comes largely from women's views on the subject.

Women don't seem to have a problem with men that have had quite a lot of sexual partners, so it isn't looked down on in the same way... On the other hand, most men look down on women who have slept around, and so this isn't so acceptable.

Until either men or women change their views on the opposite sex, there will be this difference.

So it's really all the fault of women for not holding the same anacronistic puritanical views that some men do, now I understand.

banesmabes

04-10-2005, 07:56

Originally posted by GazB
If I poked a girl on a first date, I doubt very much I'd have her as a girlfriend. Call me a hypocrite if you like.

Yes, you are a hypocrite, seeing as you would be the one initiating the said 'poking', and not the girl. This is a big problem for women; in my experience a lot of men pressure you for sexual activity from the very start of a potential relationship, and many women still feel that if they don't let the man do what they want then he will lose interest. You say you wouldn't have a girl who let you do this as a girlfriend - what sort of respect do you think she has for you for attempting to do this to her so soon? Do you really think she would see you as potential boyfriend material after doing this to her so soon? I think you need to look at whether it is acceptable for you to judge others based on YOUR behaviour (the 'poking').

banesmabes

04-10-2005, 07:59

Originally posted by Cyclone
So it's really all the fault of women for not holding the same anacronistic puritanical views that some men do, now I understand.

:clap: Totally agree Cyclone. I hate how any unfairness women face is always turned back on women as their own fault.

Kthebean

04-10-2005, 08:25

Originally posted by SHsheff
I think the main message that's coming out of this thread is erm, who's counting? Or, more to the point, who's going to give an honest answer? It sounds like, 'Awwww three, but none of them really made me feel it was worth doing, darling, until YOU!' is the required response.

Duh!

:hihi:

It doesn't really matter at all, does it? Ok so we all have different views and moral values about it but that's why we choose different partners.

Snook

04-10-2005, 09:36

Originally posted by Cyclone
So it's really all the fault of women for not holding the same anachronistic puritanical views that some men do, now I understand.

Who said fault... You can't force the world to fit into the view you want it to. You don't think that the reason that men are not seen as slappers if they sleep around has ANYTHING to do with the fact that women are a lot more forgiving then men about it?

I didn't say fault, and it would be nice to say that there is no hypocrisy on the subject, but that isn't true, it's just what you'd like there to be... me too, but I'm willing to see the truth.

Cyclone

04-10-2005, 09:46

Originally posted by Snook
Who said fault... You can't force the world to fit into the view you want it to. You don't think that the reason that men are not seen as slappers if they sleep around has ANYTHING to do with the fact that women are a lot more forgiving then men about it?

I didn't say fault, and it would be nice to say that there is no hypocrisy on the subject, but that isn't true, it's just what you'd like there to be... me too, but I'm willing to see the truth.

but I think that this hypocritical attitude comes largely from women's views on the subject.

I may have misunderstood, but that sounds like you are saying women are hypocritical and that's generally considered to be a fault.

I still don't think it's 'most' men that would worry about this issue. I'll do a straw poll on my friends and students and get back to you.

Snook

04-10-2005, 09:50

Originally posted by Cyclone
I may have misunderstood, but that sounds like you are saying women are hypocritical and that's generally considered to be a fault.

I still don't think it's 'most' men that would worry about this issue. I'll do a straw poll on my friends and students and get back to you.

No, you do misunderstand... I don't mean that the hypocritical view comes from women... I didn't say that. I meant that womens views on the subject make many men have their hypocritical bias.

Maybe you have better friends than me, but I have discussed it with mine, and most would be put off a woman if they believed she had slept around.

Jamie

04-10-2005, 09:55

Originally posted by banesmabes
I hate how any unfairness women face is always turned back on women as their own fault.

*tut* women are always moaning about something ...

bigsteve

04-10-2005, 11:11

I think you may find a womans only a whore if she charges for it......
If its free then she' just having fun.
Or thats how i c it.:thumbsup:

GazB

04-10-2005, 11:15

Think about it this way.. If a girl you've met has slept with 10 men and you think this isn't alot.. What would you say if she told you that 5 of them were your friends?

I'd never go out with a girl that's slept/gone out with ANY of my friends. Same as I wouldn't be suprised if a girl didn't want much to do with me if I'd slept with one of her friends.

t020

04-10-2005, 12:21

Originally posted by banesmabes
With all due respect you know nothing about this relationship. It was not built on how many people he had slept with. I stated that I probably would have steered clear of him had I known his ‘number’ from day one. However I did not even know the fake number until some time after the relationship had started, by which point the real number would not have bothered me. As I said, if I did have this information from day one then it would have been my loss if I had then made the stupid decision not to have anything more to do with him on the basis of his sexual past. If this had happened then it would have been me who was in the wrong for judging this man before I even knew him properly, not him for having slept around a bit.

What I was highlighting with this example is what you can miss out on by holding stupid statistics like this is high regard. I used to think just the way you did, that lots of sexual partners = lack of morals, etc. Looking at what you write is like looking at me in the mirror 5 years ago. Then I got into a relationship with a man who it turns out had quite a few partners in his past – and guess what? I realised that people who have more than the average number of sexual partners are no different from anyone else. They are just as capable of building a lasting relationship, they are just as capable of being faithful, they are just as capable of holding the highest moral standards. What you are doing is stereotyping these people. You are judging each individual on your own prejudices. As a result you may miss out on the love of your life (who often turn up in forms that you never expected).

I don't think so - I've already found her. Incidentally, if you don't mind me asking, if this guy was so brilliant howcome he is your *ex*?

banesmabes

05-10-2005, 07:46

Originally posted by t020
I don't think so - I've already found her. Incidentally, if you don't mind me asking, if this guy was so brilliant howcome he is your *ex*?

Nothing to do with anything either of us did. He was working in the UK for a while when we met, then had to go back to the US because both his parents were very ill. We both moved on, although I often wonder 'what if'!

intooblivion

05-10-2005, 10:37

Although I do sometimes think that when a woman sleeps around it can indicate low self esteem. Women sometimes think that if they sleep with a guy (a one night stand) that he will like her but then in the morning she just feels like a slapper who has clearly been used.

I know a few girls like that but I also know a few girls who are having fun and enjoying themselves with no resultant low self esteem issues.

Guess it depends on the person. Anyway, I'm crossing my legs from now on :help:

Old_Bloke

05-10-2005, 13:20

Originally posted by intooblivion
Anyway, I'm crossing my legs from now on :help:

*looks innocent* Cos you need the toilet? :confused:

sugarnspice

05-10-2005, 13:20

You should be able to sleep with as few or as many people as you like, without it being anyone elses business (if you're male or female). It's got nothing to do with anyone else and the moral high horse makes me sick. Everyone's different and hold their own values. Nobody is right or wrong. It's personal choice.

I certainly don't think it makes you different or a "bad person" if you sleep with many men, or just the one.

t020

05-10-2005, 17:01

Originally posted by sugarnspice
You should be able to sleep with as few or as many people as you like, without it being anyone elses business (if you're male or female). It's got nothing to do with anyone else and the moral high horse makes me sick. Everyone's different and hold their own values. Nobody is right or wrong. It's personal choice.

I certainly don't think it makes you different or a "bad person" if you sleep with many men, or just the one.

Yes, and that's *your* opinion, but as discussed, the reality is that the majority of men are put off with women who have slept with lots of different partners.

youwhatref

05-10-2005, 18:17

Originally posted by t020
Yes, and that's *your* opinion, but as discussed, the reality is that the majority of men are put off with women who have slept with lots of different partners.

Both T020 and sugarnspice are right. I think the majority agree that a woman can sleep with as many guys as she wishes and feels comfortable with. Some women (like men) will do it as they feel insecure and some just because they love sex and dont want the hassle of a relationship.

But T020 has a point, many men i know are put off if the woman has slepped with many men. It is just a fact. If a girl told me she was put off by the number of girls a guy had slepped with then again i see no problem

cloudybay

05-10-2005, 18:40

Just a small query, was this thread started by a M or F?

sexibabe

05-10-2005, 18:44

ste_doyle

05-10-2005, 23:35

Lets find out, are there any volunteers :clap: .

I have loved a lot women in my time, been in love with just a few, wish i stayed with one in peticular (a sheffield lass) but some will say i'm a dog, some i was a good friend, but one just the greatest thing that ever happened to her...

Sleep with as many as you like..

:thumbsup: Go for it...

banesmabes

06-10-2005, 07:41

Originally posted by youwhatref
But T020 has a point, many men i know are put off if the woman has slepped with many men. It is just a fact. If a girl told me she was put off by the number of girls a guy had slepped with then again i see no problem

I think what is annoying to women about some of the attitudes on this thread though is the argument that we should just accept the double standard as the way things are. I think we can all pretty much agree that this usually matters more to men than to women, and that many men do not like to have a partner who has had more sexual partners than they have. But for men on this board to just turn round and say ‘tough, that’s the way it is, get used to it’ is ignoring the issue completely. Why do men hold this idea in their heads that a woman should be less experienced than he is? Is it an affront to his ego? Does it make him feel inadequate? I don’t quite understand what the problem is. If women can accept partners who have more experience than them, then it really shouldn’t be so difficult for a man to do the same. Maybe it is time for men who think that this is important to take a look at themselves rather than judging others.

Lucy_Smith

06-10-2005, 10:09

Originally posted by banesmabes
I think what is annoying to women about some of the attitudes on this thread though is the argument that we should just accept the double standard as the way things are. I think we can all pretty much agree that this usually matters more to men than to women, and that many men do not like to have a partner who has had more sexual partners than they have. But for men on this board to just turn round and say ‘tough, that’s the way it is, get used to it’ is ignoring the issue completely. Why do men hold this idea in their heads that a woman should be less experienced than he is? Is it an affront to his ego? Does it make him feel inadequate? I don’t quite understand what the problem is. If women can accept partners who have more experience than them, then it really shouldn’t be so difficult for a man to do the same. Maybe it is time for men who think that this is important to take a look at themselves rather than judging others.

For some people there isn't a double standard. Im a woman and have serious issues with men who sleep around. I'd find it difficult to be in a relationship with somebody who had had lots of previous partners, probably because I'd be constantly worried if I was as good as them. I'd also be paranoid that said man had problems with commitment and would therefore be likely to cheat on me. All this is completely personal to me but I expect is similar to how some men might feel dating a woman who had had a large number of partners. It's not right or wrong, it doesn't make the person sleeping around wrong, it's just down to individual people. But please don't start on the feminist argument of a double standard, there isn't one, it's just something that had been created by (mainly feminist) sociologists. I don't know a single woman that thinks a man is a "stud" for sleeping around, he's far more likely to receive the taunt "get thee to a GUM clinic".

banesmabes

06-10-2005, 11:31

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
For some people there isn't a double standard. Im a woman and have serious issues with men who sleep around. I'd find it difficult to be in a relationship with somebody who had had lots of previous partners, probably because I'd be constantly worried if I was as good as them. I'd also be paranoid that said man had problems with commitment and would therefore be likely to cheat on me. All this is completely personal to me but I expect is similar to how some men might feel dating a woman who had had a large number of partners. It's not right or wrong, it doesn't make the person sleeping around wrong, it's just down to individual people. But please don't start on the feminist argument of a double standard, there isn't one, it's just something that had been created by (mainly feminist) sociologists. I don't know a single woman that thinks a man is a "stud" for sleeping around, he's far more likely to receive the taunt "get thee to a GUM clinic".

I have to disagree - there is a double standard because it is something that is much more likely to bother men than it is women. It doesn't mean that it doesn't bother ALL women, but the double standard is that more men think it matters. It is a symptom of the sexual double standards of society.

t020

06-10-2005, 12:30

Originally posted by banesmabes
I have to disagree - there is a double standard because it is something that is much more likely to bother men than it is women. It doesn't mean that it doesn't bother ALL women, but the double standard is that more men think it matters. It is a symptom of the sexual double standards of society.

It may be a double standard on a general, gender level, but on an individual level for me (and probably many other men) there's no double standard - I don't sleep around and I wouldn't want a girlfriend that had slept around either. It's a case of compatible morality, as well as minimising risk (of them having affairs, STDs, etc).

Snook

06-10-2005, 12:41

Cyclone

06-10-2005, 13:10

so then the correct answer to the generally phrased question that started this entire thread is, as it often is;

It depends.

banesmabes

06-10-2005, 13:53

Originally posted by t020
It may be a double standard on a general, gender level, but on an individual level for me (and probably many other men) there's no double standard - I don't sleep around and I wouldn't want a girlfriend that had slept around either. It's a case of compatible morality, as well as minimising risk (of them having affairs, STDs, etc).

So how do you tackle a general double standard if you don’t tackle it on an individual by individual basis? Women are more forgiving of men who have had a lot of sexual partners than men are of women who have had a lot of sexual partners. So why is it that generally women can be more forgiving on this issue and not men? Yes, for some men who don’t sleep around it is not a personal double standard, but I have met men who have openly admitted to me (including the relationship I described earlier) that, although they have slept around, they wouldn’t be interested in a relationship with a woman who had.

It's all well and good every man on here saying it's not a double standard for them because they don't sleep around either, but that doesn't alter the fact that there are many men out there who think it is acceptable for them to sleep around, but who wouldn't want to settle down with a woman who had done the same. The title of this thread sums up the double standard nicely, because the question was only about women.

Cyclone

06-10-2005, 14:00

Originally posted by banesmabes
So how do you tackle a general double standard if you don’t tackle it on an individual by individual basis? Women are more forgiving of men who have had a lot of sexual partners than men are of women who have had a lot of sexual partners. So why is it that generally women can be more forgiving on this issue and not men? Yes, for some men who don’t sleep around it is not a personal double standard, but I have met men who have openly admitted to me (including the relationship I described earlier) that, although they have slept around, they wouldn’t be interested in a relationship with a woman who had.

It's all well and good every man on here saying it's not a double standard for them because they don't sleep around either, but that doesn't alter the fact that there are many men out there who think it is acceptable for them to sleep around, but who wouldn't want to settle down with a woman who had done the same. The title of this thread sums up the double standard nicely, because the question was only about women.

it's perfectly fair for men to say that (the ones who don't sleep around) you won't change anything by challenging them because they aren't being hypocritical.
Find the ones who are, and beat them with your handbag, that's what I recommend.

intooblivion

06-10-2005, 14:19

So if everyone stopped sleeping around then we would all be happier? I personally think it's better when you have feelings for someone which is why I think men and women differ because for a lot of men sex is just about getting off, for women it's more than just that.

No offence to any men.

The thread was started by a female

intooblivion

06-10-2005, 14:21

Originally posted by Old_Bloke
*looks innocent* Cos you need the toilet? :confused:

Funny funny! If I needed the toilet I would go x

Pseudonym

06-10-2005, 14:45

Originally posted by intooblivion
...I personally think it's better when you have feelings for someone which is why I think men and women differ because for a lot of men sex is just about getting off, for women it's more than just that.

No offence to any men...
Or conversely, to paraphrase Intooblivion...

I personally think it's better when you have feelings for someone which is why I think men and women differ because for some women sex is just about getting off, for some men it's more than just that.

No offence to any women. ;)

It can work both ways, we all have our preferences.

To each, their own...

Lucy_Smith

06-10-2005, 15:02

Originally posted by banesmabes
I have to disagree - there is a double standard because it is something that is much more likely to bother men than it is women.

That's a real generalisation. How do you know this? Every woman I am friends with has a real issue with men sleeping around. Maybe you know people who are different but to be honest, I think you are just jumping on a bandwagon of things being ok for men but not for women. Sociologists tend to exaggerate in their research and a lot of the stuff about women being "slags" and men being "studs" was written in the nineties. Social values are forever changing and I personally think that women are much less happy to be in a relationship with a man who has slept around than they used to be. As health campaigns about unsafe sex and the like are beginning to sink in society's attitude changes.

youwhatref

06-10-2005, 15:18

Originally posted by banesmabes
So how do you tackle a general double standard if you don’t tackle it on an individual by individual basis? Women are more forgiving of men who have had a lot of sexual partners than men are of women who have had a lot of sexual partners. So why is it that generally women can be more forgiving on this issue and not men? Yes, for some men who don’t sleep around it is not a personal double standard, but I have met men who have openly admitted to me (including the relationship I described earlier) that, although they have slept around, they wouldn’t be interested in a relationship with a woman who had.

It's all well and good every man on here saying it's not a double standard for them because they don't sleep around either, but that doesn't alter the fact that there are many men out there who think it is acceptable for them to sleep around, but who wouldn't want to settle down with a woman who had done the same. The title of this thread sums up the double standard nicely, because the question was only about women.

I do have sympathy for what you put and women shouldn't accept that men generally aren't attracted to a woman who has slept with many partners but it is still a fact.

Lucy has been honest and stated that some women also find it unattractive in a man. IMO i feel women are generally more inclined to accept it as they are more attracted to that type of guy. Women (from my experience) are more attracted to confidence and cheekiness and thsi type of guy will obviously have had more partners etc (if that makse sense).

You hit the nail on the head with the reasons some guys are put off. IMO sex is something where there is more pressure on the guy to perform so it can lead to insecurities. Plus in addition i'm also put off if a guy i know has slept with this girl.

t020

06-10-2005, 15:30