Women with Too Many Past Sexual Partners!

[hotgurl]

I agree with that Tomcat33!

 

The other day I posted a similar comment and it seemed to offend some women, I don't know why some women feel offended by the idea that some of us don't want to be equal to men!! By nature we are instinctually more emotional then men and we are programmed to equate intimacy with sex, so why would be expect to have emotionless sex like men have?

 

There is a difference between being different and not be equal.

 

when you say someone is not your equal it implies that they are somehow lesser. When you say someone is different from you it implies just that.

 

I am all for celebrating the difference between men and woman. But I am not for the idea that we are not equals

[underpants]

Personally, I would find someone who has cheated or engaged in sex with a committed person to be offensively promiscuous. Moreso then someone who had a large number of partners. However, that is my opinion.

 

Women on the whole might be 'more emotional' then men, but some people are just too emotional for there own good.

 

I do think that people that are manipulative and deceptive are the most easily manipulated. So, maybe it all evens out?

[AAlike]

 

Women want chivalry and want to be taken care of and pampered and treated to things and want to be cared for and protected and at the same time want to be treated as an equal.

 

not all of them. My girlfriend hates when I pay for everything. not that there's anything wrong with the idea, but I don't know that it's inherently "female".

 

So in sex women want to act like men in that they want to be able to have meaningless sex with whom they please

 

I really don't know that this is an inherent male trait...this is somewhat cultural I think...

[Tomcat33]

Well in this case the woman are not having casul sex they are using sex as a tool. They think if they have sex with a man than his is more likely to be thier BF. Which is not true.

 

also one thing this thread has not touchde on is the different ways in which men and women use sex.

 

 

Yeah but it's a fine line between only wanting casual sex and wanting/expecting more. A woman can prob do that once or twice no strings attached with one guy but the more she does it with the same guy, the more intimacy she develops with/for him.

Totally agree on the fact that we did not touch upon how women/men experience sex.

 

So the thing is that men and women experience sex very differently, for a woman she is being entered and therefore she is in a much more "vulnerable" position so her body experiences more of an intimate feeling because her body is being occupied by someone other than herself.

 

 

THEN the most important of all and this is where women try to be like men and what seems to be lost in translation is that women don't always experience orgams through intercourse, the vast majority of women DON'T on a one off. So emotionally the "one boff and you are off" sort of encounter is really unsatisfactory for women so this deters a lot of women from being promiscuous. Instead we look for more of an emotional connection so that we can also be pleased. A guy will orgasm no no matter what.

 

SO for women who sleep around and have constant one night stands they actually do themselves a disservice they are wholely pleasing the man and leaving themselves half pleased.

Now someone tell me how that in any way shape or form is great for a woman and liberating and making themselves more of an equal?

 

In FACT what it does is make women even morre inferior.

 

But some women don't mind being nothing more than a "recieving hole". "More power to ya lady!!!"

 

 

Personally, I am very greedy sexually it is ALL or nothing, (both ways) so I am not going to waste my time trying to act like a guy if there is a possibility I will be short changed.

If that is being a dumb twitt, I prefer being a twitt over a "strong manlady" any day!!

Edited January 17, 2008 by Tomcat33

[Tomcat33]

There is a difference between being different and not be equal.

 

when you say someone is not your equal it implies that they are somehow lesser. When you say someone is different from you it implies just that.

 

I am all for celebrating the difference between men and woman. But I am not for the idea that we are not equals

 

Can a man give birth?

Do you have a penis?

Do they have a vagina?

Can "most" women convey how upset they are in with their partner in and argument without getting emotional?

Can a woman age gracefully and embrace her beer belly and wrinkles?

Can a woman have anothre female coworker she absolutely hates and bucks head with on the job all day long and when the clock stirkes 5pm go for a drink after work with her as if nothing?

 

 

if you answered no to any of those questions then we are NOT equal.

[Cobra_X30]

The first two girls I slept with were very special. They were both girls I loved and were in the context of LTR's. The third girl I slept with, however, was just a drunken ONS in college. Now, according to your "logic" they should all be very special since at that point in time I had only slept with 3 people. But while the first two were very special, the third most certainly was not.

 

There were a few more girls after that. It wasn't just ONS's but they were flings at best (hey, it was college). It wasn't until a number of girls after the 3rd that I had another LTR. She was more special than #3 and the handful of girls after that. But again, by your "logic" she shouldn't have been more special than #3. So then how is it that she was??? Mainly because your "reasoning" makes no sense. And to extend it further, by your "logic" it's impossible to show 2 girls that they're special to you, or at least as special as if you had only been with one in your life. I already know it's possible to show 2 girls they're special, since I've done it, but if you think you or anyone else is incapable of showing more than 1 girl that they're special to you then I would argue that that person is not very loving at all.

 

Furthermore, each additional girl didn't change what happened with each girl prior to that. Nor did it change what I felt about them at the time or afterwards. To think that a present or future situation could possibly alter the past is a ridiculous notion.

 

Finally, kind of a loosely related point: If a person only has opportunities to have sex with 4 people in their life and they accept all 4 then they're far less selective than someone who has 40 opportunities but only takes 20.

 

I don't know, Cobra. The mindset you seem to have is just far too simplistic for me.

 

It seems simplistic because you are talking about something different from me.

 

See, I'm thinking in terms of proof. So in order to understand what I'm considering, you have to first put yourself into the position where your dating someone who has had say... 150 partners. Now... she tells you that your special. How does she prove that to you!

 

Yeah your probably saying it doesn't matter if it was 5 guys or 150. That however is not true, because at 150 it's obvious she is a lot less discriminating, than someone with only 5.

 

So while all your points are good and valid... we are not viewing this from the same perspective.

[tanbark813]

So while all your points are good and valid... we are not viewing this from the same perspective.

 

That's for sure.

[Tomcat33]

I, too, think anyone who has f'd around with a married man is of less integrity than a woman who has had a casual sexual encounter with a single one.

 

 

????????

 

I think people who stand at the top of an escalator trying to figure out where to go next are complete and utter idiots.

Point?

I am not talking about integrity so what does that example have to do with the price of tea in China? The topic isn't who is worse than whom, the topic is about being short changed sexually and why the double standard about having many sexual partners, as a woman, exists.

 

 

Women think they need to sleep around to get sexual satisfaction when in the end all they end up feeling is sexual DISsatisfaction for the meaningless sex they have. Most women who sleep around with anyone who comes their way with the pretext that "they need sex too" actually feel bad about themselves after they do it. For this reason alone women should learn that our place is where it is doing what we know best and and a man's is doing what he knows best.

 

If you don't know what your place is you might be having some gender identity issues.

[Cobra_X30]

A receiving hole? Good gawd. How crass. So apparently you never have sex with a man unless you're in love, eh? Has the notion ever occurred to you that some women aren't afraid to take what they want? That maybe the man they chose to have sex with, purely for pleasure, was being used by her?

 

That's not really a possibility. See, there is an amount of risk that comes with sex... and since the woman carries the greater burden of that risk... therefore it is much more difficult to "use" a man in that regard.

 

Plus there is the dominance and control aspects...

 

Yeah, I'd say your thoughts on that are in very rare cases...

[Cobra_X30]

In an earlier post of mine, I said something about "comfort zones" when it came to sex - and for me, the idea of sex with multiple partners (regardless of the breakout of gender - FFM doesn't appeal to me either...it's very one-on-one to me) is something that does not interest me in the least. My only concept of it was "something you do in porno" for the most part, and as we know, the marketing/general male-centric perception of such a situation is that the eroticism for the guys lies in the degradation/domination of the woman - now after researching this it's very far from the truth (the hype and myth about threesomes is most often a falsehood apparently), but at the time, I had this beautiful, intelligent, perfect girl that I had to reconcile with this unspeakable act - and it was frickin' tough to do...I tried to tuck it away but as I fell harder for her it just became more and more of an issue.

 

While most of what you say is very good information... this in particular is very good! In fact it may be the very heart of what we are talking about.

 

For some men there is a feeling of dominance/control in regards to sex. Especially in a situation where no comittment is provided!

 

I think this is at the absolute core of why people tend to be so touchy about the amount of people they have slept with.

[BeautifulMystique]

Whoa... Tomcat33 seems to have really good points.... and why the need to bring up about this? :

 

I, too, think anyone who has f'd around with a married man is of less integrity than a woman who has had a casual sexual encounter with a single one.

 

Anyway, this thread is really informative.

[Stockalone]

And that's OK - as I said, morals are morals and of course if you're on the more conservative side then yes, your viewpoints about sex will probably involve your morals, that's fine. I agree that you and anyone that you date should have similar morals - however, what I meant by bending room is this - if you met someone who had tried casual or premarital sex once or twice several years before meeting you but had since decided that it was something that she disagreed with, thereby putting her in a similar moral category as you (and this is a hypothetical, I don't really know where your morals specifically lie), would you write her off? Even though you have come to the same conclusion despite taking different steps to get there?

 

I am definitely on the conservative side, but it's not like I expect to marry a virgin and live happily ever after, so premarital sex is not a problem.

 

Having said that, I do believe that people should only have sex once they are in a committed relationship. If a person has tried ONS's or casual sex in general, that does trouble me. However, if they tried it only once or twice and then stopped because they felt it wasn't right for them, I can deal with that and get past it.

 

If it was a pattern and they changed after having had many of these encounters, I have written those people off in the past and will do so in the future. I don't believe that people change that much.

 

If a person's past includes one of the following: cheating, threesomes, swinging; that would be dealbreakers, even if only done once. I am still on the fence when it comes to FWB but I am more and more leaning towards dealbreaker.

 

Now, I am not so naive as to believe that there aren't people who would lie about their past. Hence, I agree with others who have pointed out that one can ever be 100% sure. So I hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

 

 

I'm not suggesting that you be proud or ashamed of it, but since you know that it's a problem I'm suggesting that perhaps you work on it. I know that I am.

 

It seems I wasn't clear enough on that one and maybe problem is not the right word. I have no intention of working on it as I don't look at it as a negative thing. I think of it more like an audit, where I assess their potential as a compatible partner, basically not that different from doing a quality audit at work.

 

 

The few guys that I know that have numbers in that range are basically getting blind drunk and screwing whoever every night without a whole lot of enjoyment and moreso to fuel their egos and mysogynistic tendencies. These are the kind of dudes that get off on the empowerment of screwing other people's girlfriends so they can rub it in their face. not cool. But it's not the number, its the intent that renders these people to be of questionable integrity.

 

If he were that kind of guy, he would no longer be my friend.

 

He never gets drunk and AFAIK he doesn't get involved with women who aren't single. He is one of the guys who loves to talk and the women can't seem to get enough of it. Well, I can certainly see how being well-educated, good looking and making good money helps, but the women, at least the ones I talked to, seem to be content even if it doesn't go any further than a fling.

 

My guess is that some think he will change but the majority is just looking for the same thing he is. So I don't think he is leading them on but I still wouldn't like him do date one of my sisters but I am sure that wouldn't happen anyway.

 

 

So I ask you - what is your "number" range of acceptability? It just seems silly to me. It's almost like saying "murder is OK, but only if you kill less than 5 people".

 

Very well. Oh, and feel free to change silly to anything you like after you have seen how I determine the number.

 

If none of my dealbreakers apply, I use the following formula:

 

2 + (x-18) * 1.25 = y

 

x ≥ 18; the age of the woman.

y is the maximum number of partners that would be acceptable.

[Tony]

Most of the last 300 posts or so have been off topic. Rather than go back and delete them we are simply closing this down because it's obviously gotten tired. In the future, no matter how long a thread is...no matter how many responses it has...please stick to the topic of the very first post in the thread. Many thanks.