# of sexual partners changing my decision on moving forward?

[TaraMaiden]

I’m certain you’re already familiar with the logic.

 

Females, being the gatekeepers of sexual activity in our society, are

in control of the amount of sex men have. If a man has many sexual

partners, then we immediately wonder “what does he have that makes so

many women spread their legs for him?”. He must have X value(charm,

fame, power, etc).

 

Males, being that stereotypically greatly desire sex and are only

limited by the number of females that will accept him, and are viewed

negatively when they have few to zero partners. “What is wrong with

him that no women will want to sleep with him?” He must lack X value.

 

For women obviously, this is not the case. You never hear of a woman

who has been “successful with men”. Being successful with men only

comprises not being 300lbs overweight and having a vagina. No charm,

fame, or power is needed.

 

This is a derail though.

 

 

 

 

 

Then she is collateral damage, but this is going to be the exception.

How many long term relationships can you get in in five years? I don’t

really consider anything less than 6 months long term. So let’s say 7

partners for a gal that is 23. It’s unlikely that all seven of her

choices were not committed or serious, spent six months waiting out

for sex, and then dumped her immediately after. So a more realistic

number is closer to four. If she only has sex in committed

relationships with people she loves then her notch count will be low,

I don’t think this is debatable.

 

I still think you're over-thinking this.

 

I'm bored now.....

 

*waves bye-bye*

[sabre80]

Your first paragraph: why is the fact I don't want to be a sex object mean I have latent validation issues?

 

Second paragraph: what part of what I have written makes you think I just want sex? Everything I have posted indicates I want to be with someone who values me for who I am and will not accept having sex for it's own sake.

 

Third paragraph: one of the gals already explicitly said she wanted to have sex with me and I turned her down.

 

And I am not worrying about what it means. My analyzing is not what determines my actions or feelings in the moment. I have already acted and felt what I felt. I am just saying what I believe is the root of those feelings.

 

I will answer your question with your original post

Question. I have met a couple girls off the internet, pof and okcupid and the like. And my ex and I were our firsts. I have a big hangup re: these new girls having had many previous sexual partners. I believe it lies in this bit of logic I am about to post for you. I am hoping someone can either blow it apart or somehow convince me that it's okay to go near these girl's private locations.

 

Currently I have just been giving them the female equivalent of blue balls.....

 

The best, and most clear explanation I have, and believe that is the root of my issue is with these two conversations:

 

 

Virgin gal:

Me: How many sexual partners have you had?

Her: I am a virgin, I haven't yet met a man who is worthy of sleeping with me.

Me: You have high standards. If you have sex with me, that means you think I am awesome. You value me as a person and a human being.

 

 

Experienced gal:

Me: How many sexual partners have you had?

Her: About 50, I go through maybe 12 a year.

Me: You have low standards. If you have sex with me, it doesn't mean I am important or valued by you in any way. I am only a sex object to you.

 

I hope someone can help me out here as I think I would like to bang some of these girls, one of them explicitly told me they wanted to but I told her I am not interested due to this issue.

[Untouchable_Fire]

@OP

here's what I do... this may or may not help you:

1. understand, realise and accept that this girl is with YOU... therefore you are the best for her.

2. anything means nothing.... her past, other guys - anything...

if they were that great, she would be with them.... she isn't...

so concentrate on YOU and HER and have fun.....

trust me, I've done the 'in the past' thing and it never leads to anything good... find a way to get over it and let it go...

 

Generally good advice, but you need to tackle the outstanding questions that arise from your own answers here.

 

1. If she is with him and thus the best for her... what where the last 10 guys? Is she climbing some dating ladder.... if so... is he the bottom or top rung?

 

2. You are assuming she dumped those other guys. More likely she was rejected by them... or good enough for sex but not a relationship. Perhaps the flip side is that she only wanted them for sex... and Mr. New guy is just financial and emotional security.

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that some weak cultural meme's don't really solve this issue. The heart of this problem is insecurity. These guys are conservative because they are not huge risk takers to begin with. So, how are you going to make them feel secure in a very high risk situation?

 

Nothing wrong with being a sex toy.

But again, it's about perspective and personal desires. I'm a very sexual person, and I want a partner who is the same.

 

Promiscuity is absolutely no indicator of what your sex life will be like in a LTR with a woman.

 

The most wild and sexual women I've ever been with were very shy and reserved personalities. The most promiscuous women I've ever dated... including my x/wife often started out great, but had VERY low quality sex life within 1 year.

 

The reason for this is pretty simple. Promiscuity in both men and women... but particularly in women... is a sign of emotional imbalances and mental disease. You never know what your going to get.

[KungFuJoe]

Promiscuity is absolutely no indicator of what your sex life will be like in a LTR with a woman.

 

The most wild and sexual women I've ever been with were very shy and reserved personalities. The most promiscuous women I've ever dated... including my x/wife often started out great, but had VERY low quality sex life within 1 year.

 

The reason for this is pretty simple. Promiscuity in both men and women... but particularly in women... is a sign of emotional imbalances and mental disease. You never know what your going to get.

 

You're right...it's NOT an indicator. But, in MY personal experience, I've seen the exact opposite.

 

The ex I mentioned that had a lot of sex...was as "normal" as you can get. The reason why it didn't work out wasn't because of her "issues". She had no issues. We just didn't get along on a personal level. Didn't have common interests...it was a relationship based on sex. And in that, it was VERY VERY good.

 

BTW, you are SO wrong regarding the part I bolded.

[jamesbob]

I will answer your question with your original post

 

 

I never actually viewed my thinking as defective in some way. I just threw in the whole "please help me think right" bit to get some actual discussion. I find if I don't constantly remind the people I'm speaking to I'm just a silly lost man looking for guidance I am not taken seriously and berated for being a misogynist.

 

It's interesting to me that my statements could not be dismantled. The only thing that really made any sense was if a promiscuous gal decided to form a LTR with me instead of just wanting to have sex. This would only work in the early twenties though, since late twenties and early thirties is a time for a "change in priorities", and I won't be the guy stuck with the leftovers.

 

Ten whole characters

[jamesbob]

2. You are assuming she dumped those other guys. More likely she was rejected by them... or good enough for sex but not a relationship. Perhaps the flip side is that she only wanted them for sex... and Mr. New guy is just financial and emotional security.

in with.

 

I was just gonna let them slide on that. But okay Haha.

 

I'll also ask then, since we are going this direction. Kungfu, do you consider yourself a third wave feminist?

[KungFuJoe]

I was just gonna let them slide on that. But okay Haha.

 

I'll also ask then, since we are going this direction. Kungfu, do you consider yourself a third wave feminist?

 

Honestly, I don't even know what the definition of feminism is.

 

I just rather think of myself as a PEOPLE person. I look at people...individually. Each with their own qualities and characteristics.

[jamesbob]

Honestly, I don't even know what the definition of feminism is.

 

I just rather think of myself as a PEOPLE person. I look at people...individually. Each with their own qualities and characteristics.

 

Ok. I asked because feminism usually doesn't agree with having women being seen as nothing but objects for men's sexual pleasure.

[Untouchable_Fire]

You're right...it's NOT an indicator. But, in MY personal experience, I've seen the exact opposite.

The ex I mentioned that had a lot of sex...was as "normal" as you can get. The reason why it didn't work out wasn't because of her "issues". She had no issues. We just didn't get along on a personal level. Didn't have common interests...it was a relationship based on sex. And in that, it was VERY VERY good.

BTW, you are SO wrong regarding the part I bolded.

 

Birth control and condoms are what... two maybe three generations old?

 

Do you think our base instincts have evolved that freaking fast? The other 100,000 years of human evolution sex involved risk.

[KungFuJoe]

Birth control and condoms are what... two maybe three generations old?

 

Do you think our base instincts have evolved that freaking fast? The other 100,000 years of human evolution sex involved risk.

 

Well...you hit upon a good point regarding human evolution.

 

The reason why men want women with low numbers is simple:

 

Paternity Certainty.

 

I mean...this is pretty much IT in a nutshell. All the back and forth about "value", "morals", "sexual innocence", etc, etc, etc, etc....it's just a "cover up" for what the truth is.

 

That men are GENETICALLY HARDWIRED to want women with lower numbers due to Paternity Certainty.

[jamesbob]

Well...you hit upon a good point regarding human evolution.

 

The reason why men want women with low numbers is simple:

 

Paternity Certainty.

 

I mean...this is pretty much IT in a nutshell. All the back and forth about "value", "morals", "sexual innocence", etc, etc, etc, etc....it's just a "cover up" for what the truth is.

 

That men are GENETICALLY HARDWIRED to want women with lower numbers due to Paternity Certainty.

 

Wow you are nothing close to a feminist whatsoever. I guess I assume everyone is working within the feminine imperative, apologies.

[KungFuJoe]

Lol... You mention evolutionary biology and everyone gives you a round of applause but when all of my arguments are based in evolutionary biology' date=' I am branded a "bitter beta".[/quote']

 

But do you disagree with what I just said?

 

The problem I have with some of the things you say is your judgement and labeling. Calling women sluts, the town bicycle, etc. Like I said, you have good things to say...but your delivery is so abrasive, no one cares to listen.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Well...you hit upon a good point regarding human evolution.

The reason why men want women with low numbers is simple:

Paternity Certainty.

I mean...this is pretty much IT in a nutshell. All the back and forth about "value", "morals", "sexual innocence", etc, etc, etc, etc....it's just a "cover up" for what the truth is.

That men are GENETICALLY HARDWIRED to want women with lower numbers due to Paternity Certainty.

 

KFJ, Evolution is a very complex issue. Men are most likely to get a life ending STD from a promiscuous woman. Additionally paternity certainty is a big deal. However, note that men in general have a different mating strategy than females.

 

Also... note that we have a desire for sexual dimorphism... meaning men want feminine women, and women want masculine men. Sexual promiscuity is highly linked to testosterone. 100,000 years ago there was no blood test for testosterone levels... so instinctually most men tie promiscuity to high testosterone women. Those women are viewed as easy sex, but very poor long term mates.

 

Now... also keep in mind that along with our instincts and base nature is how we are socialized. Cultural norms can completely override our base instincts in some instances. Thus your instincts may tell you that large posteriors and wide hips are attractive in women, but you have learned growing up that other people value small butts and no hips.

[mellow_yellow]

Again I am back to viewing sexual partners as an indicator. If she has only been with say two guys in five years, well damn I must be in some rarefied air. If she has been with twenty five, well I have no way of knowing if I am just above the cut-off for her physical requirements and am basically a sex object.

 

I'll offer another perspective:

 

I for example have not had sex since my last break-up, almost 3 years ago. I have a libido, but I have not had sex. By your logic, that could be because I have not met anyone in that time who meets my standards.

 

But you know the real reason? I have not had sex because I don't think men find me attractive enough to want to sleep with me. I don't approach men, and if someone shows an interest I blow it off as either the guy having no standards if he wants me, or doing it for a laugh or for a bet.

 

So me not having sex for 3 years says nothing about guys, and their desirability or rarefication. It says volumes about my self-esteem instead.

 

Just something to think about.

[jamesbob]

I'll offer another perspective:

 

I for example have not had sex since my last break-up, almost 3 years ago. I have a libido, but I have not had sex. By your logic, that could be because I have not met anyone in that time who meets my standards.

 

But you know the real reason? I have not had sex because I don't think men find me attractive enough to want to sleep with me. I don't approach men, and if someone shows an interest I blow it off as either the guy having no standards if he wants me, or doing it for a laugh or for a bet.

 

So me not having sex for 3 years says nothing about guys, and their desirability or rarefication. It says volumes about my self-esteem instead.

 

Just something to think about.

 

Are you fat or ugly?

[BetheButterfly]

Question. I have met a couple girls off the internet, pof and okcupid and the like. And my ex and I were our firsts. I have a big hangup re: these new girls having had many previous sexual partners. I believe it lies in this bit of logic I am about to post for you. I am hoping someone can either blow it apart or somehow convince me that it's okay to go near these girl's private locations.

 

Currently I have just been giving them the female equivalent of blue balls.....

 

The best, and most clear explanation I have, and believe that is the root of my issue is with these two conversations:

 

 

Virgin gal:

Me: How many sexual partners have you had?

Her: I am a virgin, I haven't yet met a man who is worthy of sleeping with me.

Me: You have high standards. If you have sex with me, that means you think I am awesome. You value me as a person and a human being.

 

 

Experienced gal:

Me: How many sexual partners have you had?

Her: About 50, I go through maybe 12 a year.

Me: You have low standards. If you have sex with me, it doesn't mean I am important or valued by you in any way. I am only a sex object to you.

 

I hope someone can help me out here as I think I would like to bang some of these girls, one of them explicitly told me they wanted to but I told her I am not interested due to this issue.

 

I understand your thought process here, though people change.

 

To me, sex and loving the whole person is important when I chose my mate. I am extremely picky about who I wanted to commit to/with and I do not see sex as an activity to be done with whoever fits my physical standards. Rather, sex to me is a priceless enjoyment that I enjoy with the man I love who loves me. (My husband also fits my physical standards, as well as spiritual, mental, and emotional standards too.)

 

Thankfully, my husband believes the same (which is one reason why we chose each other as mates.) In his past though, he had been into marijuana, smoking, and sleeping around. All that did was get him into trouble. He realized one day that he was not living the kind of life that gave him fulfillment and changed. I do not hold his past against him at all. I am glad he told me about his past and I saw that he is seriously changed (not just saying oh yeah I'm different, but truly being different than he was).

 

So, while I understand your mode of thought, it is possible for people to change and those who had many sexual partners in the past to decide that they don't want to do that anymore, but rather connect loving the whole person to enjoying sex with that person and valuing that person, enjoying all aspects of a healthy life together.

[KungFuJoe]

KFJ, Evolution is a very complex issue. Men are most likely to get a life ending STD from a promiscuous woman. Additionally paternity certainty is a big deal. However, note that men in general have a different mating strategy than females.

 

Also... note that we have a desire for sexual dimorphism... meaning men want feminine women, and women want masculine men. Sexual promiscuity is highly linked to testosterone. 100,000 years ago there was no blood test for testosterone levels... so instinctually most men tie promiscuity to high testosterone women. Those women are viewed as easy sex, but very poor long term mates.

 

Now... also keep in mind that along with our instincts and base nature is how we are socialized. Cultural norms can completely override our base instincts in some instances. Thus your instincts may tell you that large posteriors and wide hips are attractive in women, but you have learned growing up that other people value small butts and no hips.

 

Well...if you agree that it's all based on evolution and "caveman theory" then it shouldn't be too hard to understand that just because men WANT women with lower numbers, doesn't mean the women with HIGHER numbers are inferior or are of "less value".

 

Our preference is based on ancient premises that no longer apply to modern society. Evolution just hasn't caught up yet.

 

I imagine that, as time goes by, less and less men (and women) will care so much about numbers. It's already evident as more and more women are having casual sex and more and more men have no problem with it.

[Emilia]

KFJ, Evolution is a very complex issue. Men are most likely to get a life ending STD from a promiscuous woman. Additionally paternity certainty is a big deal. However, note that men in general have a different mating strategy than females.

 

Also... note that we have a desire for sexual dimorphism... meaning men want feminine women, and women want masculine men. Sexual promiscuity is highly linked to testosterone. 100,000 years ago there was no blood test for testosterone levels... so instinctually most men tie promiscuity to high testosterone women. Those women are viewed as easy sex, but very poor long term mates.

 

What you are describing here are gender roles, not evolution. Gender roles are very fluid and change rapidly by evolutionary standards. Hence KFJ's post above mine.

[jamesbob]

Well...if you agree that it's all based on evolution and "caveman theory" then it shouldn't be too hard to understand that just because men WANT women with lower numbers, doesn't mean the women with HIGHER numbers are inferior or are of "less value".

 

Our preference is based on ancient premises that no longer apply to modern society. Evolution just hasn't caught up yet.

 

I imagine that, as time goes by, less and less men (and women) will care so much about numbers. It's already evident as more and more women are having casual sex and more and more men have no problem with it.

 

Evolution will not catch up because there's no selection pressure. Men are Ok with it because they are getting laid and our culture is femcentric . If you disagree you are shamed as a Neanderthal

[BetheButterfly]

Well...if you agree that it's all based on evolution and "caveman theory" then it shouldn't be too hard to understand that just because men WANT women with lower numbers, doesn't mean the women with HIGHER numbers are inferior or are of "less value".

 

Our preference is based on ancient premises that no longer apply to modern society. Evolution just hasn't caught up yet.

 

I imagine that, as time goes by, less and less men (and women) will care so much about numbers. It's already evident as more and more women are having casual sex and more and more men have no problem with it.

 

 

Interestingly, many people who are into casual sex are not into promising faithfulness/commitment (marriage) to anyone. They are not wanting to embark on the journey of living life and growing old together with mutual faithfulness and commitment to each other. Now, I am not judging them; I'm just stating a fact. However, those who do decide to commit to/with another (marriage) need to be very careful who they marry, as well as the convictions of that person who they promise to and with whom they promise to commit.

 

It is really interesting to me that the OP does not want to be married.

 

OP, I am curious why you care about the moral integrity of a sexual partner who values you (enough to commit to/with you) but yet you do not seem to be interested in committing to/with someone. Could you please explain that? Thanks.

[KungFuJoe]

Evolution will not catch up because there's no selection pressure. Men are Ok with it because they are getting laid and our culture is femcentric . If you disagree you are shamed as a Neanderthal

 

If you can't see, with your own eyes, that it's already catching up, you are blind.

 

Look at shows like Sex And The City. The main characters on that show...ALL OF THEM...have LOTS of sex with LOTS of men. And it's a VERY popular show, with women AND men. And the women aren't looked down on, at all.

 

It's evolution my friend...you can choose to accept it, or get left behind with the rest of the neanderthals.

[jamesbob]

What you are describing here are gender roles, not evolution. Gender roles are very fluid and change rapidly by evolutionary standards. Hence KFJ's post above mine.

 

What does a .7 waist:hip ratio say about a woman? Is that a gender role? Physical attraction?

[jamesbob]

If you can't see, with your own eyes, that it's already catching up, you are blind.

 

Look at shows like Sex And The City. The main characters on that show...ALL OF THEM...have LOTS of sex with LOTS of men. And it's a VERY popular show, with women AND men. And the women aren't looked down on, at all.

 

It's evolution my friend...you can choose to accept it, or get left behind with the rest of the neanderthals.

 

Evolution besides a slow creep requires death before age of reproduction. It doesn't exist in our society. We are stuck with what we have.

[BetheButterfly]

I'll offer another perspective:

 

I for example have not had sex since my last break-up, almost 3 years ago. I have a libido, but I have not had sex. By your logic, that could be because I have not met anyone in that time who meets my standards.

 

But you know the real reason? I have not had sex because I don't think men find me attractive enough to want to sleep with me. I don't approach men, and if someone shows an interest I blow it off as either the guy having no standards if he wants me, or doing it for a laugh or for a bet.

 

So me not having sex for 3 years says nothing about guys, and their desirability or rarefication. It says volumes about my self-esteem instead.

 

Just something to think about.

 

Some women who have sex with many different people also struggle with low self-esteem.

 

Many seek their validation by being "loved" by men who do not truly love them, but rather merely seeking to satisfy their sexual cravings with their bodies.

[KungFuJoe]

Interestingly, many people who are into casual sex are not into promising faithfulness/commitment (marriage) to anyone. They are not wanting to embark on the journey of living life and growing old together with mutual faithfulness and commitment to each other. Now, I am not judging them; I'm just stating a fact. However, those who do decide to commit to/with another (marriage) need to be very careful who they marry, as well as the convictions of that person who they promise to and with whom they promise to commit.

 

It is really interesting to me that the OP does not want to be married.

 

OP, I am curious why you care about the moral integrity of a sexual partner who values you (enough to commit to/with you) but yet you do not seem to be interested in committing to/with someone. Could you please explain that? Thanks.

 

See...I don't agree with this at all. I know PLENTY of people with "promiscuous" pasts who are now married or in a serious relationship.

 

How old are you, btw?

 

I'm 38. I've been there, done that, seen it all.

 

Casual sex, LTR, ONS, FWB, and am now currently married (10 years) with 3 kids.