Dating a woman who has slept around....

[jen1447]

I get what you're saying but in my experience when someone has had over 100 different sex partners they usually have some crazy sex addiction issues going on. The only women I've dated in the 100+ range were complete monsters who would disappear with random men for half an hour and then come back with their hair messed up acting like nothing had happened. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but if you are in your 20's or 30's and you've ploughed through hundreds of men, it's a safe bet you're not exactly "stable".

 

I disagree about the "safe bet" - your using your (impressive but still limited) experience to draw unwarranted conclusions. Your sample base of -50 is far too small. This seems to be the sort of logical flaw you frequently fall into.

[mortensorchid]

I've dated a lot in my lifetime thusfar. I plan to continue to do so until I am no longer going to do it (however that comes), but I think you are thinking these things because of a few pointers:

 

1) Double standards - I don't care what year it is or isn't, the double standard still exists that men can have as many as they want while women have to be so pure.

2)[Pejorative language redacted] I have had women friends who are promiscuous. Some are not respected, others are. What is the difference? Attitude and class. The ones who are not respected are sleazy, drink a lot, and are crazy. The ones who are not, however, are the ones who have class. I have a female friend who considers herself [promiscuous], and I respect her for it. Because she has class.

3) Numbers - I've slept with a lot, I will not lie about that. I think we all go through a time when we are more promiscuous than we were. My friends like to have a laugh - when I came into the scene here I was a baby at 22, they watched me spread my wings and fly (since most were 10 years older than me), and part of that was making the rounds. Which I did. I outgrew that, which I think we all do.

4) The past vs. the present vs. the future - If you have made up your mind that you are a failure, a loser, or whatever else, if you think that the past defines who you are or are not today, then you will have no future. Years ago I dated this guy who all he ever did was whine and whine about all his mistakes past, he's a terrible person, etc. and I spent more than half of the time telling him that he was not. He then broke up with me because he had to have that come true, he HAD to loose, and he had to be a failure. Just because you have had a past that has not been successful, you don't have to be one in the future. Fact. As far as most people know, you are the best of the best they could ever hope for.

5) Sex as power - I am back in the James Bond kind of mode these days, seeing it as a tool of power. I can bang the hottest man in the room and it will make me look good to others. But I don't share it, it's all behind closed doors.

 

Hope some of that makes sense to this thread.

Edited August 25, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[deadelvis]

I disagree about the "safe bet" - your using your (impressive but still limited) experience to draw unwarranted conclusions. Your sample base of -50 is far too small. This seems to be the sort of logical flaw you frequently fall into.

 

fair enough. I'll accept that. I think I generally lump potential partners into 3 categories. Kinda like goldilocks...

1. 10 or less = too few... (no thanks, call me in ten years when you can tie a cherry stem with your tongue)

2. 100+ = too many (damn girl... your breath smells like smegma, what are those stains on your shirt?)

3. 20-40 = just right (you know who you are, and what you like, but you aren't some crazed sexual deviant with daddy issues)

 

Obviously there are many people who fall outside their given "range". I've seen girls who were monstrous but had a low number or women who were well above 50 and still a solid long term partners... but in general those ranges seem pretty sane for a woman in her late 20's or early 30's

Edited August 25, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[jay1983]

Why did you ask for the PC way to say it then ? Fair enough if you just don't care .... but be prepared to cop verbal abuse back if you insinuate a girl who may never have cheated on anyone in her life is a cheating slut. Its a future hypothesis you made up ... it has no basis in reality.

 

Everybody seemed like they were getting their feelings hurt, I was just asking. I didn't just make that up and it does have bearing IRL. I think dating/marring a promiscuous women is a good way to land in the infidelity section. She'll probably land in the OM/OW section. You can say whatever whatever you want and I might sting you back. If you're in my area you can PM me and I'll more than happy to meet you in person.

[deadelvis]

Everybody seemed like they were getting their feelings hurt, I was just asking. I didn't just make that up and it does have bearing IRL. I think dating/marring a promiscuous women is a good way to land in the infidelity section. She'll probably land in the OM/OW section. You can say whatever whatever you want and I might sting you back. If you're in my area you can PM me and I'll more than happy to meet you in person.

 

Tempting offer, but you'd probably find me too promiscuous.

Edited August 25, 2015 by deadelvis

[jen1447]

fair enough. I'll accept that. I think I generally lump potential partners into 3 categories. Kinda like goldilocks...

1. 10 or less = too few... (no thanks, call me in ten years when you can tie a cherry stem with your tongue)

2. 100+ = too many (damn girl... your breath smells like smegma, what are those stains on your shirt?)

3. 20-40 = just right (you know who you are, and what you like, but you aren't some crazed sexual deviant with daddy issues)

 

Obviously there are many people who fall outside their given "range". I've seen girls who were monstrous but had a low number or women who were well above 50 and still a solid long term partners... but in general those ranges seem pretty sane for a woman in her late 20's or early 30's

 

You accepted how your sample size is too small to draw broad conclusions, then immediately proceeded to draw more broad conclusions from it.

[Oregon_Dude]

I've learned the hard way not to ask GFs about their number. That said, if I find out it's a LOT of guys, I tend to lose respect for them, as they obviously do not have enough respect for themselves and their body.

 

To me, sex is special. If they're just throwing it to anyone around, I do not feel special. Use the transitive property on this one, bros.

[autumnnight]

Guys are also expected to pay for the dates and be the bread winner.

 

By whom? Not me. I don't mind going dutch. And I have a full time career.

[LookAtThisPOst]

 

If you are insecure you shouldn't date a woman with a high number.

 

 

You say this under the assumption of those who won't date a woman with a high number is actually insecure.

[deadelvis]

You say this under the assumption of those who won't date a woman with a high number is actually insecure.

 

No...

 

I said if you are insecure you shouldn't date a woman with a high number.

 

I didn't say everyone who won't date a woman with a high number is insecure.

 

The difference is subtle but important.

 

There are many reasons I've already listed why dating a "formerly promiscuous" woman can be a nightmare. Insecurity is the least of those problems.

 

but of course if you have insecurities dating a woman with a high number will certainly bring them to the surface. Even if you think you don't have insecurities, dating a woman with a "colorful past" will put that to the test.

 

It's honestly just a nightmare on so many levels...

 

If I could go back in time I'm not sure I would have gotten involved with someone who had such a "colorful past"... not because of my insecurities, which I discovered were bigger than I previously realized, but for the list of other reasons I mentioned. You really sign up for a lot when you get involved with a person, and dealing with them in the present is enough of a challenge. When they have a bunch of baggage and orbiters from their past it just makes life a total headache.

 

Our relationship would be fine if her past would actually stay in the past. But it has a tendency to never stay buried.

 

I didn't realize I was signing up to deal with tons of "friends" who she used to bang, or her "facebook-fan-club" of orbiters... or her emotional detachment from sex.

 

I love her, and our life together, but I wish her past would stay in the past.

 

That's the real problem with dating a partner with a promiscuous past... it never just goes away...

If she would cut ties to her past life then it would be fine, but there's never really such thing as a clean slate.

 

I cut everyone from my past out of our life to give us a fresh start, maybe if she was willing to do that we'd actually be happy. But as things are now I'm constantly dealing with her past "mistakes" and it doesn't seem fair that I have to deal with her past choices. It was her past, but now I have to deal with them on a daily basis.

 

If the past stayed in the past, then our relationship would be perfect. But that just doesn't seem realistic...

 

Overall... I'm not sure it's worth the headache.

 

I'm not sure how I would have answered this six months ago, or how I would answer this six months from now. But at this point in time, I'm just so fed up with carrying someone else's baggage.

 

As an example... just last night we were talking about people we dated who rejected us and how it made us feel. She mentioned a guy who she keeps in close contact with who she dated around a year ago. I thought they were just friends who hooked up a few times, but it turns out she was in love with him but he rejected her. Now he's coming back around and regretting his decision. Meanwhile I thought this guy was just a harmless orbiter. Now I've got to have the "talk" with her again about keeping friendships with men from her past. I can't tell you how many times we've had that talk, as she one-by-one cuts them out of her life. Now this guy is going to be our next big fight... If I had known she was in love with this guy and he dumped her there's no way I'd be okay with her being friends with him, and she actually discussed wanting to meet him alone for drinks a few months ago. FML

 

The past wouldn't matter if it would actually stay in the past.

Edited August 25, 2015 by deadelvis

[guest569]

So either I can:

A) change my perspective and be okay with women who also sleep around

B) change my own habits to not chase after easy bar tail

 

 

 

 

If a woman who has sex is an easy (insert derogatory names) so too are the men having sex with her. (The men who chase after easy bar tail)

 

Just acknowledge that women have sexualities and get on with your life. Stick to your preference, no problems there, but try not to be so cruel and judgemental of the way other people choose to live their lives.

 

I found this thread highly insulting despite my number being very low, it's the way you speak about women and sex that disgusted a lot of people (men and women) here. It is the hypocrisy that has outraged many people here. I am not even sure what sort of advice you need, it sounds like you have had this attitude ingrained in you by society so it probably wont change. Thankfully society is slowly changing though.

 

So I am saying you should both change your perspective, but stick with your preference.

Edited August 25, 2015 by smiley1

[MrNate 2.0]

 

A woman who has sex with 15+ men is just a turn-off because I want to feel like I "won" her and she was a challenge and not dropping her panties for a free drink.

 

A woman can enjoy sex but in committed relationships just like me.

 

I'm not religious in the slightest but still feel sex shouldn't be like eating your favorite dish at a fast food joint.

 

I see all these women empowerment shows like sex and the city, feminism, putting women on a pedestal, encouraging women to use their bodies to satisfy their ego and self esteem.

 

The more hearts she can break the more modern and you go girl praise she gets.

 

But this is just the same form of encouragement guys get when guys get together and say "yeah bro I banged her" and "I ****ed her fast" or "she was easy"

 

I'm not saying sex is bad I think it's great I just don't like the kind of person the guy or gal become because I would never find a party girl suitable for anything more than a ONS.

 

Biologically I want to go off to an island beach party and sleep with as many women as I can but then I'll be becoming what I don't like.

 

I'm 29 and I've slept with 11 women. Not too high.

 

But I'm reading stories of women who lie about their number or have numbers as high as 30 or 40 and it's just disgusting

 

 

 

 

While the reasons are many, it would be because that there are deeper issues that bear discussion. Things that cause these blow up threads repeatedly: Societial conditioning.

 

Issues such as how a man, growing up is constantly pressured to 'measure up' to his peers by being well versed in sexual prowess, and feeling like a loser if he doesn't.

 

There's women on the other side of the spectrum. There can't be too much sexual prowess, otherwise men consider her used up. So if she meets a man, now she has to hope this conversation doesn't happen.

 

 

Now for the gas to the flame: A woman typically has a fairly easy time collecting numbers compared to a man by nature of social dynamics. This is no problem on the woman's end, but for men it seems to generate bitterness and envy, which breeds to hatred. However, the conversation always stops here. There's no context.

 

Not all women sleep with a ton of men. Hell, many women do not want to sleep with a ton of men. In addition, average men can be successful with women too. However, to do this, you must broaden your view of human interactions as a whole.

 

It's not a competition. Your male friends aren't making fun of you anymore for not keeping up with them. If they are, throw that noise out. Women are not your enemy.

 

And yes, men, you can get laid too. However, you must start looking at these things, and women, another way.

Edited August 26, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[autumnnight]

Your use of the phrase societal conditioning stuck out to me, and I think that is what a lot of it boils down to. If you grow up in a cultrue where a woman can be stoned for having sex before marriage and a man who slits his sister's throat to preserve family honor is a hero.....then you probably are going to have a pretty strong reaction to any woman who has had more than one (you) partner. If you grew up with that early hip version of free range parenting where your mom took you to her gyno at 14 to get you birth control pills....you'll probably be insulted by men with this double standard.

 

I grew up taught to value virginity - not because I was a prize cow - but because I wanted to save myself for my husband. It was actually a romantic notion for me, as well as a spiritual one. The girls I knew who lost their virginity at 15 weren't necessarily proud of it, especially later in life. I had one "wild" friend, and wild meant 4 partners before her husband (and he was one of the four). I was admittedly sheltered, and honestly, I'm glad.

 

Now, I haven't been perfect. Not at all, but I get the desire for someone who hasn't slept with a football team. However, in my world of dating, the GUYS were encouraged to wait too. So I do have a hard time wrapping my mind around the guy who wants to sleep with everything that moves and then expects to marry a virgin whose ankles are covered.

[SawtoothMars]

Your use of the phrase societal conditioning stuck out to me, and I think that is what a lot of it boils down to. If you grow up in a cultrue where a woman can be stoned for having sex before marriage and a man who slits his sister's throat to preserve family honor is a hero.....then you probably are going to have a pretty strong reaction to any woman who has had more than one (you) partner. If you grew up with that early hip version of free range parenting where your mom took you to her gyno at 14 to get you birth control pills....you'll probably be insulted by men with this double standard.

I grew up taught to value virginity - not because I was a prize cow - but because I wanted to save myself for my husband. It was actually a romantic notion for me, as well as a spiritual one. The girls I knew who lost their virginity at 15 weren't necessarily proud of it, especially later in life. I had one "wild" friend, and wild meant 4 partners before her husband (and he was one of the four). I was admittedly sheltered, and honestly, I'm glad.

Now, I haven't been perfect. Not at all, but I get the desire for someone who hasn't slept with a football team. However, in my world of dating, the GUYS were encouraged to wait too. So I do have a hard time wrapping my mind around the guy who wants to sleep with everything that moves and then expects to marry a virgin whose ankles are covered.

 

Our biology is not designed for a world of birth control pills and penicillin. We understand this deep within our psyche.

 

It isn't "social conditioning", so much as our natural state of being to find promiscuous women distasteful.

 

We have enormous efforts underway to fight against our own instincts. That is social conditioning. It has not been very effective. It has also created a very sad, lonely, and frustrating world.

[Maleficent]

Our biology is not designed for a world of birth control pills and penicillin. We understand this deep within our psyche.

 

It isn't "social conditioning", so much as our natural state of being to find promiscuous women distasteful.

 

We have enormous efforts underway to fight against our own instincts. That is social conditioning. It has not been very effective. It has also created a very sad, lonely, and frustrating world.

 

The way we view sex is social conditioning (thank you, religion). If it were not, there wouldn't be tribes like the Mangaia and the Ineas Beag

 

Inis Beag, a small island off the coast of Ireland, is among the most naive and sexually repressive societies in the world. The islands abhor nudity, with adults washing only the parts of the body that extend beyond their clothing.

 

Even marital partners keep underclothes on during sexual activity. Premarital sex is essentially unknown, as is female orgasm. The husband invariably initiates sex, foreplay is limited to kissing and rough fondling of the buttocks, and the male-on-top position is the only position used.

 

Mangaia, an island in the South Pacific ocean, stands in sharp contrast to Inis Beag. Sex exists for both pleasure and procreation and is a principal interest and activity.

 

The Mangaian boy hears of masturbation at about 7 and begins the practice at age 8 or 9. At age 13, he undergoes the superincision ritual (a slit is made on the top of the penis, along its entire length) and the expert who performs the surgery gives him explicit sexual instruction.

 

About two weeks after the operation, the boy has intercourse with an experienced woman who provides him with practice in various acts and positions. She specifically trains him in restraint so that he can have simultaneous orgasms with his partner.

 

The young girl receives similar expert instruction and will typically have three or four successive boyfriends between the ages of 13 and 20

 

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cultural_differences_in_sexuality

[Kofybean]

40 is high? lol

Everything is relative. If she started dating at 18 and she's 28. If she has 20 partners that makes 2 partner per year. That's pretty conservative for someone single.

 

I much prefer being with someone who's been around and got it out of his system and is now ready to settle than being with someone with a low number and while we're together he's haunted by being with other women and wonders what he's missing out there while he's with me.

 

This kind of math makes me cringe.

Who would seriously consider a LTR with someone that couldn't keep a relationship for more than six months? Over a ten year period???

[SmartDude]

You know for some reason this thread has made me into an anthopologist thinking about how prehistoric humans might have created this fear of sex and promiscuity for their own protection and survival.

 

Lets say you had a real wild man in your tribe. This guy would get drunk or take some psychedelics and start banging all the hot cave women after everyone else got drunk/did drugs and went to sleep. By observation perhaps others noticed that when you do the sex thing, a little while later the women gets pregnant. Perhaps the people that "went wild" also caught diseases from each other with greater frequency?

 

So somewere back in prehistoric civilization, people decided that too much sex was a bad thing.

[SummerDreams]

Asking for the number if men a woman slept with does not really help to get to know her. The better question is, how many serious long term relationships she has had. This shows whether she is serious and is looking for something long term or she just wants to have meaningless sex. A woman can have as much sex as she wants in s relationship, why would she prefer to change lovers? In my opinion a woman who, especially after the age of 25, does not search only serious relationships there must be a reason behind it. Nature has created women this way, to search for a good male to have kids with. Women want to be sexually free and enjoy sex without commitment but they have to know that by doing this they take responsibility because it is deeply rooted in men's heads that a woman who sleeps around is not marriage and mother material. Women are free to choose to enjoy meaningless sex if they like, it is their choice and I have no problem with it. But then they dint have the right to get mad when men reject them due to this.

[SummerDreams]

Just meant the comment I captioned from you above. What concerns me from that is that it sounds like you think these girls are no good .... but you still have sex with them anyway. At least that's the way it seemed from that comment. Maybe you were just trying to make a point that no one wants to marry a prostitute ... not sure.

 

We all love fast food but it is not the food we choose to eat every day for the rest of our lives.

[Justanaverageguy]

Our biology is not designed for a world of birth control pills and penicillin. We understand this deep within our psyche.

 

It isn't "social conditioning", so much as our natural state of being to find promiscuous women distasteful.

 

We have enormous efforts underway to fight against our own instincts. That is social conditioning. It has not been very effective. It has also created a very sad, lonely, and frustrating world.

 

But people have an odd idea of what is natural and what is not.

 

We are natural biological beings who create things and alter our environment to benefit us. We create tools, build homes and other complex structures. These are all natural creations just as a birds nest is a creation of nature. Humans are just leading the naturally evolutionary process in this particularity part of the cosmos so we are more advanced and the things we create are also more complex and advanced. That's essentially all evolution is ... a movement towards greater complexity. One of the natural things we created was birth control and condoms. They are every bit as natural a creation as a birds nest or a rabbit hole.

 

You think as a human you are somehow disconnected from nature .... that everything you do or create is separate and "man made" like we are some how not an expression of nature like everything else in this universe. Its tough for most people to wrap their head around the fact that a car ..... is actually just as natural as a tree. Birth control and Condoms are part of our natural evolution .... the human psyche will adjust accordingly just as it has done to other changes over hundreds of thousands of years. Those who don't adapt .... well you know what happens to them in nature

Edited August 26, 2015 by Justanaverageguy

[Vercetti]

Less insecurity and more so standreds. A perspective that can be missing when someone fails to understand why someone might not wish to associate with them. If they had standreds then they would understand why some can be picky. Wouldn't go to a junkie to get sober, wouldn't ask a bum how to manage money, might not go to someone with a village of lovers for a stable long term relationship...yet they might come to you for some crazy reason.....dating up.

[elaine567]

Less insecurity and more so standreds. A perspective that can be missing when someone fails to understand why someone might not wish to associate with them. If they had standreds then they would understand why some can be picky. Wouldn't go to a junkie to get sober, wouldn't ask a bum how to manage money, might not go to someone with a village of lovers for a stable long term relationship...yet they might come to you for some crazy reason.....dating up.

 

No-one here is suggesting that anyone, male or female should date someone whose ethics and morals do not coincide with themselves, as that tends to lead to conflict, upset and heartache.

But thieves and murderers do not seem get the dogs abuse that women who exercise their sexual freedom, get from some men and that is a totally ridiculous state of affairs.

 

Some misogynistic men see the subject as a huge opportunity to bash women, and see their abuse of such women as justifiable, but for some men there is an element of projection here and that needs to be taken into consideration.

[Justanaverageguy]

You know for some reason this thread has made me into an anthopologist thinking about how prehistoric humans might have created this fear of sex and promiscuity for their own protection and survival.

 

Lets say you had a real wild man in your tribe. This guy would get drunk or take some psychedelics and start banging all the hot cave women after everyone else got drunk/did drugs and went to sleep. By observation perhaps others noticed that when you do the sex thing, a little while later the women gets pregnant. Perhaps the people that "went wild" also caught diseases from each other with greater frequency?

 

So somewere back in prehistoric civilization, people decided that too much sex was a bad thing.

 

If you do some research .... it was entirely about paternity. Making sure your offspring was your own. Men had the power and were not restricted from having sex with anyone .... only women were to ensure that the offspring they produced belonged to a specific man who they belonged to. Marriage was created for this reason ... women were strictly forbidden from having sex with anyone but their husband by punishment of death. Back then Men were still permitted to have sex with anyone they wanted except already married women. Some cultures allowed a man to have many wives .... some allowed the man to just have mistresses. Good laws if you are a man. The modern marriage we see today is based on this idea from 2000 odd years ago they just tweaked the laws 100 years back to say men now shouldn't have sex with people outside the marriage. Result of the womens lib movement. Equality.

 

But the whole idea of a women saving herself for marriage being romantic .... is kind of a bit of a cultural lie. It was originally an enforced law created by men to ensure offspring belonged to them. The result of not following this law was death. Once death was not allowed Religion took over selling this idea to women with punishment of eternal damnation. More recently Hollywood has taken over that role with the idea of Romance.

[guest569]

Men are being disrespectful and shamed and called names, yet you are cool with that for some reason. I have not called any women any names.

 

Ok, I'm just going to remind you that this entire thread is about women not being allowed to have sex or to keep their number of partners to a minimum. I don't see men being shamed in this thread, merely people arguing against those with a backward and extremely offensive viewpoint. No one is being sexist against men in this thread.

[Maleficent]

There is no set rule for this sort of thing, no. A 40 year old woman who has been with 20 guys? I doubt anyone would give her a hard time about it, especially if she was single for a long period of time. If a 20 year old woman lost her virginity at 18 and has already had sex with 20 guys, I wouldn't date her. There is no set number that, once reached, makes her undateable. As with everything else in life, each person is a different story.

 

 

 

I understand why the double standard offends women, it doesn't work in their favor. Many women gladly support double standards that I have pointed out before. "Curvy" women who refuse to date fat guys. Even the fact that we are supposed to call fat women curvy, or BBW, when fat men are just fat. Broke women living with their parents who only want a guy with a good career. The fact that, and statistics back this up if you want to look it up, that women prefer to date men who make more money than they do. None of those double standards are a problem, but this double standard so many women object to. Well, as a man, I know I am paying for most of the dates, despite the fact that women are now in the workforce. We all have a preferences, even if we don't live up to that ideal ourselves.

 

 

 

Then you are in the minority. Read any of the threads here about who needs to pay for dates, and how men are cheap if we don't immediately pay, yet women are not judged for offering (without truly meaning it) to pay half...at most.

 

 

 

There are about 30k people living in the nearest city to me. I have dated women where it was a given that you would run into one of the many guys she has been with when you hit Walmart for groceries. And as a guy, you better stay out of the bar or club she likes to hang out at, because she has definitely built up a crowd of dudes there she has banged after a few too many drinks.

 

Part of the problem is the guys, too. When you are with a promiscuous girl, that guy coming up to talk to her that has already been with her? He's doing it just to rub that in the boyfriend's face. They come up to her, go for the hug, give the boyfriend that smug look that lets him know he's already been with your girl.

 

Most men want to be with a woman we are proud of. We want to be able to show her off to our friends. I would not be proud of being with a woman that 44583498 other guys have already been there and done that.

 

 

 

Is that so? Is there a council that decides which insult is worse than others? In this world, men are told constantly how we need to be confident, how confidence is attractive to women, ect. Telling a guy he is insecure is a huge insult, and I think women know this, or they wouldn't use it.

 

 

 

But it is ok for women to call men misogynists, sexists, or insecure when our views on sexuality do not match, right?

 

 

 

I am non-religious. My family is non-religious, and I was raised non-religious. Religion has no bearing on my personal views. I find promiscuous women to be distasteful, and cannot consider them for a relationship. We can be friends, and I have female friends who are promiscuous, but I would never date them.

 

The fact you are not religious doesn't matter. As a society we've been religious for over 2000 years so our current society standards and behaviours are still heavily influenced by religious beliefs.

 

I believe your question on mysoginy and sexism was answered.