The double standard continues to linger?

[CrystalCastles]

What's weird is that numbers don't say anything about how good of a partner you are. I've been with a guy who casually dated and he was the most selfish and boring partner imaginable, and I've been with a guy, my first boyfriend, who had oral skills I still rave about half a year later after our split and he only had one gf and one ONS before me. I think it has to do a lot with how giving and enthusiastic a person is, and that isn't determined by how many people he/she banged. Every person is individual in their tastes so what works for the previous girls doesn't necessarily work for me.

[basil67]

Life isn't fair. They're plenty of double standards women have in 2016.

 

Short woman won't date short man.

Men still have to do the asking out and paying.

Low earning school teacher woman won't date low earning social worker man.

 

And yet, just as there are men who don't care about a woman's numbers, I know plenty of women who reject these double standards too.

 

There are still plenty of good people out there.

[Grewd]

This double standard is stupid and is especially stupid if it argues a difference between men and women. Women are just as much animals as men in regards to sex, the guy you talked to probably haven't seen a really turned on woman.

 

I think it's unfair to judge women negatively for having sex with many guys while men go around having sex with many women. It's really an unenlightened way of thinking, here comes why. They consider it good to have sex with many women, but on the other side it means many women must have sex with this guy only for him to leave for the next. Where does that leave the women? Some try again with another guy only to repeat the process until a huge lay count is reached, some learn to check a guy for stupidity to prevent another pump and dump. Therefore the men who thinks like that is contributing to what they don't like, ironic isn't it?

 

It's logically and mathematically impossible for men to have more partners and women less. They fail to consider all the other men having several women and that many of those women are just swapped between this type of men. These men rarely find a virgin or a woman with few partners because they keep going for the easy ones, mostly because they want to have sex with many and thus don't invest the time on the ones they supposedly desire. The women who have few partners or are virgins are more likely to look for relationships, they have a different focus than having sex with as many as possible.

 

In a way it's true though that a woman with few partners is good, because it means she's not an idiot and respects herself enough to not be used as a living masturbation tool for some ignorant man. They're good relationship material because they're usually very caring, but they want a guy who cares back. I'd also say that a guy with many partners (especially ones expecting "purity") might also be viewed as romantically incompetent, so the best they can do is to run away and find another hole.

 

If a woman don't want to fall victim to such men she must deny sex a few times and see if he sticks around. If a man doesn't want a woman who's been with many others he has to tolerate the initial denial and rather have fun and show he wants her in other ways as well. It's not talked about so much because of the stereotypes mentioned here, but this actually does go the other way as well. Some women use men as masturbation tools as well, there's also the women who want a man who haven't had many partners because of the decreased risk of being replaced or cheated on.

 

So why does it exist? I conclude that it exists because of ignorance.

How can we change it? On discussion you can point out my logic explaining how it's impossible to fulfill those expectations on a grand scale and those seeing it like that are contributing to their own problem.

 

At last my personal and direct opinion. I don't care how many there have been before, it's completely irrelevant as I focus on my own individual experience of a woman. By doing that I've proven at least to myself that lay count isn't a reliable factor, doesn't say anything useful. I've had sex with 7 different women, I'm sure someone is going to ask. My 7th is my current girlfriend who was a virgin when I met her, we're both really enjoying each other in bed. We focused on finding our way to get the best out of it by trying things out until we found a way we both like, which is what ultimately matters with sex (besides babies).

 

Thanks for reading, please value each other.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Grewd

[Grewd]

it's women who like it that way. women demonize inexperienced guys and especially virgins. in fact women prefer guys who have had 50 partners. it's women who create the double standard

Is that bitterness I'm sensing? You can't blame women for creating the double standard, both genders are equally responsible for keeping it alive. You're doing it right now by claiming women want men who've had more than 50 partners, that's also called a generalization, one I know for a fact to be untrue. I feel confident women on this board can confirm this.

 

guys rarely care about a women's numbers. it's women who demand seasoned guys

Let's be a little more nuanced here. Some guys say they don't care, but when it comes to that moment it may make them think and assume certain things. Some guys express that it matter often on anonymous forums on the internet or with friends, but a woman spreading her legs may magically make the same guy suddenly change opinion. Then there's the guys who really don't care and understands what's more important than numbers.

 

Some women don't really care, if they care a little they may give a guy a chance to improve. Some women demand guys to come ready with a lot of experience, but in truth nobody does and they eventually have to lower their standards or live in celibacy. If she's really hungry for sex you'll see the same effect of opinions magically changing.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Grewd

[Ami1uwant]

Why do you tell men you date how many partners you've had? That's personal. Those are questions people ask when they're 19. Past our 30s who cares how many partners we had. Your virginity is long gone. As for if you are a good lover or not it absolutely has nothing to do with the number of partners you've had.

 

If you are meeting online the number of relationships and length DOES matter.

 

I am not dating someone in their 30s who hasn't dated someone since they were 18-21.

 

I'm not asking how many people she has slept with.

[OldRover]

Yes, double standards are there and hard to get rid of them.

 

I might be more interested in my date's failures in dating and relationships that how many time they've bopped. And why the failure. Married 4 times and never a good relationship is more of a red flag that someone that enjoys a lot of sex.

[BluEyeL]

I'm a woman and I prefer men with a reasonably low count. Preferably men who had sex mostly in relationships and fewer casual encounters. It's a compatibility issue.

[11012015]

I'll chime on why does it exist:

I have actually been laughed at by some men for only sleeping with a small number being called " inexperienced, bad in bed and proof of my undesirability"

 

Interesting. On the flip side, when a guy shares an honest low-number with a girl, he is automatically labeled a liar (i.e. "come on that is not true" "no way!") -- before the possibility of him keeping it low due to morals or selectivity or long-term relationship reasons. So, if a female default instinct is not believing the reality (for the guys who do keep it low, not saying everyone does that) it kind of contributes to that concept that males have a higher number of sexual partners (and that thought generates 'why shouldn't females?"). I'd like to argue that it is probably not even true. Think about it. Logically speaking, a girl can go to a bar and smile and find a person to sleep with. Easy. But not the same with a guy. You can't go to a bar, and smile, and find a sexual partner in 15 minutes. So technically it is easier for a girl to sleep with someone (and hence, probability of females having higher sexual partners is higher). So if anything, I'd say I personally expect a high number, on average (in general) from female than a male. Yet, the society thinks it is the opposite. And once that happens, the discussion of why is it bad for females to have a high number. So, could it be because males are faking their number (making it high) and it bugs the heck out of them when their partner seems to have more? Just a thought.

[11012015]

Cause sometimes that's what people in relationships talk about.

 

It's not something I'm particularly hung up on, but I wouldn't be bothered if my partner wanted to know.

 

So long as he didn't make a fuss of it once he'd had the number!

 

In my experience only a high-number ladies had an issue with that question. I never judge a woman based on the number of sexual partners she had (# of sexual partners during/after you matters, not before) but I do agree it is a relevant topic between two people who are supposed to share a life-time together. I don't believe "that is personal" "that is not your business" "not important" blackboxes when you are trying to form an intimate relationship with someone.

[11012015]

I personally think there is nothing wrong with serial dating. You gotta spread your wings. But hey that's me.

 

I think the girl who lived on dates, with no intention of a relationship of any kind, said that too. She was on the news a while back, bragging about how she (grad student) had such a posh life style, compared to her grad-student friends.

[11012015]

I guess that is my concern with threads on double standards. The ones that impact men tend to get downplayed when they actually have just as much of an impact on dating as the ones that impact women.

 

I don't see any women crying about the 'men always pays' double standard. No wonder there are so many serial daters. I wonder if they would date everyone if everyone was 50-50 or God forbid if they had to pay. Trust me, they would go 1/10th of the dates they are going now. So yea, double standard exists in every direction and I do agree some of them are downplayed (paying for dates: oh that is tradition, not unfairness or double standard.)

[TheFinalWord]

So I was talking to someone who said a woman who has only slept with a small number of men and is in her thirties is good. It is good for a good woman to sleep with only a handful of men.

 

Seems like he couldn't give a reason why I said " why not men?" " men are different" he said " men are like animals"

 

I hate this double standard and yet in the year 2016 it still exists.

 

I have actually been laughed at by some men for only sleeping with a small number being called " inexperienced, bad in bed and proof of my undesirability". According to some guys, some men prefer woman who have slept with lots of men so that they are proof that they have "lived" and they have been "pre-approved".

 

Yet overall I think there is a double standards when it comes to woman and men when it comes to sex and relationships?

 

My question is why does it exist and how can we change it?

 

You cannot control other people's standards, only your own.

 

If men reject you for sleeping with too few men, or hold a standard that you do not agree with, it is your right to reject them for a potential dating relationship.

 

So, you know this guy does not have the type of mindset that you prefer (BTW yes, it is a double standard in my opinion too), just reject and move on to the next. Try not to expend too much mental energy being upset with someone you are not compatible with or worry about trying to change anyone else's mind.

 

I think it is more important if you can share your opinion about an issue or topic and, even if the person disagrees, the other person respects your opinion. You will never agree with everyone on everything, more important that they respect where you are coming from. Empathy is a desirable trait in a partner.

Edited January 6, 2016 by TheFinalWord

[11012015]

I'm a woman and I prefer men with a reasonably low count. Preferably men who had sex mostly in relationships and fewer casual encounters. It's a compatibility issue.

 

Very normal and reasonable. It is your life. I am the same way. The issue is if I say the exact same thing (as a guy), feminists from all around the world jump out of woodworks to call me "it is because you think anyone who doesn't have a high number must be a wh*re, you sexist." The reality is you are just trying to maximize your chances to find happiness by using certain correlations and probabilities -- meaning if you had a low number, it is possible you were either responsible/selective (which is good because that means you have standards and you are not going to act carelessly with me) or/and had long-relationships (which means you can maintain one, and carry the skills to make that happen). I mean if I fall for a girl (and I found out later she had a very high number) I am not going to terminate it just for that. But if I happen to find myself in a situation where I have 5 girls to pick, why is it bad for me to go with the low number? That is not sexist. That is not me saying anyone who doesn't have a low number is disgusting. That is just my preference. My life. Let me live my life -- and you live yours. Nowadays you can't say anything directly, without labelled as something. And if there are people like me and they prefer that, somehow it is a gender double standard? Crazy.

[soph-walker]

I don't see any women crying about the 'men always pays' double standard. No wonder there are so many serial daters. I wonder if they would date everyone if everyone was 50-50 or God forbid if they had to pay. Trust me, they would go 1/10th of the dates they are going now. So yea, double standard exists in every direction and I do agree some of them are downplayed (paying for dates: oh that is tradition, not unfairness or double standard.)

 

As someone in a full time job and who is happy to pay her way in life, this is something that still bugs me.

 

I would be more than happy to go Dutch on a date, whether it's the 1st date or 5th.

 

I still can't work out what's the acceptable thing to do when it comes to pay. I popped to the loo once and came back and everything had been paid for and other times the guy has seemed shocked when I offer to go halves.

 

How do you ladies approach this?

[Grewd]

As someone in a full time job and who is happy to pay her way in life, this is something that still bugs me.

 

I would be more than happy to go Dutch on a date, whether it's the 1st date or 5th.

 

I still can't work out what's the acceptable thing to do when it comes to pay. I popped to the loo once and came back and everything had been paid for and other times the guy has seemed shocked when I offer to go halves.

 

How do you ladies approach this?

I'm a man though, but I have a pretty clever way of handling this. Personally I couldn't care less who pays, I'm there for a woman, not food really. I prefer making the first dates cheap or free, restaurants are fine later on, but it's really as boring as it can get for first dates. I actually ask what she thinks about paying, really the only appropriate way to handle it when there's varying opinions is to ask.

 

I avoid that problem altogether with my current girlfriend, she pays every other time we're out eating. On my birthday she bought me lots of stuff and took me to dinner, naturally she refused to let me pay. It was kinda funny, but I really appreciated it. She's fair like that, I really love fairness, it takes some real effort to be fair. My friends was almost in shock when we were out eating and when it was time to pay I sit there calmly while she's whipping out her card ready to pay for me and her, we both knew it was her turn. They assumed she was the one paying and somehow that's shocking because of the stereotype, it was truly hilarious to witness. We eventually explained that we take turns, it's such a hassle splitting it.

[Leucine]

You can only change it by raising men to be real men, not [men] who will wonder how they will measure up compared to a woman's past partners. Unfortunately with how the society is today, this won't change any time soon.

 

I'm personally in the boat where I'd normally prefer a more experienced woman, unless she's spent all of her adult life in a long-term relationship. Being a single woman for a prolonged period of time with a low number of partners does raise the question whether she's all that desirable on the dating market.

Edited January 6, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Merge

[ManyDissapoint]

Many men are viscerally turned off by women who have a high number count. It is what it is. I am one of them. I don't see it as a problem. If I got rejected by a woman for my partner count, it would be sad but I would understand completely.

[Els]

It exists for the same reason lots of other double standards existed - traditional gender roles. We may consciously choose to eschew them, but we cannot dictate what other people do or don't.

 

Personally, I don't think it's a huge deal - relationships don't need to involve exactly the same preferences and requirements on both sides. It's just about compatibility and finding someone with a complementary mindset, so finding out what these guys think about this is actually a pretty good filter for you. Same with how it should be fine for a woman to prefer a man who pays, or a man who is taller than her, or whatever else she wants to prefer.

 

I'm a lot more concerned about the disparities in perception facing women in non-romantic settings (certain careers etc) to be honest.

[stillafool]

So what makes you think such a story must be a lie.

At least in my circles, that's the sexual history of 90% of women (and men)...

I actually can't imagine making 50 counts if you have a legitimate job... Not because of morals, purely time constraints.

 

Good for you and your circle. However, for most women who are single from 18 to 29 that is not the case.

[No_Go]

I think guys tend to imagine / project things.

 

The typical single person 18-29 has probably a few short to long relationships in that time, and let say occasional ONS but most women do not favor ONS - see even responses in this forum. Which gives the actual low counts..

 

Good for you and your circle. However, for most women who are single from 18 to 29 that is not the case.

[PrettyEmily77]

Same-sex couples have these exact same inexperience / low count vs experienced / high count issues, from what I gather, so I'm not sure it's gender role thing; probably more down to personal choice, I would guess.

[Gaeta]

If you are meeting online the number of relationships and length DOES matter.

Why? Why is it important online versus not online? I know a man who slept with + 2000 women before Internet existed. And on top of that it was in those years no one used protection.

 

I am not dating someone in their 30s who hasn't dated someone since they were 18-21.

Again why? Maybe she didn't date because she was concentrating on her career, traveling the world, maybe fighting cancer. You know, there are other priorities in life then seeking a romantic relationship. You would not date a woman that took a 10 year off dating to obtain a doctorate?

[stillafool]

I think guys tend to imagine / project things.

 

The typical single person 18-29 has probably a few short to long relationships in that time, and let say occasional ONS but most women do not favor ONS - see even responses in this forum. Which gives the actual low counts..

 

In this hook up culture? Are you kidding me? What city do you live in?

 

I don't call FWB a relationship but a hook up. Also I don't think people who have a very active social life frequent sites like this. They don't have to. Bottom line is you and your circle have low counts. Good for you.

[No_Go]

You could be right it is a thing for extroverts, and they don't write in forums but socialize. Most of my friends are introverts. And still guys tend to project - eg my 1st BF didn't believe I was a virgin, 2nd didn't believe he was 2nd

 

In my 20s I lived in Amsterdam - not considered the most prude city, right:D Now Boston. Could be also different in different geographic locations, although in my experience it is more about personality and social status to some extent.

 

If a FWB goes on for 1.5 years and exclusive (I had that), is it a hook up? I think it is just a relationship not intended to lead to marriage.

 

In this hook up culture? Are you kidding me? What city do you live in?

 

I don't call FWB a relationship but a hook up. Also I don't think people who have a very active social life frequent sites like this. They don't have to. Bottom line is you and your circle have low counts. Good for you.

[Mrin]

Haven't read all this thread but just wanted to toss this out there to further muddy the waters.

 

Obvious Truth: Guys are more able to separate the physical and the emotions from sex. So having sex with a lot of women isn't that big of a deal for them

 

Obvious Truth: Women are less able to separate the physical and the emotions from sex. So having sex with a lot of men can be a big deal for them.

 

Here's the less obvious thing: if that were just merely true, then it would stand to reason that most men (being able to separate the love from the sex) would be quite forgiving of women who have had a lot of sexual partners. But the cold hard fact is that men are in large part not forgiving of women with lots of sexual partners.

 

We conclude there is a double standard. And an illogical double standard at that.

 

But i'll throw in one other dynamic that might explain away some of the illogic from the double standard. The sexual courtship between men and women is not even. That is to say, the roles are not even. The man is the pursuer. The woman is the pursued. In some ways it is sort of like hunting where the prey is "got" by opening up sexually. The woman's value is directly tied to the degree of difficulty or elusiveness. The more women a man seduces increases his overall self worth. The more men that have seduced a women, the lower the perceived value of the woman to the man.

 

So there you have it. The double standard explained. Now, that's not to say that men operation exclusively in this dynamic. But it is a dynamic that is present and can't be ignored.

 

How to change it: well, for one we need to shed our traditional dating norms of the man as the pursuer and the woman as the pursued. That's not a thing we do overnight. That's generational. And we also have to ask ourselves - do we really want to change and what would be the result. Men (playing the hunter) have been in this role since the birth of humanity. Likewise for women as the "prey". I'm trying to think of a society where this dynamic isn't present or at least is diminished. Maybe Scandinavia? Not sure. And you also get into some really disturbing societal impacts like what is going on in Japan and in some parts of Scandinavia right now where young people simply have little interest in sex/procreation.

 

Anyhow, that's my two cents.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Mrin