O.

M.

G.

WOW, welcome to the Cellar bmwmcaw. What an entrance!:thumb:

Very generalized. May be true for many, but was not my experience. I got laid when I wanted to, turned down many and often.

How was that generalized?? It was probably the best laid post on the subject so far. You just don't think it applies in your case which may or may not be the case

I guess the guys I hung out with were different in college & while working, being theatre majors & professional actors. I married in school, but never had the problems I heard about and neither did any of my peer group until I came back to this small town.

You're kidding, right? :worried:

Well I don't agree with ALL of it, but most was very well put. Everyone is judged on their past. Like it or not it's the best indicator of who you are. The idea that sex only occurs when women want it to? Shaky. Guys with half a brain aren't going to jump into bed with the first woman who unzipps her pants. Overall though it was fairly well put, explain where you're comming from if you have major issues with the whole thing.

If there is a love between each-other then the sexual history is not important thing for relationships.
Guys and girls should understand for each-other - we are all a people and have own senses.
IMHO.

Sex is a choice regardless of gender.
People get horny regardless of gender.
Some people, especially when they are younger, choose to have sex for pleasure regardless of gender.
Some people don't meet their "ideal" for many years, but do not choose to remain celibate, regardless of gender.
Some people get hurt emotionally by someone who don't equate sexual intimacy with emotional intimacy regardless of gender.
Some people generalise this experience to include everyone.
Some don't.
Regardless of gender.

Personally, I love the assertion that a 30-year-old woman is "likely" to have had between 30 and 50 partners. That really seals his credibility right there. :rolleyes:

I have issues with the whole post, 9th. "Women who've had many sexual partners won't be able to form strong, emotional bonds with one man"-? Pul-Eaze! Gimme a break! The post smacks of the black and white thinking typical of teenage boys. "Unless a criminal act occurs, women chose to have sex..." Oh, really? Women are never on the fence or seduced by men into having sex? Women never feel pressured into giving bj's? Sex is much more complicated than your friend here imagines. The 'responsibility' for sex is not contingent on what sort of sex organs a person possesses! Complete bullocks!

The post could have been written by my exfather-in-law. He doesn't believe in dinosaur fossils, or the moon landing, or equal rights/equal responsibility either!

I went to school with a guy who was vastly promiscuous, after he got it from a girl he tended to treat her a little meanly. He and I were always friends though!
One of my friends from since the 7th grade always had a few fuckbuddies. If she was feeling a little horney she just called one of 'em. This included when she had a guy that she was specifically interested in.
I have only been with one man, and I don't plan on tryin anyone else out, does this mean I've actually been with 10 men and am often out looking for more? "Its raining men!"
I've gone to church for years and have known several great guys who don't even want to get in a situation where it might be hard to turn down. I've spent hours on the phone with one who had a "ready to go" girlfriend who was trying to get him in bed, I think he made the right decision when he broke it off with her instead.
My older sister is a devout Christian and holds her virginity in the highest respect. She doesn't even want to kiss until the day of marriage!
I think it is your choice rather to have sex or not to have sex. This goes for both men and women...so P-man if you would sleep with a woman who proves to be easy, then you yourself are easy. I personally would choose to have a partner who has had no others, that way they aren't bringing any history to bed (memories of how other women did things, looked ect.). I have to say you really shouldn't disregard a person just because they are virgin. The bedroom (and the tent, car, beach...) can be alot of fun when your discovering each other.

I like the whole 'women aren't supposed to be sexual and if they are, they are bad, bad girls' kind of thinking. Very American Taliban.

Ya, I definately think the statement about 30 - 50 sexual partners is wacked:lol: It's over the top and far too strong (needs to be watered down and given a :chill:), but if you cut out the outrageous parts and apply it to both genders (I should have mentioned that earlier:o) it works out pretty well. I don't think that someone (guy or girl) who has had alot of sexual partners will never be able to form a lasting emotional bond with just one, but none of their partners are going to think that sex imparts much importance to the relationship. Suddenly, having sex means about as much as eating lunch with them.

The 30 to 50 came strait from Cosmopolitan magazine.:rolleyes: I read it some time ago and they based it on an average 3 boyfriends per year since sexual activity begins around 18 years old. Yes, I do admit that there may be some over generalization or simplification.:eyebrow:

Yet the issue of sexual choice being female is highly document by many sociologists. As well in naturalist who see this fact repeatedly in other species of animals. In fact there are many books on this subject. I didn’t just make this up on this board.

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cg.../newpsy?12.008

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/5817.html

http://human-nature.com/books/geary1.html

These selections are only a tip of the iceberg of studies.

Facts are facts, and it’s empirically obvious that it’s the female that gives the green light for sex not men. Men haven’t been buying sex for thousands of years for nothing. You don’t see many male prostitutes vying there trade servicing women.

The lack of emotional bonding is another thing I didn’t make up. Without getting to religious here, the bible is replete with this message, a message that has stood the test of time. It’s not just in the bible, it’s taught through out cultures and societies from western civilizations to the tribes of the amazons. In many of theses cultures this message is taught in females dominated cultures by the female matriarchs. Ask yourself girls if you don’t feel you could take back that sexual history. Don’t your girls sell your chastity when you meet a guy you really like and want to stick around? Isn’t hypocrisy to claim your past or sexual experience means nothing and yet is the 1st thing you try to conceal.

Rationalization is just another word for denial.

Well, it's impossible for me to try to refute the empirical and, no doubt, immaculate research methods of the Cosmo Team that you identify as your source. I myself once relied upon the Wisdom of Cosmopolitan (I was 15) and I understand your confusion as they WILL set the exploits of their editorial board up as regular Joe-and-Josephine examples.

As far as your claim that 'men have been buying sex for thousands of years for nothing'-- I SO beg to differ! Men buy sex for a very sound [i]something[i] indeed! That something is called orgasm! It's worth the price! You should try it some time! I also see Plenty of male prostitues! Just because it's the men who are buying doesn't negate the value of the experience or the trade.

As far as the theory that 'too many sex partners for a women means she can't be emotionally or spiritually attached to ONE GOOD PERSON!' goes--try plying that to the millions of men who have and will love many, many women in their lives---men of accademe, of religion, of public service, of Greater Good. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a known philanderer---would you swat down all his works because he was an adulterer?

People are flawed. Women are flawed. All women--even your Virgin Mary.

This is pure misogyny.

And to answer your juvenile question--I never try to conceal my sexual history.

Fess up--you're fifteen.

Paging Troll-y McTrolls-a-lot... your mom says to get off the computer, it's time for dinner, and did you look for a job today you lazy good-fer-nothing?

You sound like you have some growing up to do yourself Clodfobble.

Your assertion of misogyny is pretty loose Brianna, although I don't think what bmw is saying only applies to women it's not hate in the sense you're projecting it into. I could validly accuse you of misandry on the same principles you're using. Stick to addressing what you disagree with and leave the smear attacks and name-branding at the door.

I don't agree with what he's saying within his given context and limitations, but you're giving us a very telling look at of you with your style of rebuttal. Only took one post to go from debate to personal smear and credibility attacks.

Well that's painting with a rather broad brush.

SNAP! C'fob schooled by an engineer! (as if)

How dare you refer to Brianna as loose? Young man, I throw down my gauntlet. Since xobruce is offline right now, I'll defend her honor. She offered her honor. I'll honor her offer, and all night long it shall be honor and offer.

I actually agreed with everything he said. Then I read a few of the responses and agreed with everything they said. Then I read "but you're giving us a very telling look at of you" and it all went to hell right there.

Now I have a headache and I wish I was a hot 21 year old slutty virgin so Icould get laid. Or something. Maybe I'll watch Truffaut's 400 blows. Netfilx just sent it to me.

"peace outside"

WHOA. Please tell me you are quoting the Chinese mock rapper I think you are. That just made my evening, right there. :thumbsup:

Tai Mai Shu!

My favorite cmep2 hit.

If all thats true....I'm so screwed!! :rolleyes:

A conversation at the local pub on Saturday nite (there were only 3 girls in the pub, my bestest and myself being 2 of them)....I walked away wondering why its soooo hard for guys to believe that girls sometimes just want to get laid, they arent always looking for the one, to fall in love etc etc and why is it sooo bad??

I just dont get why having sex with whomever and whenever one wants is a bad thing? ....so long as its done safely and neither party are disillusioned with whats exactly happened.

Anyone who knows me for more than 15 minutes knows I'm a sexual being, I dont bother with the whole *pure n innocent* charade as it just doesnt sit.

You either fall for me the way I am...or buh-bye!! Except for that rather strange experience I mentioned last weekend - I've never had any problems, have been in love, have had my heart broken, havent had commitment problems and havent been labelled a slut :)

I just think this whole thing takes on a different perspective as you get older, there's less mucking around and game playing.

Dude, that's not a porn film.

...If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...

i'm learning more from the reactions to his post than his post. I've heard the multiply by 3, divide by 3 saw in regards to female/male stated sexual history. nothing new there. the only thing really new in his initial post was the bank analogy.....which i found amusing. 9th, you're missing clodfobble's point. she's calling him a troll because his very first post is a resentful poke at womankind. seems like he may have been having some hard luck with the ladies, if you ask me. perhaps you percieved that already and identify with him? Brianna's posts are the ones that lift MY eyebrows.

Bri, the part that bothered you the most was plainly the bit about a supposed inverse relationship between the number of sexual partners and the ability to feel true love? It's horseshit, I agree, but why does it bother you so? You're an introspective person. Is this familiar ground to you? have you pondered the sometimes empty feelings that you've shared here, and wondered if your past is inhibiting your ability to feel? If anything the opposite would be true, i think. recognition of the difference(between a sexual and a spiritual relationship) should be easier for the contrast. the naive are the ones that mistake sex for love. romance for love. excitement and discovery for love.

new guy seems smart and thoughtful.....if grammatically challenged.....but, i agree with cloddy....i hear the simplicity and certainty of idealistic youth. i guess that's the result of book larnin about people instead of applied learning.

at any rate....i just wanted to say that my sex credit score is over 700. gimme some sugar, baby.

I don't think that's it. I object to the assertion that women who have (or had) lots of partners are emotionally and spiritually damaged to the extent that they won't be able to bond with one man. Sticks in my craw. And new guy plainly stated that this was a female problem, not a human problem, since females have the 'goodies'--I find that offensive.

As for 9th telling me that I'm name calling when I call a post misogynistic in nature--that's not name calling. That's calling it as I see it. Calling 9th a Zombie Engineer would be name calling.

:lol2:

In the interest of full disclosure--my own 15 year old is driving me batty. Batty, I tell you!

Wow, um yeah well OK Lemme think here. OH hell I need more time - thats an awful lot to absorb this early and without coffee.

Brianna, I’ll make this to your point.
The idea that sex in and of itself is isolated in a person psychology is self-delusional. As much as we would like to compartmentalize our life experiences our mental and emotion present is a tapestry of our past. You are no more than what has come before.

If sexual intimacy was so irrelevant then why is its exclusivity so prized? Why get married at all if sex is insignificant. Without sexual intimacy and exclusivity your partner is merely a friend. Would we think of marriage the same if our sexual choices didn’t matter?

Do you think soldiers that come back from the battlefield don’t suffer from post-traumatic stress? No matter what you do in life it stays with you and how you deal with it defines you. Things that have the greatest impact stay with you through out your life. Imagine if you will your future mate being materially and family wise great but as a lover poor. You will fantasies about some past lover and in doing so cheapen your bond with your current mate. Essentially, betraying them.

If you believe in marriage then you believe in sexual chastity. If you believe in sexual chastity then you are admitting that promiscuity is detrimental. I not saying that millions of promiscuous men and women can't eke out a relationship and marriage but look underneath and you will find bad relationships and broken families.

At first glance my position looks anti-female but it really isn’t. My point has been that women have a greater responsibility based on there biology. Women have been and continue to be the gatekeepers. I think every women who could choose (all things being equal) between a man that is a virgin and one that’s sleep around would rather take the virgin. Its called emotional investment. Are you all in or do you save some chips for another hand.

I’ll tell you from my own experience. I can tell if a girl has sleep around. The way she looks at you. The way she talks to you. The things she talks about and her body language. Most guys on the “prowl” can spot a slut in a bar from a mile away. You will never convince me that being a slut doesn’t carry over into any relationship they have.

bmwmcaw - if you're still here and posting on different topics in a couple of weeks time I might bother taking your posts seriously and refuting them.

Too sleepy this afternoon to be baited.

One more tip-bit. Something women never seem to get.

Women will always know who's baby there having. Men will never truly know. Modern DNA testing aside (and see how well thats recieved upon request) men for thousands of years don't want to raise another mans child.

This is why one of the reasons being a slut has for thousands of years had such negitive social impact.

Well I finally got my coffee! I think there is some merit to that which bmw speaks in that women are more in control of whether or not a sexual encounter occurs, but thats about where it ends. The fact that on average a woman has "x number of partners at age whatever" is a completely ficticious number. There are too any differences in our societies and cultures to paint all women, or men for that matter, with such a broad brush. He corroborates his information with an article/poll from cosmo. To me that is a much more telling issue. Dude, what the hell are you doing reading or even believing in cosmo????????? Get a clue and simply respect that we are all individuals with our own quirks pasts and beliefs.

Yesman,

I never said the numbers are written in stone. Cosmo has the largest circulation of any female oriented magazine. For women, written by women, about women. Would it have been more credible if it came from Maxim Magazine? What do your think Sex In The City story line was all about...rationalizing promiscuity in women.

My gal-pal has it lying around her place and when in the reading room one reads.


Got to go and makes some trades...CYA all later.

I think porn mags/movies were started for the use of men...I might be wrong but I doubt it. Porn shows greater promiscuity in men then it does in women...yes in recent years (off and on since about the 20s in the US) there has been an increase in obvious female promiscuity, but that is just women execising a freedom they have been historically denied. Men have always been encouraged to "sleep around" which does have a biological bases since a woman can only be pregnant once every 11-12 months (lets give 'em a bit of a break) and is only to have so many before it wears her out. Men on the other hand can father an unfathomanble amount of children in their lifetime...even continuing into the 80s and 90s...women normally give out (if they've taken it easy) around 50.
So although I don't hold with promiscuity, I do support women in the right to share equal blame with men for their promiscuity...equal opprotunity :-P.

Neither Cosmo nor Sex in the City would I refer to as credible sources. I have been in the print media for 15 years and know all too well the inner workings of mags. As far as their "data" I find it rather humorous that anyone would base anything on what they say. I equate it to that of the talking heads and their misinformation on politics. Not many people of any credibility would answer the questions put forth by those "pollsters" anyway. I find it better to live treat each person as they are, not what a poll or survey tells me they are apparently like. Then again, thats just me. and I personally wouldn't fit into any category you could try to squeeze me into.

I assume that this applies to frequently fucked males as well, right? Or is it only women who can be sluts?

male sluts are called satyrs.
The reason babies look like their fathers is so the fathers don't eat them. True.

So, just out of curiosity, how long is long enough?

five and three quarter inches?

aroused or not aroused? my boy's is about 3 pez sticks aroused...depends if he's cold and what not otherwise...

tha'ss an odd unit uv mayzure, to be sure. ay hoop i's no' an eendication uv 'is girth, lass. brings eemages uv troween a 'hot doog douwn a 'allway, it does.

I don't think bmwmcaw is yanking anyones chain. Although I think he makes some vadid points, experience, personal and observed, tells me other points are way off base.
Keep in mind his post was not a scientific disertation, just an opinion...the world acording to bmwmcaw.

I think if he truely believes what he posted, there are others, at least in his peer group, that feel the same way. It's evidently another valid scenario to put in your data bank of possibilities to be considered, when you're pondering....... "what the hell was that guy thinking". :whofart:

Bruce - I do honestly try to take other people's opinions on board. But these are rather... unusual opinions for this time and place (especially if he has read some of the other threads in Relationships) and they are put across quite forcefully.

It is hard not to react when someone tells you that women who have had more than one partner (aka sluts) have effectively damaged their own ability to form emotional bonds. I just don't see how someone could have come to that conclusion.

If you sleep with every man that shows a passing interest, your promiscuity is a symptom of your inability to have a relationship and possible self esteem issues. It is not the cause.

This is effectively backdated cheating. I believe that cheating in a relationship can change the dynamics, rocking it to its core so that the majority probably do not survive it. But the idea that I've spoiled myself for apples by eating an orange just doesn't make logical sense to me.

Oh come on! Maybe if you're in your first relationship and it's your first time. Definitely if you have strong religious or moral beliefs. But every woman? I'm afraid the NHS is a hotbed of sluts as a straw poll of my colleagues revealed only one who actually considered it. And even she decided it wouldn't make a difference to her, rather than replying "One virgin, extra large, wrapped to go please"

Like the word "slut" this is an inflammatory statement. At a rough guess, most of the men I am in contact with at work and socially have slept with more than one woman. And?
Again. Men go on the prowl, women are sluts. He probably thinks he can smell their ripe pussies as well.
I could shrug & give up. But it bugs me by being SO irrational if this is not a troll.
There was an interview in the newspaper this morning with Gary Barlow (boy band member, may not be known in the US). He estimated he slept with over 200 women while he was living the popstar lifestyle. He is married now, has been for 7 years and is happy and settled. He managed to subdue his inner slut somehow I guess.

Well, that's off my chest anyway. I disagree with most of bmwmcaw is saying on this topic and part of me will believe it is chain yanking until I see proof otherwise.

I'm a suspicious slut today ;)

Your post is proof that he indeed did yank your chain, but I doubt that was his specific intent. I tend to believe his opinion is real because I've heard it, with some variation, many times before. Moreso when I was that age (in the '60s) than later, but my contact with that generation is somewhat limited....at least with guys.
That said, Hearing it from older guys doesn't surprise me, however, I'm a little surprised to hear it from a young guy. It makes me wonder if it is flourishing?

Your rebuttal is reasonable and well thought out, but it makes me believe you're a slut and should give me directions to your house immediately.:yum: :hugnkiss:

lol its doesnt' even get close to the girth... actually it was really late when I posted that for some odd reason it seemed like pez sticks would make a good measurement unit :-) I really have never measured...doesn't seem relevant.

Thanks Sunday girl - you made a very concise cogent argument - much better than I. Guess I can recognize greatness better than I can create it.

Sundae, as usual, is right on.

Women with X number partners=slut
Men looking for poon='on the prowl'--after all, boys will be boys, eh? The moral high road MUST be taken by the women as men are incapable of controlling themselves!

Women who fool around? A pox upon them! And may their dirty, dirty girl parts fall off.

Now. Shall we talk about all the sluts who got raped 'coz they "asked for it"-? (and, you know they liked it. Secretly, they did.)

Sundae Girl,

Your rebuttal, which I loosely call, is exactly the rationalization that takes place once the milk get spilled.

Your premises are: Guys do it so why don't we. If it feels good then do it. Why take responsibility for your actions if your can rationalize it away.

Your cause and effect explanation isn't wrong so to speak but off target. ONE of the points being made was the lack of emotional investment by women that have had multiple partners. The betrayal in thoughts is as real as in the body. “Backdating?”

"But the idea that I've spoiled myself for apples by eating an orange just doesn't make logical sense to me."

Huh! What is this have to do with emotional bonding? You know the thing that irks you.

As for choosing a virgin over a "player." Using part of your questionable analogy, why buy an apple with worms when you can get fresh one off the tree. Quality counts in every purchase or investment, and money and looks have nothing to do with emotional quality. Are you going to rationalize away the obvious now? If your “friends” say it doesn’t matter then they are poor judges of what really matters in life.

For the men around you that you assume have had more than one lover, its irrelevant. You should reread my past post. Men do not have the sexual advantages of women! That’s why men who are successful bedding women are considered by some in our society as successful. I don’t think a man that presents himself as a possible long term mate then humps and dumps is a successful or moral man. But mans sexual success is base entirely on effort, where as women’s is a matter of choosing to say yes or no. WOMEN CHOOSE AND MEN WAIT TO BE CHOOSEN.

There is no double standard and sexual “freedom” isn’t free. My understanding of women’s liberation was about careers out side the home not about pulling there pants down and using false comparisons to justify it.

This string is about a women sexual history. It does matter for all the reasons I stated and to date other than opinions and kowtow from posters I haven’t seen or read one single rational or reasonable refutation. :eyebrow:

I thought the premise was that guys and girls both do it, why is it only considered bad for girls?

I have had far more sexual partners than my husband has. He's pretty happy with the outcome. ;)

I guess that makes me a slut, but then again, don't 'all' men want a slut in the bedroom, a chef in the kitchen and something else somewhere else? (can't remember how that one finishes cause I think it's a load of tripe. I just thought I'd pop it in there for the benefit of bmw since he seems to believe in so many other stereotypes)

Relationships based on sexual history or performance will almost always fail because relationships aren't about sex. Sex is a benefit of being in a loving relationship and definitely something to look forward to, but it's not why you have the relationship in the first place - unless you're incredibly emotionally immature.

Some people enjoy living in the dark ages - bring on the inquisition I say!

PDF: CDC measurements of sexual behavior in males and females age 15-44

From tables pgs 28-29

http://cellar.org/2006/sextable-males.gif

http://cellar.org/2006/sextable-females.gif

ok then.

I don't see what importance ones sexual history is. Of course, you have to consider this era of record breaking STD's. Then of course you would probably like to know what kind of person you are dating before you get all kinky and shit.

I think if some guy gets all bothered to the point of becoming ballistic about a womans past sexual escapades. Then that guy has an insecurity issues. Same goes for the woman too.

How many of us are virgins by the time we hit 20 years of age? If someone asks you that, well why do they want to know. How do you answer? You don't. Unless you really want to find out what this person is all about (find out just how insecure he or she really is). Then again, say you say you had 15 partners. They say nothing but want to get you into the sack anyway. Follow your gut here. Some concern is normal reaction. Extreme concern is not normal and no concern is not normal.

Did I tell my wife 24 years ago? Yes. Did she tell me? Yes. Her reaction was more involved when I told her than when she told me. She reacted, I reacted but neither of us reacted to an extreme. More questions came out as our relationship grew. The reactions never increased. They actually decreased. Eventually (over the years) they never came up again (no point in it). Married, two kids. Who gives a shit who you slept with 24+ years ago? Not us!

Point is: watch for overeaction. That would be a flag.

Use common sense too. If they're 30 and a virgin they deserve a gold medal for overcoming natural human desires. If they're 30 and they haven't invented a word for that number - eh... think twice before you indulge.

This brings us back to the original question. I sometimes used my (obviously limited) knowlege of sexual history to screen potential partners because I could see the symptom, if not the underlying problem. Dating the town bicycle was never an option for me, since I wasn't a guy slut. Everyone has qualities they look for in their loves, a reasonably temperant approach to sexuality is one for many of us. Don't be insulted that people want different things, many folks want sex to be free of comittment and easily aquired but that doesn't fly for some of us so just cross us off your list of suitors. Some guys care and some guys don't, you decide which guys you want to date.

Of course people are entitled to apply their own criteria in choosing a partner. And entitled to their own opinion as to what does/ does not make a woman a slut.

I don't agree that your sexual HISTORY follows you around like a bad smell. I'm not talking about people who have a long term cavalier approach to sexual partners, who wake up in a different bed or against the back wall of a bar every weekend. And neither was bmwmcaw from what I can tell. I'm talking about people who have had a number of relationships which have involved healthy, monogamous and emotionally satisfying sexual intercourse.

In my mind they have not cheapened themself, they are not damaged goods, wormy apples, sluts or bikes.

I also disagree with the idea that a man can be proud of the sluts he's nailed. He worked for it. He was the hunter and his was the prize. Whereas the dirty sluts should hang their heads in shame. They laid back with their open door policy and let anyone with a pulse do the nasty.

That is what I have a problem with. Not with someone saying that they waited until they were married and personally their opinion of women who don't is pretty low.

But I know I can't come to an agreement with bmwmcaw on this.

I agree that the double standard is nonsense.

Undertoad - Give us a breakdown on the #'s - whats it all mean? Seems like men and women are pretty equal for the most part as far as the # of partners - no?

It would be neat to see more precise data to see if there is a normal distribution curve, but it looks real enough if you just divide the numbers.