Gasp! You're not engaging in name calling, are you? Gasp!

HUH?

I'm not the one making the claim Yesman makes, I am simply stating his slogan is unjustified. Now how is taking that position "name calling?" Its no wonder your having a difficult time with my post, you don't understand what your reading:cool:

I stand by my last post -

You implied he isn't a "Deep Thinker" . . . so you were either name-calling (then) or hair-splitting (now). Take your pick.

You know, I was going to post a whole bunch of stuff just rebutting all of the stuff that has been said by bmw, but then I got to thinking....You gets your stats from Cosmo (Oh, yea, that’s scientific and no, it wouldn’t make a difference if it was coming from Maxim) and the Kinsey (not Kinsley) report which is over 50 years old, but the CDC data from 2005 is not credible because all people lie no matter what. Well, then how are your arguments so truthful? Why can’t people lie to Cosmo and Kinsey *gasp!*

He doesn't concede to any valid points being made, there have been many. It is like arguing with a child (not name calling, but a comparison). They are right no matter what is presented to them, ignoring valid statistics for those that fuel your argument. You make it impossible to even debate the issue or converse about it because no one is right but you.

All I have to say on the subject is that to have this much hate for women, someone, some where must have fucked you up royally, and for that, I feel sorry for you.

heh... geez I ought to plumb the depths of the cellar more often than I have been.. might need some cleaning out down here.. anywhoo, not that the original thread topic is in any way shape or form still being addressed.. having degenerated into name calling and hair splitting (which I have to say is 1/2 the fun of the internet). no. I do not believe that a persons sexual past/history ought ot be a point of contention in a relationship.. I mean we all have done things we're not proud of.. some more times than others, then again.. If you worked in a donkey show in mexico. .I think that ought to come up at some point fairly ealry in the relationship. then again one never knows what another person might find attractive or stimulating? so I suppose it depends on what the nature of the relationship is. (serious/fuck-buddies etc.) and what the presons involved might view as a 'future' and in what context that relationship evolves..... anywhoo! cat on lap typing difficult must go..

You're right cowhead. At least, in my opinion you are. I'd also add that if you're just fuck buddies, then there's got to be an advantage to having a partner with vast and varied experience right? And if you're serious, then of course you'd never judge the person for what came before. Only what cums next. ;)

[quote=bmwmcaw I am simply stating his slogan is unjustified. [QUOTE]

You're the judge? YOU know best? Your statements are laughable to say the least, your thinking warped and your mind a dank and dreary place.

I'm done with you, you misogynistic ape! Done!

(howzat for name calling? And I didn't even mention your lack of basic spelling and grammar! You're welcome.)

Oh, ps--thanks for trying to explain it to him, Flint, but I don't think he grasps abstract meanings or concepts.

I would judge someone taking this attitude much differently than someone taking the attitude that they had every right to do what they did and don't give a damn what you think about it (which seems to be commonly voiced here). A big chunk of the rhetoric being thrown by Shawnee and the like is that anyone who thinks that a persons history has any impact on the here and now is a bigot and ought to just bring themselves up to date and shut up. That's really the attitude I've been fighting against here.
I believe that everyone is a conglomaration of all past experiences, none of which ever go away and all of which are relevent to predicting a persons future behavior. We got sidetracked for a while on whether or not everyone cares about the predicted outcome, but none-the-less it is there.
Even if you love someone deeply you would have to be a complete fool to disregard their past. Doing so will lead to nothing but heartache and leave you on the side of the road wondering "why?!?:thepain:...". Love by itself, especially any love less than a decade old and strong, is the weakest hinge on which to hang a commitment like marrige. Like it or not, love does not conquer all. The only place this exists is in fantasy and movie scripts.
In the end, you have to base your choices on what people do, not what they say. We often take that advice in dealing with people in other ways, it also applies to relationships, commitments, and sex.

I agree with you, 9th Engineer. Of course, people are a conglomeration of their past experiences.

However, just what is meant by "sexual history"? The number of times? The number of partners? For me that means nothing.

On the other hand, if "sexual history" includes the quality of the relationships - if there was meanness or deceit of some kind of other bad action, then that is certainly relevant. However, it is a bit hard to know that until it is too late, unless you have some kind of independent knowledge of what the person has done.

Wow! and I was beginning to think I was fighting this all alone - thanks all.

Wow.... I sure have had a very different life, when it came to sex, than others!
Women did not "own" sex. Both of us were in there and both of us wanted it equally... actually, often, they pursued me.
I have never felt jealous of any past lovers and never cared about previous history because I had no right to complain due to my previous exploits & would not want them to feel bad about them. The sex they had had nothing to do with me any more than my previous experiences had anything to do with them.
It is absolutely simple.
Double standards are games... I don't do games.

This guy is hysterical. Apparently, we are seeing first hand the symptoms of semen poisoning...

& this juvenile reaction is supposed to make what point?

Gee thanks gang for all those our piercing and insightful rebuttals.

I can't get to excited by the insights posted by other posters when they just hold themselves to some superior knowledge they can't seem to share.

Opinions are like butt-holes, everyone got one.

Somebody tell me what they observe. Being an observer of life myself and seeing humans in there best and worst conditions I come to understand a little something of how the world works.

Being that many of you are young and I can see it in your posts, your idealist. That’s normal. I was when I was young too. Some of the posters are a bit older and have in some way supported some what the points I've made.

I answered the threads question as I have seen and come to know about the world and the interactions between men and women.

If anyone would read ancient Greek and Roman plays and the writings of great authors such as Shakespeare and William James this subject matter is not new nor are the point I make mine alone.

There is the world we want and the world that is and as you get older you begin to see the difference. It doesn't mean that you can't have both, in some way; it just means you see the difference. We are fortunate to live in a culture and society where we can indulge ourselves in our illusions and reach for more than what we can grasp. Humans under stress tend to revert to base instincts.

Men and women are equal but not in identical ways. That’s where idealisms and reality between the sexes part ways. A women’s sexual history isn’t a non-factor and no matter how you want to believe its not, no man, being honest with himself, can’t deny weighing it.

Okay...here's my point. Misogyny is bad, m'kay?

not much of an insight...:neutral:

Coz you have no insight to draw upon, you amazing asshat. Go read what stupendous bmwbmouth here wrote on the "Merry...I want a divorce" thread about obtaining catalogue brides from macho countries.

You've hitched your wagon to a real star. I wish men like you and your pal would emigrate from the country. To, maybe...Indonesia? You can still beat your woman there with impunity. Sounds like a match made in heaven.

Like blacks and whites are equal but not in identical ways, right, sugar?

Goddess, I hate myself for letting this troll piss me off. Look bmwbmouth, I'll pray for you, kay? good luck getting your dick out of that coke bottle...

Let me tell you a story, purely fictional, of course.

There was once a man whom I will call Beemer. He had a lot of trouble getting women to go out on dates with him. When he did manage to get one to accept his offer of a date, she wouldn't put out and he would go home at the end of the night, frustrated and unfulfilled.

Finally, Beemer found one that seemed to really like him and who had sex with him. He thought the sex was pretty good and figured the panting and moaning his ladyfriend was doing meant she was having an orgasm as well. She had been in previous relationships, unlike himself, but that was fine with him because she wanted HIM this time. He was enthralled and promptly asked his girl to marry him.

She accepted and they married, eventually having a child(ren). He assumed they had a good marriage, however, one day Beemer found out that she was having an affair with another man. When he asked her why, she told him she that she had never been sexually satisified in their marriage and this other man was wonderful in bed. She even brought up some past sexual mistreatment as one of her motivating factors. In any case, she took their child(ren) and left to be with this other man. Over time, Beemer became extremely bitter and even wondered if the child(ren) were his.

Beemer came to the conclusion that her infidelity was due to her sexual history (it certainly had nothing to do with him!). He felt used and deceived. He talked angrily to other men in similar situations and they discussed how the women in their lives had hooked them with the power of their almighty pussies. He did some research and found plenty of articles and some statistics that seemed to back up his opinion. He concluded that the only way to be sure the next women wouldn't do the same thing to him was to find someone with no sexual history at all.

Since most virginal girls in the US weren't interested in someone older like Beemer, he figured the best place to look for a new bride was in third world countries. A nice plus to this was these women were often subservient and insecure. They would not dare go off and have an affair behind Beemer's back.

And one day, Beemer happened upon a message board where they were discussing the issue of a girl's sexual history. Unfortunately, his well thought out and statistically proven posts were met with a definate lack of insight and the seriousness they deserved.

To be continued......

:notworthy

There once was a novelist that couldn't sell there rags so they found a message board where they though people would be interested in there fiction.

Don't quit your day job!

Coming from a multi-divorcée, I'll take that as a complement.

Sssssssssizzle

People hate hearing the truth.

:whofart: Ummmm.....where in holy heck did that come from?!? What does my comment have to do with bmw? All I said was that saying that "Misogyny is bad." isn't saying much. Of course it's bad, sort of like saying that racism is also bad. If I have to say this yet again, I DO NOT LIKE OR AGREE WITH BMWMCAW! End of story, yeesh. I also haven't read the lastest on the christmas divorce thread, I don't read every thread here (now I'll have to read it on principle I guess).

Look Brianna, I'm not sure how I can convince you at this point that bmw and I aren't sitting side-by-side and high-fiving each other when you get pissed off. Just because I don't agree with everything YOU say doesn't mean I'm on the side of your most hated enemy, you'll just have to take my word for it I guess...

How exactly stupid ARE you?

PS--This will piss you off--I'm V. rich, RE: divorcee-wise.

Ssssssssssizzle! Gotcha!

PS--did you, umm, ever go to high school? coz your command of basic grammar and English is really--uh...pathetic to say the very least. Are you Taliban? Plus, you raving idiot, my latest comment was directed at 9th--or did that nuance escape you?

dude--you DID get that coke bottle off your dick, right?

After reading the last few entries in that thread I have no problem with saying that bmw has definately crossed over into the creep zone in my book. None the less, please ease off the coffee a tad Bri, you're only making his day by letting him know how pissed off you are.

Hmmmm...well at the rate this thread is degenerating I'm sure one of the bosses will have to close it fairly soon. ;)

But we don't really do that.

I know...but sometimes there's room for dictatorships. :)

pssst, 9th. but you guys are PMing each other ^5s when Bri gets pissed right?

shhh, she's coming back...;)

Children childern get a grip. 9th Eng, good luck trying to post the truth on this board. This place is all about PC. I bet if all the posters on this board played a game of softball there wouldn't be any winners. Don't want to hurt other people feelings. "Its a draw" so lets all go down to the fantasy malt shop and toast to our ignorance.

Let me know when they take off the training wheels around here.

This is about the funniest thing I have ever read! :lol:

You haven't looked around much in the Cellar, have you Beemer? "All about PC"....LOL ROFLMFAO :eyebrow:

Your right.

I should have confined the label (for the time being) to this string. Yet, if these same posters, you included, talk the same kind of pointless yak on other strings then I stand by my label.

"you'RE right" You're=you are. It's a contraction.

Hey. *IF* I cared at all about a girl's sexuality, it would be about her future, not her history. You all have it sdrawkcab.

I know I'm not the runnin around type, and if the girl I'm dating isn't either, then things are cool no matter how many she's been with in the past. I'm the present and if she's not a cheater then there's no reason to be apprehensive towards her and sex. Granted we've both been tested and whatnot.

:lol:

Oh yeah, this place is so PC that we hardly dare to make posts here. EVERYONE here checks with their PC guru before they hit the "send" button.

You just have a problem with the fact that, on the Cellar, people are going tell you what they think in no uncertain terms. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. Go home, little boy, until you get old enough to play with the big kids. :rolleyes:

1) Research proves that there are more men than women fathering children to another while married. You alsomixed your info on the 30% that you quoted. There were 2 different studies one in which 30% of the women admitted to cheating or knowing a friend who cheated, and 30% of THOSE thought that the child born MIGHT not be their husbands.
2) I did my own research and conclude that women attempt to pick up men at bars at an almost equal rate. My test sample was quite small, relatively speaking, but nonetheless it was a sample.
3) Women and men can go indefinitely without sexual satisfaction - period. There is nothing NOTHING anywhere that hints proves or implies anything to the contrary - nothing credible anyway.
4) Women, I have learned, enjoy sex just for sex as much as men. Unfortunately they were so repressed by their male counterparts for so many years, decades and centuries that they were unable to express their own values, opinions and/or desires without severe repercussions from their male "controllers." (this is opinion), now that women are as outspoken as their male counterparts, many men cannot handle the supposed equality, they are fearful of women and intimidated by strong minded females. Hence the type of antiquated, broad-based BS that was spouted here earlier.
5)"Most men have sex for pure pleasure." On this point I agree - only problem is - that men are typically selfish and do it primarily for their own pleasure whereas women have been conditioned to be the "caretakers" of society typically sacrificed their own pleasure for their partner. Fortunately, that is not as common as it used to be and I stand by my statement earlier, that I will continue to do whatever I can to assure that my partner achieves all that she wants from our lovemaking. Maybe thats it - you say sex and I say lovemaking. There is a distinct difference to me. Most men, like you, just want to get off and miss most of the fun and the point - in my opinion.
6)"Men have out of body experiences at 100%." I have made love without achieving an orgasm and had little or no need to do so. Especially after round 2 or 3 - I derive more pleasure giving pleasure to my partner than receiving. And I have found a partner who feels the same way - therefore it is far more intimate than just getting laid or "having sex". Yes, I have heard of "fakin it" and I know the difference - (no need to get explicit) especially when there is no reason for it - we have that kind of honesty with each other.
7)". . .females claim to have and orgasm at only 20%." That was also incorrect - "A" Cosmo survey said that women only had orgasms 20% of the time during sex with strictly penile penetration ONLY- NO assistance. Not news sir - simply restates how inadequate and/or unfamiliar most men are with respect to the female body.

I think we can separate the question here into two components 1)Does your sexual history have relevance to your sexual future 2) Does everyone care about this.
My thoughts
2) Obviously no, we've more than established that here. This is the personal opinion part of it that's been throwing people off I think

1) I think the answer is yes once you remove the thoughts and feelings of anyone (including yourself) from the equation. We acknowledge that it is appropriate to look at the past to make educated guesses about the future, if this wasn't true we wouldn't have the justice system, banking and financial system, or education system we do.

So what people have been saying is a reflection of both of these put together which really boils down to your stance on #2. People who do say the history of their partner has no relevance to them are really saying that they don't care about what it says, most actually included the caviet "unless their history contains one of these senarios...". So they give up that even they would judge it in certain circumstances, which means that #1 must be true.

Isn't the question really "Is there ever a situation where past behavior isn't a good predictor of future behavior?"

Usually the answer is no, unless the subject is sex. Then, we're all clean slates every time we hook up with someone new. I dunno if I buy it.

Most guys I've been serious with have tended to take almost zero interest in my past affiliations with other males--I've always been the one to volunteer information first. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has been serially involved with people who've had next to zero sexual history, and having come from a background of silence about sex: I'd be more inclined to put greater faith in a relationship where both parties came with some experience at least under their belts... But that might be too simplistic :neutral: Beyond the basic questions of 'how much of a physical health risk am I taking by sleeping with you?' I'd be more concerned with what they feel they've learnt from previous partners rather than simply condemning/praising/whatever for the sheer number value of previous partners.

Sex can be as complex a phenomenon, or as simple as you want it to be--One boy I know (who, as a previous poster mentioned, may well suffer from poor self-esteem) who's been promiscuous in years past is now bending over backwards trying to preserve his first emotionally significant relationship. Other friends have spoken of how they're in favour of open relationships because sex is mainly physical and fun and they feel secure in their emotional attachments to their partners to allow for said flexibility. On the other hand, we're all relatively young and haven't been forced to accept 'adult' life quite yet. I'm in favour of faithfulness within relationships, and especially within marriage, if for no other reason than it reduces emotional dramas >_<

Boils down to having compatible world/life viewpoints, I suppose. If your ideas of what love and intimacy mean to you are inextricably linked with the properties of exclusivity within your relationships, then it'd obviously be easier on the mind and soul to be with someone who feels the same way. I tend to play in a grey area where I and my partner/s are concerned here--still trying to work it out for myself :juggle:

Oh, and /agree with previous posters who've pointed out the futility of trying to generalize in this area.

You're a "Sally."

A "Sally" is a guy that talks like a women to smooge and gain there acceptance. Your broad "apology" also suggest your being obsequies.

Now before I address your completely absurd and ridiculous positions, let me state first they're absurd and ridiculous.:biglaugha

The issues of paternity which I made mention of was in the context of men not wanting to raise and support children that they didn’t father. Try reading before you rush to post and show everyone what a “Sally” you are.:muse:

“Your own research.” Oh stop it. It’s exactly this type of comment that rings of such pathetic and needy emotional issues you need to take care of. Gets some help.:help:

Who said anything about being able to go without sex? What lap-dog butt kissing angle are you going with here?:vomitblu:

Well now you said something of note here, and that being…"Women, I have learned, enjoy sex just for sex as much as men.”

Men don’t need to “learn” to enjoy sex period and what a stupid comment, yet women DO! That’s where the rubber meets the road Sally.:driving:

Yea, yea, yea, men have been oppressing women for thousands of years and three sheets to the wind and 3 coins in the fountain. Notice that when they decided to demand a vote and equality how quickly they got it. Seems to me the social differences and roles where mainly a results of biological exigencies. Industrialization, medical advancements, and most importantly “free time” played a substantial role in women’s political and social evolution then men suddenly deciding to stop “oppressing” them. :violin:

I am not one for name calling but you’re a dope.:dunce:

I'm not one for name calling either, so I wont tell you what a fuckwit you are bmw. :)

Why all the anger? Are you frighten of something?

Just post relevant comments and spare me the anger, cause it ain't got no traction with me pumpkin.

Impress me with your intellect not your backside.

I'm not angry Mr Potato Head. :) In fact, if anything, I'm amuzed by your inability to differentiate between humour and anger.

bmw, you're not exactly impressing us with intellect, yourself.

BM, Well I said what "I" believe, and what I found out to be the facts. You immediately retorted with namecalling (of which I was accused of previously. Nuff said you have no position and this is something which we will just have to agree to disagree upon. You take your views, opinions and beliefs into the world and I will do the same with mine.

By the way YOU asked for researched FACTS to back up my stance and all you came back with was calling me a "Sally." Pretty weak - nah very weak indeed! Even though I completely disagree with you, I expected you would have something - anything to reply with. Again you disappoint. Oh well, as you said "Just post relevant comments and spare me the anger" BM. In fact if you have nothing pertinent to add - it is probably better that you add nothing at all.

This I do agree with. But the original question was, after all "Do Guys Really Care" and not "Does Sexual History Have Any Relevance".

I think we have established that the majority of men in the Cellar do not care, or at least care about it less than almost every other factor.

Some men on this board do care, which suggests there are also men in the real world who do too. And more (and more vocal) than I had anticipated.

Live and learn. Learn how to use the ignore list anyway :)
Edited to clarify there are no Engineers on my ignore list

Slam dunk Sundae!

"Sally"

Are you talking about cheating or promiscuity?
One has nothing to do with the other.

Hey, bm, I thought you were a big advocate of not calling people names. Then YOU go and do it. You're sending mixed messages and I'm so confused!

Oh, wait. Now I get it! You can call others nasty names but others can't call YOU nasty names!

re: rkzenrage

I'm not singling out either behavior. The question applies to both, as well as every other sexual behavior. Let's say I'm your partner (wink wink). If I used to like X, and it's something that you can't deal with, you better rethink our relationship. I haven't stopped liking X just because I'm hooked up with you. If I like you well enough, I might make a huge effort to stop X'ing, but that's no guarantee. If I stopped X'ing prior to meeting you, great. It's still, however, a part of me that might resurface later.

The point is, people existed prior to your knowing them, so don't expect that they are going to make wholesale changes just because you're in the picture.

With that in mind, it's perfectly acceptable to decide whether or not to date someone based on any criteria you set, whether consciously or not. It's not "unfair" or "judgemental" or anything else. It's your life, and you get to decide who's in it.