# Normal Number of Sexual Partners?



## nottie (Mar 2, 2011)

Recently I met a guy that saw no point in even keeping track, which was a big WTF moment for me. He eventually narrowed it down to "about twenty" and was utterly confused by my reaction. 

So, what is considered 'normal'? Would you date or screw someone with an unusually high / low amount?


----------



## ItsEvan (Aug 4, 2011)

Assuming more partners = more experience, I'd rather be with someone who is... educated in such things. With standard precautions of course.

I don't advocate the double standard of women being chastised for having multiple partners whereas men are praised for such a thing.


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

I don't have a standard for low/normal/high when it comes to number of sexual partners, so that doesn't play a part in who I date/fuck.


----------



## MonieJ (Nov 22, 2010)

High- No 

Low -yes 

I can't see myself with someone who has a high number of partners.


----------



## DustyDrill (May 20, 2011)

I've only really had sex with 3 women if this is referring to penetrative sex specifically. I'm ridiculously picky about who I stick my dick in. I'll date multiple women at once, but I'll rarely have sex with any of them. I think it comes down to the fact that I don't really like people much.

But, when it comes to experience, I've had quite a bit. My longest relationship (7 years) was with a major nympho who would go along with whatever position or trick I found while stumbling around on the internet. At a frequency of 1-4 times a day on average, it was good times.

Most guys think you need a barrage of women on your dick to be decent at the act of sex. That's bullshit.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

A high number would typically tell me that it won't take much for them to stick it in.. which doesn't seem like a very safe person to -commit- to.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Three or less sounds reasonable, but the closer to zero the better--that's where I am.

Getting upwards of twenty, I doubt I could even view you as a person anymore...

... ... ...more like a walking STD bank.


----------



## Hardstyler (Sep 4, 2010)

Eh well... I'm in the 5-6 ish range... Like I said multiple times I've been im multiple (too many) short term relationships. Some sexual some wern't. And yes I'm 18 and I feel like my count is too high.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

nottie said:


> Recently I met a guy that saw no point in even keeping track, which was a big WTF moment for me. He eventually narrowed it down to "about twenty" and was utterly confused by my reaction.
> 
> So, what is considered 'normal'? Would you date or screw someone with an unusually high / low amount?


I totally agree with this dude. There's no point in keeping track.

Normal is whatever you want it to be.

I would be more worried about someone with an unusually low count than someone with a high one. But it's not a numbers game. I value experience over chastity. But someone with a higher number may not necessarily be a better lover than someone with a lower number.


----------



## Anythingisfine (Aug 16, 2011)

As long as someone is a great person, and they don't have any STD's I don't think the number of past partners that they have had matters. I find it slightly invasive to even ask them.


----------



## nottie (Mar 2, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> I totally agree with this dude. There's no point in keeping track.
> 
> Normal is whatever you want it to be.


To clarify, the past experience didn't bother me.. It's that the likelihood of him having something seems much higher than if the count was, say, 5. 




How old are those of you that wouldn't go after someone with a low number? Is it because someone inexperienced wouldn't be likely to be as good at it?


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

I have a high number, but I think it's unreasonable to assume it to be a mistake to commit to someone with a high number. Sure, I got plenty of experience, but I don't fuck everything that moves, nor do I use people, nor do I cheat, nor do I have trouble keeping it in my pants.

And I don't care what kind of number the people I date/ sleep with have. That's not a factor for me at all.


----------



## sand_at_your_feet (Aug 24, 2011)

call me old fashioned, but I find it unattractive in both men and women who are extremely promiscuous and nonselective. That being said, I am envious of said people's ability to detach all emotion from sex and give into their lustful desires. I just believe too greatly in keeping sex sacred. Now, I'm not crazy religious or anything like that. It's not a religious thing with me. It's just promiscuity is not in my nature. 
I've had 2 partners in 4 years. I took my current bf's virginity. Somewhat awkward, having a "one up" on him.. I feel like, even though it's a societal double standard that I don't necessarily agree with, I'd be more comfortable if he had more partners than me or at least the same amount. Yet, it was probably a more special "first time" for me, when I took his Vcard. I guess I felt like I was robbed of my virginity, so when my current boyfriend and I had our first time, it felt like I was starting over. It was definitely way more special and amazing to me than my first time [or even subsequent times after with the same person] albeit somewhat short. And now it's nothing but amazing. 

However, whatever my friends/acquaintances do with their sex lives is completely up to them. I don't pretend to care.  I just have my own values on the situation and they are not meant to make anyone feel uncomfortable.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

the term 'normal' in this case is sooooo relative as to be meaningless.

and the number of sexual partners somebody has had is irrelevant to whether I would have sex with them or not, as long as they're clean.


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

sand_at_your_feet said:


> call me old fashioned, but I find it unattractive in both men and women who are extremely promiscuous and nonselective.


A high number doesn't mean someone is nonselective.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Kayness said:


> the term 'normal' in this case is sooooo relative as to be meaningless.


Agreed, but there's clearly two camps: those who care, and those who don't.

So maybe it isn't *that* relative after all? It actually seems rather... standardized.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Ugh..

Even though I no longer believe in monogamy [especially not emotional monogamy], I probably wouldn't sleep with multiple partners ever. I'm bound by certain cultural restrictions which are too deep rooted into my self-image for me to openly reject :/

However, I value emotional intimacy much more than physical intimacy.

Oh .. and I'd just like to add that I have no problems with people who are completely sexually active and free --- in fact, a part of me envies them for being so free spirited. As long as they're happy and have indulged in consensual relationships, right? 

I don't measure them with my own yardstick either -- that would be close-minded on my part.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> Agreed, but there's clearly two camps: those who care, and those who don't.
> 
> So maybe it isn't *that* relative after all? It actually seems rather... standardized.


 depends on the circles you move in, I guess. I'm sure there are those who think that even two partners is too many, but I don't hang out with them.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

Intercourse with four, other things with one more. I spent most of my adult life married, so I think my number would be much lower than some who are my age but who have also always been single. I've known how many partners each has had before jumping into bed, but I've never rejected someone for having more or less than me. I think I might be stunned to hear someone my age was in the 19+ category, but I don't think it would be a dealbreaker on its own.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Kayness said:


> depends on the circles you move in, I guess. I'm sure there are those who think that even two partners is too many, but I don't hang out with them.


At least we're not discussing the number of partners and polyamory. What a mind bender!

Hmm... that might justify a new thread... but another time when I'm motivated.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

nottie said:


> To clarify, the past experience didn't bother me.. It's that the likelihood of him having something seems much higher than if the count was, say, 5.


There are tests for that. Someone who's had 10 partners and is tested often, is more trustworthy than someone who's had 2 but never been tested. Especially if it's multiple exposures to someone who may have something. Don't be fooled by that low number. There are people with HIV who've only had 1 partner.





sand_at_your_feet said:


> call me old fashioned, but I find it unattractive in both men and women who are extremely *promiscuous and nonselective*.


That's nonsense. Just because someone has had many partners doesn't mean they're promiscuous or nonselective!
You think they'd actually sleep with everyone who asked?

They could probably be more selective than someone with a few partners. After all if you've been asked twice and slept twice that's 100% and not very selective.
If you've been asked 100 times and slept with 10, that's much more selective.


----------



## Everyday Ghoul (Aug 4, 2009)

Number is a _potential _indicator of several things. I think it's important to validate your assumptions, before coming to a final conclusion. A high number of partners _can_ be indicative of something negative, but I think it's wrong to assume that's always accurate. When it is an indicator of problems, it's probably an indicator of some serious esteem issues. However, that should be fairly easy to discover, as I'm sure it won't be the only indicator of esteem issues. Also, I'm sure there are people out there with a high number of past partners, who just enjoy sex, have a healthy attitude about it, and who are emotionally healthy individuals. People seem to be more concerned with high numbers, because (for some reason) it seems less plausible to them, that there's a healthy or reasonable explanation for that result. Similarly, while a high number results in negative presumptions, a low number results in positive ones. If you've only had one or two partners, there's an instant assumption that you're somehow just a better person. Maybe it's easier or more typical for esteem issues to result in higher partners, and there actually is a more frequent correlation between the two, but (comparatively speaking) I don't feel I've had an abnormally high amount of partners (ten at the age of thirty-two), and my esteem is terrible. My number would be much higher if I would've been able to convince myself women liked me enough to sleep with me. It would have been much lower, had I not found that small amount of aggressive women and the occasional false sense of courage provided by the bottle. So, again, the reason for the number, whatever it is, should probably be far more important to you.


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

@Big bad wolf 
Esteem issues could also be correlated with a low number of partners, just as easily. Just skim through the _virgin_ threads.


----------



## Everyday Ghoul (Aug 4, 2009)

Oh, definitely. I meant to say that, but I tried to condense my thoughts down into as small a space as I could, as I was starting to just ramble on and on. lol


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Where's the over9000 answer?


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

*shudder*

I've had actual intercourse with three partners and plan to keep it at that number.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

vivacissimamente said:


> *shudder*
> 
> I've had actual intercourse with three partners and plan to keep it at that number.


I that chart supposed to make sense?

What do Mercenne Numbers have to do with sexual exposure.

Take the first line. . . 1 sex partner = exposed to 1 person?
Not if that 1 sex partner was Wilt Chamberlain.

Take any other random line. . . say 6 sex partners. If those 6 sex partners were like *you* then there's no way you've been exposed to 63 people. . .

Mercenne Numbers would only work if you assume that your sex partner(s) are clones of yourself.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> I that chart supposed to make sense?
> 
> What do Mercenne Numbers have to do with sexual exposure.
> 
> ...


I was thinking that too, since the first person you're with doesn't mean you're their first.


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> I that chart supposed to make sense?
> 
> What do Mercenne Numbers have to do with sexual exposure.
> 
> ...


The chart is based off the assumption that each of your partners has had the same number of partners as yourself at one point or another. Not too far-fetched of a conclusion, in my opinion. Of course the numbers listed are just a ballpark and could be much lower or higher than what it says, but either way, it's still eye-opening.

Sorry if it freaks you out, but the bottom line is that by having that many partners, you are really at risk for disease if you're not being careful and protecting yourself, which many people do not. Sure, it would be great if we all could just have sex with dozens of people carelessly and try to forget about all the other people they've had sex with that could be totally disease ridden, but I mean, it's fine.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> I was thinking that too, since the first person you're with doesn't mean you're their first.


Although that would only make it worse, now wouldn't it? :laughing:


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

vivacissimamente said:


> The chart is based off the assumption that each of your partners has had the same number of partners as yourself at one point or another. Not too far-fetched of a conclusion, in my opinion. Of course the numbers listed are just a ballpark and could be much lower or higher than what it says, but either way, it's still eye-opening.
> 
> Sorry if it freaks you out, but the bottom line is that by having that many partners, you are really at risk for disease if you're not being careful and protecting yourself, which many people do not. Sure, it would be great if we all could just have sex with dozens of people carelessly and try to forget about all the other people they've had sex with that could be totally disease ridden, but I mean, it's fine.


There would also be repeats in people as I know people do "share" even within their own group of friends. But the number wouldn't be far off from that. It doesn't matter if it's 4056 or 4095, it's still a lot of people.


----------



## error (Feb 10, 2011)

I'm a virgin, sometimes I feel kind of down about it but than I remind myself that I've never had a sexual experience that I've regretted. Now I don't typically go around asking people about their intimate exploits, but nearly all the overly talkative or drinkative friends seem to be quick to share less than glamorous sex stories. And that's enough to keep me from falling into a complete depressive funk over my lack of experience. I'd rather not have any sex at all than to have to put up with those awkward encounters.


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

This thread makes me want to go boost my numbers.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

vivacissimamente said:


> The chart is based off the assumption that each of your partners has had the same number of partners as yourself at one point or another. Not too far-fetched of a conclusion, in my opinion. Of course the numbers listed are just a ballpark and could be much lower or higher than what it says, but either way, it's still eye-opening.
> 
> Sorry if it freaks you out, but the bottom line is that by having that many partners, you are really at risk for disease if you're not being careful and protecting yourself, which many people do not. Sure, it would be great if we all could just have sex with dozens of people carelessly and try to forget about all the other people they've had sex with that could be totally disease ridden, but I mean, it's fine.


The numbers don't freak me out. I don't care about numbers.
There are too many variable that don't fit the mathematical model.

You mentioned safe sex. If you have 100 partners and practice safe sex then your level of exposure is lower than someone who's had 20 partners and only did so sometimes.
And every time someone's tested, that basically resets their score back to 0 (or close to). Never mind they may have got to 30 on the score card. 
Whereas someone who's had fewer partners but you don't know if they're clean, is more of a risk.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> The numbers don't freak me out. I don't care about numbers.
> There are too many variable that don't fit the mathematical model.
> 
> You mentioned safe sex. If you have 100 partners and practice safe sex then your level of exposure is lower than someone who's had 20 partners and only did so sometimes.
> ...


You have definitely made the best rational argument here. While it is logical to assume that some (or even most) do not practice such safety standards, it is not logical to assume that a model made from such an assumption would then apply to all, even if they do practice safer sex. 

As someone on the low end of the partners spectrum, I wouldn't care if a person had a longer history as long as they were safe about it. If they made it to the point in my analysis of them where I ask myself about their sexual history, they've already passed some STEEP hurdles.


----------



## sand_at_your_feet (Aug 24, 2011)

Kr3m1in said:


> A high number doesn't mean someone is nonselective.


I never said it did. Quoting one sentence from my whole paragraph and trying sum up what I was saying with it isn't exactly fair. I went on to explain myself further. 

A generalization would be that people who have high numbers are nonselective.. However, I would accept the argument that someone could have a high number and be selective about who they are with. Maybe it just hasn't worked out with all those people. I was not trying to offend anyone and I did not say a high number of sexual partners means someone is nonselective. I worded my reply carefully, not to offend anyone. 

I just meant that someone who has sex with a stranger for the sake of the sex and does not care about where that person has been [i.e. promiscuous and nonselective] is generally unattractive to me, however I do envy how they can separate the emotion from the act.. because for me, the emotion and the act go hand in hand.. if there is no emotion behind it, I am uncomfortable performing the act. I feel guilt and shame afterwards. Plenty of my friends have higher numbers than I. My freshman room mate had a number around 27 by the time she hit college. [so that number is pretty much her high school sex career] I don't hold these things against people, it's a personal choice. If that is your personal choice, it does not offend me nor should you take offense to my personal stance on the issue.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

The fewer the better, but if a guy makes a few mistakes, thinking he has found "the one," then having his relationships not work out, I won't hold it against him. It can be hard predicting what is going to happen, and how long a relationship will last. I'd even be okay if he experimented a couple of times with friends that he wasn't in love with, just to see what it was like, and came to the conclusion that sex without being in love was pointless and unfulfilling, and that he felt like he was degrading himself. 

I say "friends" because I'm not sure I would want to be with anyone who could sleep with a stranger, and actually go through with it without stopping it. If he did try to sleep with a stranger, the kind of guy I would want is the kind of guy who would stop it before it got too far, because it would feel so wrong that being turned on would be impossible for him. I do not want to be with someone who has no problem with casual sex, who sees sex as primarily physical, who does not need an emotional connection in order to find it satisfying. That is a dealbreaker. 

If he was wild in his youth, but has reformed and matured, so that he is no longer the same person he was when he was promiscuous, I might make an exception. 

I have had five sexual partners, three of whom I thought I was going to marry, and two of whom were very close friends. 

I wish I were still a virgin, and ideally, my partner would be one. However, it would be hypocritical to expect more from him than I expect from myself, so I don't get to be picky about that.


----------



## sand_at_your_feet (Aug 24, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> There are tests for that. Someone who's had 10 partners and is tested often, is more trustworthy than someone who's had 2 but never been tested. Especially if it's multiple exposures to someone who may have something. Don't be fooled by that low number. There are people with HIV who've only had 1 partner.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you miss the part where I said "*That being said, I am envious of said people's ability to detach all emotion from sex and give into their lustful desires..........It's not a religious thing with me. It's just promiscuity is not in my nature..........I just have my own values on the situation and they are not meant to make anyone feel uncomfortable.*" 
Please see my previous reply to the other person who copied and pasted the same first sentence and tried to sum up my whole original reply in it. You are entitled to believe what you want, so am I. 


"_After all if you've been asked twice and slept twice that's 100% and not very selective._"

First of all, you have no clue how many times I have been asked. Too many to count, I could have a number closer to 50 right now, but I don't because I chose not to, I knew they wanted a physical piece of me and didn't care about getting to know me. Secondly, the first person was a complete and utter mistake-regret-bastard. Though, I could sense him faking emotions, I wanted to believe he truly cared about me and I wanted to make it work with him because I foolishly let him TAKE my virginity. [When a guy is begging, trying to take your pants off over and over again and you button them back up and/or stop him in his tracks over and over again, then he begs more and you say "FINE JUST DO IT IF YOU REALLY WANT TO" sarcastically, and he rips your pants off and does it.. well IMO that is TAKING it. part of me wanted to stop being a baby about it, but clearly if that ^ is your cue to move in, should you really move in? would you even want to?] Then I internalized the shame and guilt and tried to make a relationship that was doomed from the start, based on lies, and with who I now truly believe to be a sociopathic individual work because I couldn't face the level I had stooped to, that I hadn't screamed and kicked and fought when he actually did it, that I didn't run away from him and fast when I saw the first signs of his psychopathic behavior. But I had denied so many people without giving them a chance, because I had a gut feeling it wouldn't work out.. So I decided to give the next guy who walked into my life a chance, against my gut, and force it to work. He was a pathological liar [lied about what he had for breakfast, if he had work that day, if he left his house, what time he woke up, stupid stories involving his friends that his friends later refuted and/or didn't remember, and so soo much more], he abused me physically, verbally, sexually, cheated on me with multiple people multiple times each, and when I broke up with him he put me through a 9 month long shit storm. Everyone is entitled to their mistakes. 

You shouldn't be so quick to judge. For the record, I do not care how many sexual partners a person has. I know how many I've had, and I know that I would like to keep my own number low. If you want to take my original reply as a direct insult, feel free. It just reflects more on you than it does me.


----------



## sand_at_your_feet (Aug 24, 2011)

Also, to both of you, anyone's interpretation of a "high number" can be quite vague. I met a guy once who seriously claimed he slept with 100 people. I would consider that a high number. Whether or not he was serious, I do not know. I have a tendency to attract pathological liars, even when I catch them lying from the gate. Besides, there is no reasonable way I could prove it. He later retracted that statement and said it was probably closer to 50. For all I know he could have been a glorified virgin. This one of the many people who have tried to sleep with me. My freshman roommate in college slept with 26 people in 3 years. That is what I would consider to be somewhat nonselective. But only because she admitted to being drunk and sleeping with people she probably wouldn't have otherwise. 

Please note- I am not passing judgment merely interpreting. I could care less if you or anyone else wants to fuck everyone they meet. Go right ahead. Your actions will not affect me, because I made the first person I was with get tested, did not make my current bf get tested because he was a virgin [which I knew for a fact] but I got tested after I found out I was cheated on, and I will make any future possible sexual partners get tested. Only you can bear the repercussions of your actions or inactions.. 

I also want to apologize if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. I merely wanted to state my opinion on the topic. I suppose since it goes against the majority, it is the one up for attack.


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

@sand_at_your_feet calm down beautiful, no offense taken. 

You can only run so far on a generalization, is all.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

"Normal" for whom?



nottie said:


> How old are those of you that wouldn't go after someone with a low number? Is it because someone inexperienced wouldn't be likely to be as good at it?


Speaking strictly for myself, IMO it would be ridiculous to not want to be sexually intimate with someone because they have a "low" number. Again, speaking only for myself, if I met someone who met my criteria (which would be a feat in itself), and after being together, we're compatible, I enjoy being with this person, I care about this person and this is someone I would actually want to be intimate with...why would I *not* want to be intimate with her because she's had a "low" number of partners? (whatever that means.) Guess what, if I care about you, we can both learn together. You can learn what I like, we can both discover what you like together if you don't already know. The process of discovery will be fun for both of us. Relaxed atmosphere, we can both look back at it and laugh later. To me, that's incredibly trivial. You can always *get* experience, so to me, that's not a problem at all. The stuff outside the bedroom is most important anyway, so so long as everything is fine there, we can work on whatever inside the bedroom. I've been in relationships where the sex was good, but everything else was the problem. And no—despite being a man, who's apparently supposed to be led around by his penis according to how some people seem to think, no sex is good enough to make up for all the problems outside the bedroom, because we can't spend all day in bed.

And it's annoying anyway when someone fancies herself "experienced," but when you tell them you don't like a certain thing they're doing, and it's "well, all the other guys I've been with liked this."

The hell?

I'm not "all the other guys you've been with." However many guys you've been with before me, and what they liked, is irrelevant. I'm not them. I'm me. Different people like different things. That may come as a shock to you. So instead of doing what _other_ people liked, how about finding out what _I_ like? And I'm gonna find out what _you_ like. I'm not going to assume. Each of us will *communicate* to the other when someone's doing something we like, and when someone's doing something we don't like. (Contrary to popular belief, no one's a mind reader. We have to *let the other person know* when they're doing something right or doing something wrong. Communication is important.) One thing a low number of partners means is a lack of preconceptions, and a willingness to learn what someone else likes rather than assuming you know everything. I hate when people do the latter.

*steps down from soap box*


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

sand_at_your_feet said:


> Did you miss the part where I said "*That being said, I am envious of said people's ability to detach all emotion from sex and give into their lustful desires..........It's not a religious thing with me. It's just promiscuity is not in my nature..........I just have my own values on the situation and they are not meant to make anyone feel uncomfortable.*"
> Please see my previous reply to the other person who copied and pasted the same first sentence and tried to sum up my whole original reply in it. You are entitled to believe what you want, so am I.


So why use derogatory terms like 'promiscuous' and 'nonselective' since you claim to admire some aspect of it. That's quite judgemental. 




> "_After all if you've been asked twice and slept twice that's 100% and not very selective._"
> 
> First of all, you have no clue how many times I have been asked. . .


That was just a general statement to illustrate the point that low numbers don't mean selective and vice versa. It wasn't about you specifically and not a call for you to relate your sexual misadventures.



> You shouldn't be so quick to judge. For the record, I do not care how many sexual partners a person has. I know how many I've had, and I know that I would like to keep my own number low. If you want to take my original reply as a direct insult, feel free. It just reflects more on you than it does me.


Ironic! I'm not the one judging. At no point do I use derogatory terms to describe someone else's choices. 
I could judge you and come up with some unpleasant terms but I'd get no value from that. 

I'm not taking anything as a direct insult. It would be impossible for me to feel insulted by someone who doesn't actually know me.
I'm just saying that you shouldn't make assumptions about other people's characters based on so little information and judged by your own personal standards.

You wouldn't do a particular thing. You have your reasons. But there really is no need to belittle anyone who's made a different choice. . . especially when you're likely to be making wrong assumptions.

*That* is my point.


----------



## Chrysantheist (Jul 1, 2011)

I have a high sex drive, a hard time falling in love, and a tendency to move around a lot. So my number is high, only because I spend relatively little time actually in a relationship, and go through flings with various lovers depending on where I am. However, if you take the number of partners I've had with the number of years I've been sexually active, I average about 1.5 sexual partners per year. 

I would not judge someone for having high or low numbers. I would prefer not to sleep with virgins or people who have only slept with one or two people because my lack of emotional intimacy means that it's going to take me a lot longer to become attached and people with low numbers tend to do that a bit easier than those with 5+ partners. I haven't found a significant difference in how good someone is in bed with however many people s/he has slept with. 

And - I get tested annually, I practice safe sex (condoms & an IUD), and I don't pick up random people at the bar or online. Either way, I think it's ridiculous to slut-shame or virgin-shame. Your number of partners has nothing to do with how many STDs you have, how well you can commit to someone (I was in a four-year relationship and never cheated), or how easy you are. I am well aware that because I have a high sex drive, people are often very sexually attracted to me (I think I give off an energy of sorts), yet I am very selective and prefer only sleeping with a single person for a period of time. I have never gotten drunk or high and ended up accidentally sleeping with someone, nor have I ever regretted any of my past experiences. 

Frankly, I think people ought to be a little less uptight about the whole sex thing. Not that I'm saying everyone should go out and be promiscuous, but lay off the judging. Damn.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Chrysantheist said:


> I have a high sex drive, a hard time falling in love, and a tendency to move around a lot. So my number is high, only because I spend relatively little time actually in a relationship, and go through flings with various lovers depending on where I am. However, if you take the number of partners I've had with the number of years I've been sexually active, I average about 1.5 sexual partners per year.
> 
> I would not judge someone for having high or low numbers. I would prefer not to sleep with virgins or people who have only slept with one or two people because my lack of emotional intimacy means that it's going to take me a lot longer to become attached and people with low numbers tend to do that a bit easier than those with 5+ partners. I haven't found a significant difference in how good someone is in bed with however many people s/he has slept with.
> 
> ...


Hear hear!
Well said. . .


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

This thread's becoming quite a read! I'll try to keep my thoughts on the subject simple. 

I need to know someone quite well as a friend before I'll seriously consider romance, and this could take several months. I need to know her mind as it's the central cue of my infatuation, and knowing it means *knowing it well*. Even upon reaching that point, things will go slowly. I'll send out signals to test the waters, and flirts will be quite simple--hardly overt. Eventually, over what may be another month or two, we'll reach the point of dating *if *there's even dating! Because of how my partner and I have historically expressed ourselves by this point, building our foundation together, we may skip the ritual of dating to proceed into our necessity of intimacy. Sex would then arise out of our expression of that intimacy--the desperate attempt to be closer than we already are tied with the desire to physically express our love.

So why did I vote that "less experienced" partners were far more attractive than "experienced" ones? It reflects my value of what kind of person I find attractive. Because of my vast array of nuances, it's ideal for be to be with someone similar to myself, enjoying that long development of friendship and intimacy. It's unappealing to rush and a complete turnoff to *even consider* sex with someone I know little about. She has a brilliant mind, is interested in knowing mine, and our desire for each other is built off our long-term sharing.

As a final addition, I'll add that romance for me is an emotionally invested process. It's not something where I can become infatuated, date for a week (or a month), express our romance sexually, and then if it doesn't work out, quickly recover and move on. It might take *months *to get myself fully invested in a romance, and I assure you that it'll take me* months* to get out again.

As such, someone who has had plenty of partners gives me the (often correct) impression that they don't practice romance the same way. Spontaneity and swiftness with someone I don't know *won't happen*--my mind gets in the way. So when I see someone who's had 10-20 partners, I automatically know they don't value a relationship like I do. It's clear that they feed off intimacy and sexual expression differently. It also gives me the impression that _*you don't know what you want*_, are _*way too casual*_, and the fact that you're willing to have sex with someone you know so little about shocks me! I can't fall for a person who moves quickly, and regardless to how you interpreted that generalization, that's how I view it. It's a turnoff. Relationships are *serious business* in my book--not something to be trifled with! That doesn't mean I'm an asshole or demanding; it just means I've invested myself, I've committed myself, and damn it, it's nigh a wedding without a ceremony. If I'm romantically involved to where sex is even a factor, I've already considered you as a life partner and you're approved! We're intimately bound.

So you can date however you want, doing as you please. The partners I'm considering almost always fall into the low numbers with a similar mindset, so I'm happy and you're happy. I find it unappealing and almost slutty from the view that you're not investing yourself to the same degree, but since when do you have to care? I'm not calling people on it. I'm probably viewed as naive and judgmental with unrealistic standards. That's okay! I don't care either! We're all having a good time in our own way.


----------



## AussieChick (Dec 27, 2010)

I have had about 10 sexual partners,but it has been over a 21 year period.Most of them were short term relationships/one night stands.The longest was my relationship with my husband which was on/off for 18 years.I'm currently in a monogamous relationship which I hope will last a long time.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> So you can date however you want, doing as you please. The partners I'm considering almost always fall into the low numbers with a similar mindset, so I'm happy and you're happy. I find it unappealing and almost *slutty* from the view that you're not investing yourself to the same degree, but since when do you have to care? I'm not calling people on it. I'm probably viewed as naive and judgmental with unrealistic standards. That's okay! I don't care either! We're all having a good time in our own way.


You were doing well until you started with the derogatory terms.
And since only one side seems to persist with that kind of defamation of character, it makes me wonder of they really are confident in themselves and what they're doing. Why else would you need to make negative comments about someone else's choices. Does it make it easier to justify your own?

Nothing wrong with having your own views. But *judging* is never nice and I'm sure you would not want to be judged by someone else's standards.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> So you can date however you want, doing as you please. The partners I'm considering almost always fall into the low numbers with a similar mindset, so I'm happy and you're happy. I find it unappealing and almost *slutty* from the view that you're not investing yourself to the same degree, but since when do you have to care? I'm not calling people on it. I'm probably viewed as naive and judgmental with unrealistic standards. That's okay! I don't care either! We're all having a good time in our own way.


You were doing well until you started with the derogatory terms.
And since only one side seems to persist with that kind of defamation of character, it makes me wonder of they really are confident in themselves and what they're doing. Why else would you need to make negative comments about someone else's choices. Does it make it easier to justify your own?

Nothing wrong with having your own views. But *judging* is never nice and I'm sure you would not want to be judged by someone else's standards.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

It wasn't meant to be a derogatory term, nor defamatory. The fact that you'd jump on that one term, calling foul, missing the entirety of my post, gives me the impression that you feel quite confident in your position while degrading of mine. It also gives me the impression you're cued into negativity. Can you answer your own question? I understand where you're coming from, but I find it exceedingly petty.

I don't care what you have to say about me, so judge away! This is an adult forum worthy of adult terms, used *as* terms in an adult way. I'd rather you be direct in your meaning and (what you might perceive as) insulting rather than give me a bunch of fluffy BS to cover up an accurate statement. I enjoy hearing constructive criticism and it rolls off me like water. A world which just put it forward would be rather nice.


PS: I'm aware you may still object that "slutty" is inherently a derogatory term. When I wrote what I did, I wrote it in an apathetic, descriptive manner lacking the insult. I do have periodic lapses in how my expression may be perceived, but in the serious sense, it is meant as a scholarly term.

PS2: Why am I bothering with this nested, descriptive nonsense?


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> It wasn't meant to be a derogatory term, nor defamatory. The fact that you'd jump on that one term, calling foul, missing the entirety of my post, gives me the impression that you feel quite confident in your position while degrading of mine. It also gives me the impression you're cued into negativity. Can you answer your own question? I understand where you're coming from, but I find it exceedingly petty.
> 
> I don't care what you have to say about me, so judge away. This is an adult forum worthy of adult terms, used *as* terms. I'd rather you be direct in your meaning and (what you might perceive as) insulting rather than give me a bunch of fluffy BS to cover up an accurate statement. I enjoy hearing constructive criticism and it rolls off me like water. A world which just put it forward would be rather nice.


The word 'slutty' is not meant to be defamatory or derogatory?! What else can it be?

I'm not degrading your position. I'm not the one using derogatory terms. I've never called you anything other than judgemental. And I think your use of defamatory words makes that justifiable.

I didn't miss your entire post. I said you were doing *well* until. . .
Meaning that I accept your decision to do what you want with your life. And I appreciate anyone who knows what they want and can explain themselves clearly. . . without the need to judge. But I also suggest that you be equally accepting of others. 

I don't have a position to justify. I've not stated a position. I've not indicated in any way which category I fall into (small or large number of partners). 

You may think you know; but you don't.

I'm not judging you. I've not said a single thing against your views or on how you choose to conduct your self sexually. I'm just *calling you out* on your judgement of others.

Putting it simply: It's judgemental call another person slutty, or to suggest that they haven't invested in themselves, just because they live their life in a way that's different from you. It's not fair to judge them by your standards.

@Chrysantheist said her bit without having a dig at the opposing view. Why can't you do the same?


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

I updated that post while you were replying, knowing what you would say.

It answers about 90% of what you wrote. I meant to use it as a descriptive term, not an insult.

If you were offended by that, my apologies. I think it's a bit silly and hypersensitive though.

Now I need to get to class.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

@twoofthree
@Chrysantheist

This thread settles it, my next girlfriend needs to be a type 5. 

What matters to me is safe sex, and an open-minded view about it. I couldn't be in a relationship with someone who was sexually traditional, since to me it is an indicator of who they are at their emotional core. I also couldn't be with someone who did not enjoy sex, as it makes it very difficult for me to enjoy sex. 

My partner's number doesn't matter beyond me wanting it to be average or higher. 5+ partners is great, but less makes me worried they'll get too attached/don't actually enjoy sex for sex/are too traditional. As @twoofthree said, my partner could have had 100 partners, but as long as she was completely safe and continues to be, it is not an issue. (Our difference is I am not adverse to being judgmental, I simply judge on the basis of safe sex.)


----------



## Kainita (Aug 31, 2011)

Should my partner be safe when being sexually active, I could care less how high their number is. My current partner was at 15 before me, and I was at 1 before him. We have great sexual chemistry even though our numbers are vastly different. 

Just so everyone knows... you can have a high sexual drive and still remain a virgin or have a low number. People think and feeling differently about sex and so their number goes. It doesn't make someone less or more dignified.


----------



## nottie (Mar 2, 2011)

Master Mind said:


> "Normal" for whom?
> 
> Speaking strictly for myself, IMO it would be ridiculous to not want to be sexually intimate with someone because they have a "low" number.


Yeah, that's why I put the quotations around it. Normal is relative. : )

I suppose I could understand someone being put off by a very low or nonexistent number after a certain age (though it'd be rather shallow if they were compatible in other areas) because of possible stigmas, like _The 40 Year Old Virgin_.. or perhaps because they don't like the idea of playing teacher. I like your point of view, though.



Anyway, thanks to everyone for the discussion. I've decided to not write the guy off because of his number, though I'm still going to be cautious about it. xD


----------



## Sali (Feb 9, 2011)

I wasn't aware we were all in some kind of contest. O_O


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

nottie said:


> I suppose I could understand someone being put off by a very low or nonexistent number after a certain age (though it'd be rather shallow if they were compatible in other areas) because of possible stigmas, like _The 40 Year Old Virgin_.. or perhaps because they don't like the idea of playing teacher. I like your point of view, though.


Meh. I had a response all typed out, but my browser crashed. Lemme try this again.

I realize mine is likely a minority view, but if we're compatible in all the important areas, then I'm not going to throw that away because of relative "inexperience" in the bedroom. We can always work out whatever in the bedroom. And playing teacher's fun. I don't know what _you're_ talking about. 

I know people who are/have been in relationships with jerks who don't respect them, but they don't want to give up the sex. I don't understand that at all. In fact, it's irritating to me when people have tried to use sex as this ultimate "Get Out of Jail Free" card, where they can do absolutely anything they want and I'll overlook it, because I can't go without the sexual pleasure they can give. Nope. It's insulting to me that someone would stereotype me in such a manner just because I happen to have a Y chromosome.

But different people prioritize different things.


----------



## Chrysantheist (Jul 1, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> I updated that post while you were replying, knowing what you would say.
> 
> It answers about 90% of what you wrote. I meant to use it as a descriptive term, not an insult.
> 
> ...


I don't know why you think you're not being offensive. See: 



> So when I see someone who's had 10-20 partners, I automatically know they don't value a relationship like I do. It's clear that they feed off intimacy and sexual expression differently. It also gives me the impression that you don't know what you want, are way too casual, and the fact that you're willing to have sex with someone you know so little about shocks me!





> It's a turnoff. Relationships are serious business in my book--not something to be trifled with!





> I find it unappealing and almost slutty from the view that you're not investing yourself to the same degree, but since when do you have to care?


In two paragraphs, you call sexually-promiscuous people slutty, not invested or valuing relationships the way you do, that we don't know what we want, are too casual, and there's something abhorrent about sex with someone you don't know that well. (And how do you *know* that we don't know them that well? Again, it's just your own stereotypical bias.) 

The words you use "feed off intimacy and sexual expression" convey a predator-like intent, saying "relationships are serious business" implies we don't take our relationships seriously, like we're callously playing with other people's emotions. I take a great deal of care to not *cause harm*, I highly value the partners I've had, and know many of them both personally and intimately. 

Here's the thing. Do a little math. Say you have one serious partner every year, starting from the age of 18. You spend 6 months not having sex and getting to know that person. You finally get intimate, sleep together for 3 months or so, and then for whatever reason, the relationship ends. You're single for another 2-3 months, and then you find another partner. By the time you're 28 (assuming you don't get married), you've had 10 partners. Does that make you slutty or careless or that you don't invest enough time in your relationships?


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Chrysantheist said:


> ...


"Sexually-promiscuous" (not sure of that hyphen you added) and "slutty" are synonyms (or would be I suppose)--in fact slutty is defined just as that, but with a negative connotation. I used "slutty" because it better represented my lack of appeal concisely. I'm not sure why this is still an issue? If you want me to retract the term, I will, and then I'll lie to you or distort my description to the point of not being perceived a "judgement." Of course I find this silly since this thread is loaded with judgements, but "slutty" cues up a response in some of being a conversation foul, a personal assessment which I didn't consider because it wasn't shared. "Those who does this appear slutty" + "I do this" = "He called me a slut" is ridiculous logic--it's lapsing the lack of intent for the appropriation of victimization. Terms are just terms.

Of course there's bias. It's an opinion/poll thread. I gave my opinion. Everything here is a bias, not to mention everything in life. How are you using that term? I don't understand your 1st paragraph. The 2nd paragraph backs up the reality of this bias. I described it my way and you perceived it yours. As for whether or not you intend to do anything is your description of it--I have a different interpretation and a different sexuality. I could care less if you're bothered by it. I didn't care about yours--I just said mine topically. In fact I didn't even read most of the responses because it seemed more debate than thought.

The reality of my sexuality is different than yours. With any inclusion of myself, I'd find evanescent relationships to be damaging, hence my clear distaste of them. My posts have been a description of myself, not a denouncement of others. If you take it as such, see the above on "bias" because I've just said multiple times in different ways that was not my intention. I've even apologized, regardless to the fact that I thought it was unnecessary. What do you want to hear?

As for the 3rd paragraph, you're jumping to conclusions, but I can't blame you. You're using what I stated to form a contradiction and that's realistic debate. Rather than add the nuances on my feelings into the equation for further inquisition and calculation, I'll just say: My statement of that was exaggerated as the diminutive. And your observation of me having 10 partners by the time I was 28 assumes the perfect scenario where each relationship takes one year and I'm devoting all my time to finding and recovering from them. Within the bounds of my understanding of myself, there is no way that would ever happen.


----------



## Penemue (Feb 23, 2010)

I don't see anything wrong with being educated, but promiscuity is not good in my books, and those who are promiscuous are, as @_Ephemerald_ puts it, a walking STD bank.
I don't see it as a bad thing that you can have sex for fun, but with someone you know at least a bit and trust. You have to draw your own line, but there's little good in drawing it so far away you can't even _see_ the line.

That said, i don't think i would turn somebody down just because of their number, as long as they were safe and are not overly flippant about the whole thing. There's a difference between being careful but having fun, and being promiscuous.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Mmm... the biological appeal is a completely different matter. Love it or hate it, I've seen it under a microscope and in reality. Having a laundry list of partners isn't only psychologically distasteful. Though one could argue all perception is psychological, let's remember that psychology *is* science in action. On the 2nd note, I don't expect perfection, and being I've found a couple people so far, I think my "line" is visible. It just takes a while to get there, not that anyone's necessarily looking for it. Actually it's more like, we're having a good time, we're clicking... and *boom* "hey, check out that line over there."


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> Of course I find this silly since this thread is loaded with judgements


, 

Show me some of the other "judgements". You'll soon see a pattern emerge.



> but "slutty" cues up a response in some of being a conversation foul, a personal assessment which I didn't consider because it wasn't shared. "Those who does this appear slutty" + "I do this" = "He called me a slut" is ridiculous logic--it's lapsing the lack of intent for the appropriation of victimization. Terms are just terms.


It is ridiculous logic but no one has ever used it before now. And you're the one using it.



> My posts have been a description of myself, not a denouncement of others.


If only that were true. . .


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> ,
> 
> Show me some of the other "judgements". You'll soon see a pattern emerge.
> 
> ...


You just posted 3. Agree to disagree?


----------



## nottie (Mar 2, 2011)

Master Mind said:


> I realize mine is likely a minority view, but if we're compatible in all the important areas, then I'm not going to throw that away because of relative "inexperience" in the bedroom. We can always work out whatever in the bedroom. And playing teacher's fun. I don't know what _you're_ talking about.


Whoops, I guess I typed it weirdly. I agree with you, having been on both sides of it. Actually, I'd say getting a partner to loosen up by corrupting them is some of the most fun I've had. xD I was referring to the other people in the thread that said they'd never be with someone less experienced; I was trying to comprehend that side of thinking.


----------



## Cherie19 (Sep 7, 2011)

I would rather someone be more experienced than me (not difficult to do...), but not with so many people I worry that I am just another person they are adding to their list...


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

DAAAMN people are mean. So much for sexual freedom. I wish I could have a new partner every week and that it could be a non-issue to swap partners all the time even in a committed relationship. Then again, I have quite an emotional investment in the people I've consistently had sex with in the past, so that would be a serious adjustment for me.

Too few partners is definitely my less than preferred option. I don't like taking virginity. I don't like people who don't know that teeth are VERY BAD in certain places. I do like people who are at about the same experience level as me (though I've never been with anyone more experienced :/ ).

Iunno. It's not that important, so long as they're healthy and not prone to cheating - which is NOT connected to # of sexual partners.


----------



## angularvelocity (Jun 15, 2009)

A relatively high number to me is 7+.
A low number is 0-3.
A moderate number is 4-6.

This has nothing to do with how I think a person is. What I mean by that is, there are good people in the world that have 13 partners and real asshole types of people who have had 1 partner. I don't judge them by the number of partners they have. The only time numbers come into play is when I'm in a romantic relationship and will be having a sexual relationship because I want someone STD clean. And realistically, the more partners, the more risk. Of course there are people that get STDs with having only one partner and some people have 10 partners and don't get one, but I'm a probability kind of guy.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

This numbers thing seems very rigid. Wouldn't you think you need to update the numbers based on years of activity? Someone who is 35 and single might have in the neighborhood of 15 or 20 partners, and that's still only one to two per year of average activity.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

avalanche183 said:


> A relatively high number to me is 7+.
> A low number is 0-3.
> A moderate number is 4-6.
> 
> This has nothing to do with how I think a person is. What I mean by that is, there are good people in the world that have 13 partners and real asshole types of people who have had 1 partner. I don't judge them by the number of partners they have. The only time numbers come into play is when I'm in a romantic relationship and will be having a sexual relationship because I want someone STD clean. And realistically, the more partners, the more risk. Of course there are people that get STDs with having only one partner and some people have 10 partners and don't get one, but I'm a probability kind of guy.


Two STD tests, 6 months apart, will tell you more about STD risk then the number of partners they've had.


----------



## Catenaccio (May 2, 2011)

DustyDrill said:


> I've only really had sex with 3 women if this is referring to penetrative sex specifically. I'm ridiculously picky about who I stick my dick in. I'll date multiple women at once, but I'll rarely have sex with any of them. I think it comes down to the fact that I don't really like people much.


OT but doesn't that get complicated very quickly? Every woman I know would take that as an insult, and the saying is "no fury like a woman scorned"...

To be honest I have at least twice, screwed girls that I really did not want to, just because I had to see them again and I thought it would be rude not to. (That sounds like a joke, but I mean it literally). :-S

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re the question: 7 I think.

I would not seriously date a girl who has had as many partners than me. I do not think this is sexist, any more than it is sexist to say that I should be the one who approaches, who risks rejections, who pays for things, who keeps smiling through all the playful "rejections"...Yes it is Double Standards, of course, because we are different. However, I thinkt he double standard favors the woman more than the man.

(Though maybe in the US it doesn't work that way and is more liberal. I am NOT speaking for the experiences of Americans, as I cannot comment).


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Catenaccio said:


> . . . any more than it is sexist to *say that I should be the one who approaches, who risks rejections, who pays for things, who keeps smiling through all the playful "rejections"*...Yes it is Double Standards, of course, because we are different. However, I thinkt he double standard favors the woman more than the man.


Who says these things?
I live in the UK, albeit not London. And I don't think anyone says these things any more.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Do you ever have those moments where -- despite people's insistence that you're smart -- you feel like a _complete idiot?_

I had one just now, when I read the thread title as "Normal Number of Sexual Panthers".....
Which admittedly would make a _far _more interesting thread.


OT:
I generally consider the 'normal number of sexual partners' to be anything over _my _number of sexual partners.


----------



## DefLeppardTShirt (Oct 22, 2010)

don't know the exact number, but it's a lot more than 19

mostly because I haven't been able to get a long-term relationship going, but this also means I haven't gone in bareback in almost a year


----------



## Catenaccio (May 2, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> Who says these things?
> I live in the UK, albeit not London. And I don't think anyone says these things any more.


Well I lived a lot of time in another country and it's that way.

In any case even in London normally the guy will be approaching and buying the drinks. I am not complaining in any case, it suits me well. I have to be honest, I am a control freak, and I would not want to be with a more dominant partner. Even if I like a girl, I become uncomfortable if she is more forward than myself. (Of course for a one-night stand this is no issue, but I would not date her in serious).


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

nottie said:


> So, what is considered 'normal'? Would you date or screw someone with an unusually high / low amount?


"normal" has no standard.


"unusually" high - I would be very concerned that's for sure. Safety, ability to meet my "other" needs outside of sex, though "might" appreciate the experience. lol

"unusually" low - I wouldn't mind, though I would be worried that their "sex drive" would not meet mine, but that would even be the same with anyone to be honest. Might slightly worry they get to a point where they might leave just so they can "experience" more.

I've been with 2 women.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

I read somewhere that on average the male has sexual intercourse with 7 different people in a lifetime, women in the other hand have an average of 3. I was sceptical.

I will tatto slut on my little toe if I fuck more than 7 I think. It loses the "wow" factor if you behave like a loose cannon. I stongly believe in sexual expression but don't run arround like some horny little dog humping everyone, or sex will lose it's charm & you'll lose your name, or maybe not in this increasingly strange day & age.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

Are we controlling for age? Seems like we should.

I'm at a dozen. Fascinating, eh?


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

Promethea said:


> A high number would typically tell me that it won't take much for them to stick it in.. which doesn't seem like a very safe person to -commit- to.


This is very true. I feel the exact same way.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

GAH. The number of prudes on this thread is really bothering me. 

Just because people have sex with a higher number of people than you like does not mean they're unfaithful, easy, or immoral. Correlation does not equal causation. 

People have the right to change their mind. People have the right to pursue the things they want. You don't need to be a sleezebag, a moron, coerced, out of control, or anything else to want to have sex with a lot of people - a variety of people. 

There is nothing wrong with sex. Sex is awesome. I want to have sex with fully half of the people I interact with every day. And I wish I actually could. 
Opinions like these are why I can't.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

William I am said:


> Just because people have sex with a higher number of people than you like does not mean they're , _*easy*_
> 
> I want to have sex with fully half of the people I interact with every day. And I wish I actually could.


Well I agree it doesn't make one "immoral" or "unfaithful" by default, however I do kind of believe it does make one "easy" which depending on perception "matters" I guess?

According to your statement it would be easy to have sex with you. If you associate the word "easy" as a negative, /shrug. But it kind of is exactly what it means.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Easy (or difficult) has to be describing. Seems like it must describe a process, and generally it's implied to be a process of coercion.

I'm not easy, I'm aware of what I want.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

You find little resistance between you and having sex with someone outside of "social" standard. Little resistance would be "easy". I'm not judging you, just calling it what it is. If you can't accept the word "easy" idk...it's only a word, it has no power unless you give it such.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

I don't resist things that are pleasurable, beneficial, and healthy. It makes no sense. 

Using the word "easy" begs the question "why would I have resistance?"

Don't put it on me that I'm giving a word power. Words convey meaning to everyone, not just to you and me. Other people give it meaning, and I have to live with the label.



EDIT: I just noticed 1/3rd of respondents to this poll are virgins.... Probably throws off the normalcy factor a lot.


----------



## tnredhead (Apr 5, 2011)

I'm 31, I have a high sex drive and "normal" for me is 2.

Normal for you is your number.

It takes a while for me to be comfortable enough with people to have sex with them (like another poster, I find I just don't like people enough to fuck them for the most part). 

However if you are talking about "average":

"One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5."

This of course can't be trusted according to the Source itself.

Like religion and politics, "number" talk is off-limits for me in general because people get so pissy and judgmental about it and can't seem to have a rational, adult conversation about it.

@_Hokahey_ At what number do you suddenly graduate to "easy"?


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

tnredhead said:


> @_Hokahey_ At what number do you suddenly graduate to "easy"?


I don't think it's "suddenly" you are this or that at a number. Being "easy" I think would be more of a "frame of mind" than just a number. Again it was stated he could "easily" sleep with over half the people he meets. If someone has a low resistance from stopping them from having sex with another human being I would call that "easy". Their choice in who they would sleep with is a much higher percent, making it "easier" for someone to be in that percentage.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

@Hokahey: You're still presuming that sleeping with people is something that's normally to be avoided unless convinced otherwise. You even use the word "resistance".

How does it make sense for someone to think "Well.. I already slept with # people, so I probably shouldn't sleep with this person...." 

More than anything else, I want to be free to enjoy my liberty. Seems like the sexual revolution has gone back to near 1950's expectations except for those that are "easy".


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Wow seriously dude, just "let it go". OMG an internet monster called me "easy".....

Percentage wise is your "likely-hood" of sleeping with someone much "higher" (then probably a general/average person's)? Yes or No?

In your own words about wanting to sleep with at least half of the people you interact with. So the answer would be "yes", correct?

Percentage wise "alone" that makes it "less to be picky with" I will explain, if someone would "truly" only sleep with 2 or 3 out of a 100 and you would sleep with 55 out of a 100, that means 55% of the people meet with less "resistance" to sleeping with "you" than the person who is at 2 to 3%. This doesn't make you scum, this doesn't mean you are a "lower lifeform", this doesn't mean you are "immoral", like you said you enjoy what you enjoy. However this DOES make you more "readily available" and less likely for "resistance" comparatively "qualifying" you as "easy". See how the math works in all this?



> More than anything else, I want to be free to enjoy my liberty.


Nothing wrong with that. But I don't complain when I go to work as an accountant but hate the phrase "pencil pusher" or something. 

Let me ask this what is "negative" to you about the word "easy"? The social stigmata surrounding the word that you already reject society's outlook on? - Wait so what's the problem again?

Does it mean you don't have a soul? or feelings? NO. 

I'm not understanding why it's so hard to come to grips with this.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

I'm not going to keep fighting with you, nor nitpicking at what you said. You clearly fail to understand the issue with the vocabulary and the "issue" of "begging" the "question".

Feel "free" to add any "last word". You can have it.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

Holy quotation marks @Hokahey

:tongue:


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

William I am said:


> EDIT: I just noticed 1/3rd of respondents to this poll are virgins.... Probably throws off the normalcy factor a lot.


And most of the others are quite young. . . so still have a certain naivety about them.



> One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.


Who would tell the truth if they'll be judged negatively and accused of being 'easy' or 'unselective'?
The answers given on a poll like this will always be skewed.


----------



## tnredhead (Apr 5, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> And most of the others are quite young. . . so still have a certain naivety about them.
> 
> Who would tell the truth if they'll be judged negatively and accused of being 'easy' or 'unselective'?
> The answers given on a poll like this will always be skewed.


Or prudish, insecure, afraid of sex, etc if their number is "too low". It works both ways and is equally annoying in both cases.


----------



## Indigo Aria (Jan 12, 2010)

I find it interesting that the number of votes, as a trend, seem to gradually drop off up until 16, and then 19+ has 10% of the vote. I would try to draw a psychological conclusion from this, but I'm too drunk.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

TheLuckyOne said:


> I find it interesting that the number of votes, as a trend, seem to gradually drop off up until 16, and then 19+ has 10% of the vote. I would try to draw a psychological conclusion from this, but I'm too drunk.


If we cut it off at 15, we'd see the same thing, no? I think you still have a point though. How about a thread that goes up to 50 or 80 in stages of 3-5 partners? That would be more useful.


----------



## Hardstyler (Sep 4, 2010)

My god. 19+ is a bit high unless your like 60+ something years old and still single


----------



## Indigo Aria (Jan 12, 2010)

William I am said:


> If we cut it off at 15, we'd see the same thing, no? I think you still have a point though. How about a thread that goes up to 50 or 80 in stages of 3-5 partners? That would be more useful.


No, I don't think cutting it off at 15 would be the same. It seems significant to me that there are -0- votes for both 17 an 18.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

tnredhead said:


> Or prudish, insecure, afraid of sex, etc if their number is "too low". It works both ways and is equally annoying in both cases.


I meant skewed in either direction.



TheLuckyOne said:


> I find it interesting that the number of votes, as a trend, seem to gradually drop off up until 16, and then 19+ has 10% of the vote. I would try to draw a psychological conclusion from this, but I'm too drunk.


I think some of those are the 'protest' votes. The people who don't care and see no point in keeping count and so they'll put in the highest number on the poll. I haven't voted, but if I was going to I'd choose that one, even if it's not true. That would be my way of saying that "it is just not important and so I'm going to pull the average as far out of line as I can".



Hardstyler said:


> My god. 19+ is a bit high unless your like 60+ something years old and still single


When you're 20, you have a plan. You think I'll get married at 25, get a house in the suburbs and have 2.2 children, a cat and a dog. In that scenario, your number of partners gets to as high as 3 (maybe 4), and that's it.
You still believe in some fairy tales and "happily ever after endings".
We're conditioned to think like this.

So you can't conceive that you'd ever sleep with 15 (or even 19) people.

When you're 30+, you've lived a bit longer . . . maybe the plan didn't work. . . but you tried. 
Or maybe you developed your own way of thinking and decided that you didn't like the plan.
Or maybe you did the plan, got married at 25 and divorced at 29, and you're disillusioned.
Or maybe you and hubby decide you want to live the swinging lifestyle.

Who knows what the future'll bring.

But if you're older, you should be in a better position to see things more objectively. . . 
even if you still haven't slept with a lot of people, you'd be more understanding and you can conceive of more non-derogatory circumstances where it might happen


Besides, 20 partners at 60 is 1 every 2 years (beyond the age of 20).

Edited to add: if I had been having this discussion at age 20, my view would've been quite similar to a lot of the views that I see here and that I now disagree with.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

27 and over 60 different women, probably more


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Chrysantheist said:


> I have a high sex drive, a hard time falling in love, and a tendency to move around a lot. So my number is high, only because I spend relatively little time actually in a relationship, and go through flings with various lovers depending on where I am. However, if you take the number of partners I've had with the number of years I've been sexually active, I average about 1.5 sexual partners per year.
> 
> I would not judge someone for having high or low numbers. I would prefer not to sleep with virgins or people who have only slept with one or two people because my lack of emotional intimacy means that it's going to take me a lot longer to become attached and people with low numbers tend to do that a bit easier than those with 5+ partners. I haven't found a significant difference in how good someone is in bed with however many people s/he has slept with.
> 
> ...


Very well said. However, I am sure it fell on deaf ears. I relate to your sexual journey very much as it reminds me of my own. And, I average 1.7 partners per year for the number of years I have been sexually active.

@twoofthree....great job exemplifying sound *logic* in your posts. You have a lot of patience and I enjoy reading your posts within this thread.

I've observed an alarming amount of black and white thinking within this thread. Not surprising to me. I don't have a problem with other people's opinion we are all entitled to our opinions. HOWEVER, I do have a problem when people start judging and classifying others based on their opinions. 

If someone prefers someone with a low number or high number of sexual partners, I say to each his own. As for me, I could careless about the number of sexual partners someone has and I don't inquire either as that doesn't concern me. What does concern me is the sexual practices of a potential partner. 

In other words, I will ask how often do you get tested, when was the last time you were tested, what were the results, do you typically get tested when changing sexual partners, and do you ride bareback or do you use a condom.

And, if I'm trying to gauge if a person is someone I want to commit to, number of past sexual partners is the least of my concerns. Family of origin dynamics, level of maturity, level of self esteem, level of self confidence, level of emotional maturity, level of conflict and resolution skills, trustworthiness, level of independence, etc would rank much higher on my list of investigation to determine if I want to commit my energy and time into a committed relationship.


----------



## Super Awesome (Jul 11, 2011)

I don't know what the "normal" number is, I only know my number, and that I'm comfortable and happy with the sexual choices I've made.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

I have a Type 4 friend. He was always very against promiscuity, and it took me the longest time to figure out why because it wasn't religiously based and he had different values than his parents. Once I had these four things pieced together, it became pretty obvious: 

1: He was against promiscuity for reasons he couldn't explain.

2: All of his relationships were with girls that he stole away from other men, besides one that he wasn't interested in. (Everyone loved her personality and thought she was attractive, but he just wasn't into her.) Once someone was talking to him about an attractive, single girl with a good personality and he showed no interest. Moments later, a girl walked by with her boyfriend and he was looking her up and down enthusiastically. 

3: He lost interest in one girl, but if they lost interest in him, he'd pursue them for years after they broke up, never really losing interest. 

4: He had what I had heard called "shy narcissism". Superiority, lack of empathy, etc. He treated everyone but his girlfriend at the time as less than him. 

One of the criteria for narcissism is "preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love". His NPD wasn't as obvious because his preoccupation was mostly with "ideal love". A huge part of his personality was getting off on finding the ideal woman, seducing her to leave her boyfriend/husband for him, and keeping her as long as he could keep up the illusion that she's perfect, or she became bored. 

Sure, he put only one woman at a time on a pedastle, but it was only about pumping her up in his mind to goddess status so that *his *ego was gratified for dating/pleasing a goddess. He'd serenade his girlfriend/wife, shower her with gifts, draw pictures of her, etc. He never lost interest to any woman that he didn't steal away from a man. To do so would indicate he was inferior by picking a love interest that wasn't so great. They'd lose interest in him, however, because he gave himself completely to them, making him utterly boring. 

The point is that it was easy for him to talk down to others by asserting that his views on intimacy were deep and superior. It was a lot harder for him to break outside of his idealistic, narcissistic worldview. Intimacy is amazing and enjoyable on all levels, not just an idealistic one. 

Sure, intimacy is supposedly better with one you truly love (whatever that means). That doesn't mean that it isn't enjoyable with someone you're good friends with, or even someone really interesting you recently met.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

hm i'm 30 and have had 4 partners. but i dated one guy from age 18-23, and i've been with my husband since age 25.


----------



## Sup3rSloth (Aug 15, 2011)

I have a friend who was at around the 15 mark when he was 17 years old. It think for some people it becomes a fairly standard thing, and so there is no point keeping track.


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

I don't give a shit how many people my partner has been with, but I will be blunt and ask her if she has an STD and not have sex with her until she gets checked.....safe lesbian sex is weird and limited so I usually prefer her to sleep with less people than I do unless she can handle my honesty. 

But, just think of it this way, you go out almost every weekend when you're young, okay? And what usually happens? You come home with someone. Okay. So, let's do the maths here, how many weekends are there in a year? 52. 

Okay, so, divide 52 by 2, let's say you only score every second week, now take away all your failures, you now have around 20 and that's for _one year_ and that's _at least_. Twenty doesn't surprise me at all. But I've read 7 is still the average for men and 4 the average for women. I always just assumed these were the ugly losers and prudes skewing the results though.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

^ I didn't go out every weekend and attempt to hook up with men when I was younger. Wtf. Not everyone makes it their goal to try to screw a new person every weekend.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

Aßbiscuits said:


> But I've read 7 is still the average for men and 4 the average for women. I always just assumed these were the ugly losers and prudes skewing the results though.


*skews the results further* :laughing:


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

Eerie said:


> ^ I didn't go out every weekend and attempt to hook up with men when I was younger. Wtf. Not everyone makes it their goal to try to screw a new person every weekend.


You weren't a cool kid. Duh.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Eerie said:


> ^ I didn't go out every weekend and attempt to hook up with men when I was younger. Wtf. Not everyone makes it their goal to try to screw a new person every weekend.


Same here. I can go further and say that I didn't go out on *any* weekend with the intention of hooking up.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Stephen said:


> *skews the results further* :laughing:


shouldn't that be _screws_ the results :tongue:



Aßbiscuits said:


> You weren't a cool kid. Duh.


If that's the definition of cool, then I read the wrong dictionary.


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

twoofthree said:


> shouldn't that be _screws_ the results :tongue:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the definition of cool, then I read the wrong dictionary.


Lol you looked in the dictionary for the definition of cool.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

Aßbiscuits said:


> You weren't a cool kid. Duh.


By cool do you mean easy? Cause I certainly was not.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

Aßbiscuits said:


> But I've read 7 is still the average for men and 4 the average for women. I always just assumed these were the ugly losers and prudes skewing the results though.


 somebody must be telling porkies. Numbers don't add up.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

0
It would be 1 or more, but my fucking roommate has to keep on interrupting!


----------



## Celtic Dreams (Sep 7, 2011)

I think this one might be hard to judge correctly. Their attitudes at the time may not be their former attitudes. Also, if they don't have any diseases, then they don't, if they do they do, why not test instead of worry? And you can't always tell if someone is promiscuous just by the number of people they have been with over the years. Like some have said, a guy that's been married for 20 years is going to have a much lower total number than someone that's been single for 20 years. Even if he dated one woman at a time, for a year each, that's 20 partners, but I wouldn't really call him promiscuous (although I would seriously worry about commitment issues.) 

And one more concern.. a personal thing so I hope I won't be judged harshly. I was married very young and my husband was the third person I had ever slept with. I was prepared to keep it that way, but he felt monogamy was very boring. He brought up the subjects of swinging and wife-swapping very early in our marriage, and though I was shocked and hurt at first, he kept bringing it up year after year until finally he threatened to leave the marriage, which I did not want because of our children. So though not physically forced, I was emotionally coerced into having sex with multiple partners, and the number grew high very quickly. Almost all of the number of people I've been with come from that two year period. 

So knowing that about myself, I'd be more likely to judge a person by their attitude and physical health, rather than sheer numbers.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

@Aßbiscuits: How the hell did you get to that 50% success rate? Even the people I've known who went home with people managed it rarely - like <5% of the time they tried to - and about half of the times I heard about someone or other wimped out. You don't have any photos, but if it's from personal experience 1) You're female and 2) You probably have looks or style that works strongly to your advantage.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

It really doesn't matter to me how many partners someone has had, as long as they have been tested for STI's before engaging with me..


----------



## Silhouette (Sep 21, 2011)

There's no "normal number", but it's hard for me to let loose and enjoy myself with virgins.



Ephemerald said:


> Getting upwards of twenty, I doubt I could even view you as a person anymore...
> ... ... ...more like a walking STD bank.


I never understood this mindset. It doesn't compute. Condoms anyone...?


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Silhouette said:


> There's no "normal number", but it's hard for me to let loose and enjoy myself with virgins.
> 
> I never understood this mindset. It doesn't compute. Condoms anyone...?


That's all right. I'm sure if you read the entire thread, you'd pick up on a variety of opinions.

If you understood everyone's perspective, life would be pretty boring, eh?

Condoms had nothing to do with my post.


----------



## Silhouette (Sep 21, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> That's all right. I'm sure if you read the entire thread, you'd pick up on a variety of opinions.
> 
> If you understood everyone's perspective, life would be pretty boring, eh?


I guess so. I just wanted to understand where you're coming from, considering you're INTJ and thus have a natural ability to back up your claims with sound reasoning. Your first post sounded a little harsh and not very logical, that's all.



Big bad wolf said:


> Number is a _potential _indicator of several things. I think it's important to validate your assumptions, before coming to a final conclusion. A high number of partners _can_ be indicative of something negative.


I can agree with this.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> Condoms had nothing to do with my post.


 - unfortunately.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Silhouette said:


> I guess so. I just wanted to understand where you're coming from, considering you're INTJ and thus have a natural ability to back up your claims with sound reasoning. Your first post sounded a little harsh and not very logical, that's all.


Hence why I mentioned reviewing the thread. That post is on the first page. Do you really think you're the first person to notice it? I prefer not wasting my time covering old ground.



William I am said:


> - unfortunately.


Yes, it's a shame people value condoms over character.

"Unfortunately" - right back at you.


----------



## Silhouette (Sep 21, 2011)

Thank you, I've found the posts you're (propably) referring to. No more questions.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

funcoolname said:


> ...


Personality type has nothing to do with it. I don't recall saying anything about that.

Most of my harsh "judgement" responses are to those who shared the same courtesy (i.e. "shortsighted"). After all, I'm about 12 posts in so far, scattered, responding to quite a few people. Some people are pleasant, and others (posts deleted) have been nothing but insulting. Otherwise, I'm just telling it how it is for me--and quite directly. As for your statement of "psychologically disgusting;" I did not put those words together. Please quote accurately. Yes, that approach to dating disgusts me--meant in that it repulses me away.

I want to make something perfectly clear here: I never insulted anyone directly who didn't deserve the casual chiding for chiding me first. I've said this many times, but some people aren't reading the entire thread. I've professed my preferences, cut and dry, while explaining why I condone others. I can't control what you do with that information, but I will return the favor if you critically flame me in your mistaken interpretation. Wonderful people can sleep with what ever laundry list they desire. I never called anyone a "scum of the earth" nor have I made judgements of anyone's character--I said exactly what I think of the actions and how I consider them in the character of someone I'd date.

Did it come across like I repeated myself? I did that on purpose.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Personally, how I judge someone based on 20+ partners has to do with whether they come off as flippant/emotionally unstable or are just tremendously emotionally satisfied and so only desire easygoing relationships at that time in their life. I don't think there's anything inherently positive or negative about having 20+ partners. 

If someone has 20+ partners, and also mention that they take safety precautions, make sure they never hurt their partners, and are completely honest, I admire them. To me it means they have honesty, maturity, social tact, and independent thought. I do not believe sex to be an inherently bad thing, so there's no reason to believe that the higher the number, likely the worse the person.

Though if someone has 20+ partners flippantly, you can guess what I think of them.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

ManhattanINTP said:


> Personally, how I judge someone based on 20+ partners has to do with whether they come off as flippant/emotionally unstable or are just tremendously emotionally satisfied and so only desire easygoing relationships at that time in their life. I don't think there's anything inherently positive or negative about having 20+ partners.
> 
> If someone has 20+ partners, and also mention that they take safety precautions, make sure they never hurt their partners, and are completely honest, I admire them. To me it means they have honesty, maturity, social tact, and independent thought.
> 
> If someone has 20+ partners flippantly, you can guess what I think of them.


I would agree with this, but I'm certainly not going to be the nth partner until I understand your character well enough to seriously consider it. The scale will start off well against you. I don't want to be another person in your laundry list, and regardless, I'd have difficulty desiring sex with someone who had that much experience. I'd *really* need to know you well, trust you, and be assured in your intentions. Like I said, the standards are there so I don't waste my emotional investment.

As an INTP, you're probably familiar with the insanity of what "emotional investment" means.


----------



## funcoolname (Sep 17, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> ..


 I'm sorry, "psychologically distasteful" was the phrase. And I talked about INTPs because you suggested that one person go ask the INTPs about something, but now I can't tell if it was about not being promiscuous or getting off-topic. It doesn't matter now. I know you didn't call anyone the scum of the earth, but your writing suggested as much at times. My post mostly intended to point out that you were receiving so many strong negative reactions because your wording at times was very strong. It's just the principles of emotional physics. "You catch more bees with honey than vinegar" :/


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

funcoolname said:


> I'm sorry, "psychologically distasteful" was the phrase. And I talked about INTPs because you suggested that one person go ask the INTPs about something, but now I can't tell if it was about not being promiscuous or getting off-topic. It doesn't matter now. I know you didn't call anyone the scum of the earth, but your writing suggested as much at times. My post mostly intended to point out that you were receiving so many strong negative reactions because your wording at times was very strong. It's just the principles of emotional physics. "You catch more bees with honey than vinegar" :/


I sort of like using honey from time to time. It lets loose raw emotions. The writing becomes passionate and I see people for who they really are, not what they want to reveal. The only problem is playing beekeeper. 

What can I say... I'm rather cold, lacking compassion and empathy at times.

The INTP thing was in reference the quotes he shared. That could get quite philosophical and the best place for essays of stuff about nothing (okay, there's some critical thought too) is in the INTP forum.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> regardless, I'd have difficulty desiring sex with someone who had that much experience.


Why? Seems like the sex would be better. 



> As an INTP, you're probably familiar with the insanity of what "emotional investment" means.


Indeed I am. However, there are different levels of relationships and I'm just talking about sexual partners. There are people who have ample sexual partners, but are harder to please on a deeper level and so have only a few actual relationships. Not surprisingly, I've noticed a lot of INTP women are like this. I admire them because of their independence of social convention. 

I too protect myself from emotional investment. Though, most of that is accomplished by intuition. When somebody is telling me one thing and my intuition is telling me another, I trust my gut. I've had plenty of situations where someone was trying to tell me what I want to hear, but I correctly didn't accept it.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

ManhattanINTP said:


> ...


Because I'm investing in character, not sex. "Better sex" is the last thing on my mind. Otherwise, I'd want the sex to really mean something--invested, like I've invested in her. The number of partners is the usual cue that what we seek is incompatible, and I've always been right. I desire a long-term, slowly shared relationship where intimacy trumps sex, and I value sex as the greatest thing you can give--yourself. This is why I value virginity, not that it's a necessity. To go through so many partners so frequently is an automatic turnoff to me. It gives me the impression that you don't take love too seriously--seriously as I'd define it.


----------



## funcoolname (Sep 17, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> ..


The bees and honey phrase doesn't mean you'll get stung. Oh I see where you went with it, I messed it up, haha. It's "you catch more flies with honey". Wrong insect. because you want to catch flies and not bees clearly. It just means it's easier to get your point across to people if you're polite and don't do personal attacks (honey) than if you are confrontational (vinegar). I'm just sayin' you got defensive and chided people for chiding you, but when you call people "STD banks", you have to expect that's going to create a backlash. 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I agree with ManhattanINTP. I dislike the double standard of men being able to sleep with a lot of people, while if women do the same they're unwanted and gross and slutty (I am not saying anyone on this thread believes this, I just know there are people out there who do). As long as the person doesn't hurt/cheat/lie to other people and is capable of having a healthy relationship with someone they care about, it's a matter of preference and/or circumstance. I just don't like generalizations, and the number of partners a person has had can only tell you something about character in some cases. For example, who has heard of Courtney Stodden? She was saving herself for marriage, got married at 16, and if they remain together her partner # won't be very high, but please look at her on Google or YouTube. I would rather be married to a guy who's slept with whatever 15, 20 people, but can commit and is awesome and genuine, than a male version of Courtney Stodden who hasn't slept with a lot of people. I mean, it's just not a dealbreaker for me if everything else is intact.

I also know of people who have slept with people only to find the guy was a jerk and they honestly weren't aware of it, or people who have gone through times of emotional turmoil and slept with quite a few people, but they're better now, still genuinely good people, and deserving of happiness with someone.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> Because I'm investing in character, not sex. "Better sex" is the last thing on my mind. Otherwise, I'd want the sex to really mean something--invested, like I've invested in her. The number of partners is the usual cue that what we seek is incompatible, and I've always been right. I desire a long-term, slowly shared relationship where intimacy trumps sex, and I value sex as the greatest thing you can give--yourself. This is why I value virginity, not that it's a necessity. To go through so many partners so frequently is an automatic turnoff to me. It gives me the impression that you don't take love too seriously--seriously as I'd define it.


Sex with someone special is special. Sex with someone who is not special is still physically enjoyable. I see no reason to limit physical enjoyment. A sensation should stand on it's own; you shouldn't have to limit it to keep it on a pedastle. From personal experience, regardless of how many people you enjoy sex with, it'll still stand way out if you have a bond with someone. There's more we can get into insofar as the costs/benefits of limiting pleasure with a numeric argument, but it's pretty easy to assume what it is. 

I think most people would agree that the greatest thing you can give someone is complete loyalty/devotion. (Some may disagree if this is even possible, or if we just come close.) Complete loyalty/devotion isn't necessary to feel physical pleasure, nor is physical exclusivity necessary for emotional devotion. 

It seems that nearly everyone takes love more seriously than sex. Sex is ambiguous. It's either an expression of feelings, simply physical pleasure, or both. I've met enough people that believe sex can be independent of love, that are openly sexual, but have a deep depth of caring and exclusivity when they find that special someone. To these people, their sex number has nothing to do with how seriously they take love.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

funcoolname said:


> ...


Surprisingly, few people had anything to say about the STD bit, and it was front page to boot. I can't lie though. When I'd be the nth partner, that's something that's definitely on my mind.

I don't like double standards either. Men are equally slutty to be sleeping around, and even though I'm not after romance, that would reflect the same on my character assessment--I'd question how close a friendship I'd want, not being associated with you. Otherwise it just comes across to me like I've explained numerous times. If I were a woman, I wouldn't be interested.

I'd rather take love casually through a good friendship, then I know a lot about them already.



ManhattanINTP said:


> ...


I don't enjoy sex just for physical pleasure. In fact it's hollow and displeasing. I need an intimate attachment. In the event of considering romance, I seek complete loyalty/devotion. It's what I offer and why I have standards. For me, interest in physical pleasure arises out of that intense emotional attachment. Sex is for some what it isn't for others. Some will give it freely, otherwise will treasure it as a unique expression for someone very special. I fall into the latter category. I'm not questioning the love, rather discriminating the beliefs, development and expression. It is a philosophy I don't subscribe to.


As much as I'd love to just go on forever with this topic, I'm worn out.

I think I'm finished with any serious replies to this thread.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Yes, conversation any topic typically stagnates when it reaches the point of values. It's very difficult for people to discuss values competently. I believe part of this is because people often don't completely know why they have values, as they run so deep. 

Conversation stagnating or not, I'll say though that I do not believe you get no physical pleasure out of sex unless you have damage to your nervous system or a vitamin deficiency. Assuming you don't have nervous damage, if you really don't enjoy climaxing, I seriously recommend you try L-arginine and Lechithin.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

ManhattanINTP said:


> ...


I've shared enough values for one thread. I've just covered the same shallow ground several times. No sense going deeper if people don't understand what the hell you're saying in the first place.

I suppose if I were drugged or drunk and a hot woman raped me, I might enjoy it. 

Myeah, let's not go there.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Ephemerald said:


> No sense going deeper if people don't understand what the hell you're saying in the first place.


Careful with those assumptions.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

ManhattanINTP said:


> Careful with those assumptions.


I hate covering old ground and repeatedly explaining something. It's the INTJ in me. 

Given that I've done it at least five times, I think that's quite generous. I'm content being an ass.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

About 45 I think...


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

Ya know, if I could have changed my gender to become a woman, I'd gladly take a paycheck decrease, have less rights than a man if it means I could have sex whenever I want with whomever I want. Be supported by someone else, etc.


----------



## Ian.yclept (Nov 20, 2011)

I don't know what "Normal" means. Some people have played tennis with many partners. Some people have never played tennis. The number has an effect on mate strategy and selection, but gets overblown because mate selection is where all the cameras are looking when nothing else has their attention.

In terms of partner selection, I do ascribe to the wife-girlfriend-hookup boxes - a larger number of maternal partners erodes paternal investment. Wives are pretty virgins, girlfriends are "normal" girls, and hookups have histories. Men can still marry outside the box, but it's a bit like driving through a bad neighborhood. 

Personally, I've only regretted the talleys when I didn't feel anything for the person, wasted numbers.


----------



## Sammiches (Oct 14, 2011)

I already forgot how much of the topic I read, I blame multiple tabs and a short attention span, but here's just some random thoughts.

Something to keep in mind is how often is the person having sex with "random" people? If it happens once every year, then it might not be such a big issue. Also, maybe it's not these "random" people, but steady partners, just over a longer time. Six-month (just to have an example number) relationships, in my opinion, are not "slutty," even if you've had ten of them. How the "pace" (correct word?) of your past partners was is also going to affect my opinion, if you had sex with ten people one year and then haven't had sex at all in five, there's probably a story behind it, such as psychological or social problems that a lot (relatively) of people have at some point.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

Would I date someone if they had a high number? Yes, if dating entailed a month's pursuit of utter narcissistic lust and violent sex (ENFJ female one time....oooh man what an experience). Yes only if I could get past my natural reservation of high numbers in females if I was prospecting a relationship, but likely not.

Would I date someone if they had a low number? More than likely, yes.


----------



## Mercer (Nov 6, 2009)

according to wikipedia the average nmber for men in north america is 7, and a global survey conducted in 2005 suggests that the average number world wide is 9.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

29 now and expected to go up New Years.


----------



## lethal lava land (Aug 2, 2011)

Damn..goin for the big 3-0.


----------



## vaskopilot (Dec 29, 2011)

Someone who has had a lot of sexual partners means that they constantly date people, which brings us to the point that they will most likely brake up with me on the 3rd date because that's who they are. So a lower number is better for me.


----------



## lethal lava land (Aug 2, 2011)

vaskopilot said:


> Someone who has had a lot of sexual partners means that they constantly date people, which brings us to the point that they will most likely brake up with me on the 3rd date because that's who they are. So a lower number is better for me.


Unless they sleep around, and fuck people they're not dating. It could be their dating life is conducted differently from when they're not dating people..meaning they might be a great person, but fool around on the side when they're not dating to fulfill a 'need' for sex.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

vaskopilot said:


> Someone who has had a lot of sexual partners means that they constantly date people, which brings us to the point that they will most likely brake up with me on the 3rd date because that's who they are. So a lower number is better for me.


 How are you using the quantification of number dates to sex to qualify better exactly?


----------



## vaskopilot (Dec 29, 2011)

The more sex you have the more boyfriends you've had. If sex>boyfriends, then that girl would be classified as a seductress. I'm looking for long term.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

vaskopilot said:


> The more sex you have the more boyfriends you've had. If sex>boyfriends, then that girl would be classified as a seductress. I'm looking for long term.


 Flawed logic but if it works for you then by all means... Reason being correlation ≠ causation. Those break-ups can happen for a multitude of reasons that you may never understand yourself why it happened the way it did. Looking at even if they had a track record of long-term relationships before isn't an indication of anything other than cold feet and just sticking around to settle for the moment then bam, something better comes along. So many angles at looking into a persons relationship.


----------



## vaskopilot (Dec 29, 2011)

I understand what you mean, I guess that would be a flaw in my statement.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

lethal lava land said:


> Damn..goin for the big 3-0.


 I know right? If only I had impregnated a woman at 3 or 4 then, ONLY then, I could have been in a long-term relationship... for life with a kid involved XD


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

vaskopilot said:


> I understand what you mean, I guess that would be a flaw in my statement.


 My advice as crass as it may sound, once you knock up a girl, welcome to a long-term relationship.


----------



## vaskopilot (Dec 29, 2011)

That may not be the case sometimes. It could be a one night stand...... 
But that all really depends on the girl and her way of dealing with sex.
Whether it'd be important and powerful, or just another day.


----------



## lethal lava land (Aug 2, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> I know right? If only I had impregnated a woman at 3 or 4 then, ONLY then, I could have been in a long-term relationship... for life with a kid involved XD


The upside to being gay, for me, is I don't have to worry about impregnating a woman. The downside, is I physically can't impregnante a woman which puts a slight damper on my (eventual) plan to have children.


----------

