My girlfriend is an ex <> slept with 15 guys

[greywolf]

I said "ex ho" because that's what she was.

 

I think it's sad that you don't have any respect for her. Honestly, I think you should do her a favor and break up with her. =/

[greywolf]

I honestly believe this objectifies people. Your partner isn't an object. I probably wouldn't get along very well with someone who has had a lot of sexual partners either; however, I'd never say that it was disgusting. That view is very judgmental.

[greywolf]

15 is a modest number? Then I wonder where I fit in with my 2 experiences... A prude? I really am not. I think sex is amazing but people really do abuse it a lot so it's starting to become really dumb for me to do it anymore.

 

When I was 18, I had 0 sexual experience, and would probably have considered 2 partners at that time disgusting, not to mention what I would have thought about a FWB.

[Lucius]

I honestly believe this objectifies people. Your partner isn't an object. I probably wouldn't get along very well with someone who has had a lot of sexual partners either; however, I'd never say that it was disgusting. That view is very judgmental.

 

Hmm. I disagree. Being disgusted by something (or finding something distasteful) is often quite different from being judgmental. Indeed, disgust usually precedes any reasoning at all. It's when someone takes that distaste, rationalizes it, and uses it to label a person that this sentiment becomes judgment (in the negative sense). Before that it's just a personal distaste - an aversion that typically precedes rationalization (and therefore condemnation, moralizing, and so forth).

 

I'll admit that the thought of a partner having many, many sex partners is a turn-off for me. It's not insecurity - I'm quite confident, self-assured, and relaxed. It's distaste. There's no need for that distaste - it's not a necessary or rational feeling, but there it is. I'm not going to pretend that aversion's not there, but I'm not going to rationalize it and demonize anyone with it either. We can be honest about our preferences and tastes without implying condemnation.

[greywolf]

This isn't a flaw with the argument. There will be a range of promiscuity amongst women. I'm suggesting that most men, whether they are promiscuous or not, will *tend* to seek out less promiscuous women for LTRs. Just like most men *tend* to seek out more physically attractive women.

 

The problem with that is that men want a women who is not very sexually experienced, then they complain later on when their girlfriend loses their sex drive. It's usually the ones that have issues about sex that find a lot of partners disgusting.

[vertigoxo]

When I was 18, I had 0 sexual experience, and would probably have considered 2 partners at that time disgusting, not to mention what I would have thought about a FWB.

 

And I'm the judgmental one?

 

Anyway, what I did in the past was a bit skanky, to say the least. But at least it's not like I've had over 20 FWBs in my life. Now that would be concerning.

 

Hmm. I disagree. Being disgusted by something (or finding something distasteful) is often quite different from being judgmental. Indeed, disgust usually precedes any reasoning at all. It's when someone takes that distaste, rationalizes it, and uses it to label a person that this sentiment becomes judgment (in the negative sense). Before that it's just a personal distaste - an aversion that typically precedes rationalization (and therefore condemnation, moralizing, and so forth).

 

I'll admit that the thought of a partner having many, many sex partners is a turn-off for me. It's not insecurity - I'm quite confident, self-assured, and relaxed. It's distaste. There's no need for that distaste - it's not a necessary or rational feeling, but there it is. I'm not going to pretend that aversion's not there, but I'm not going to rationalize it and demonize anyone with it either.

 

Exactly what I've been trying to say here. I mean, I don't go around preaching about religious stuff to people who are sexually liberating, nor do I think I am better than them in any way. They are still people in my eyes. We all have a past and we all make mistakes, just like I have... But when you carry this attitude that you feel you are more better than virgins/people with less sexual partners, that's when I get angry. I hate it when people go, "I would never be with a virgin or someone that doesn't have much experiences. They must suck in bed!" Uh, no. That's a really stupid assumption. There are virgins out there that got pretty good after the first few tries with one partner just like there are many "swingers" out there that suck in bed.

 

My FWB... Jesus. He really did sucked in bed. And this is the guy who has slept with many, many people.

 

If I meet someone whom I really like and want to have a relationship with that person, I wouldn't care about their past as long as they want to commit to me and only me. I will have my doubts, but if I like them, then I will go out with them. However, this will rarely happen since I'm more likely to turn down an offer to date someone if they had a colorful past. Case closed.

[Cognitive_Canine]

If I meet someone whom I really like and want to have a relationship with that person, I wouldn't care about their past as long as they want to commit to me and only me. I will have my doubts, but if I like them, then I will go out with them. However, this will rarely happen since I'm more likely to turn down an offer to date someone if they had a colorful past. Case closed.

 

These two statements contradict each other.

 

I won't judge their past and will have relationships with them.

 

But I will turn down them and never give them a chance because of their past.

[diabolik]

The problem with that is that men want a women who is not very sexually experienced, then they complain later on when their girlfriend loses their sex drive.

Are you saying there's a negative correlation between # of partners and loss of sex drive?

It's usually the ones that have issues about sex that find a lot of partners disgusting.

Not sure I follow. By 'the ones that have issues about sex', are you referring to men or women?

[greywolf]

And I'm the judgmental one?

 

Anyway, what I did in the past was a bit skanky, to say the least. But at least it's not like I've had over 20 FWBs in my life. Now that would be concerning.

 

 

I was just sharing to you my viewpoint when I was a virginal 18-year old. I don't believe your past was skanky and I would never call a woman a skank, ho, sl&t, etc. regardless of number of past sexual partners. Women are only skanks when they sleep with whomever they want and are hurting people in the process.

[vertigoxo]

These two statements contradict each other.

 

I won't judge their past and will have relationships with them.

 

But I will turn down them and never give them a chance because of their past.

 

Hmm... Now that I read it again, it does sound contradicting. I apologize.

 

I would give people a chance who has had a past IF they agree to commit to me and me only, and to stop living the single life. (Like going to clubs to dance/flirt/get numbers from strangers, flirt around, cheat on me, etc.)

 

But this is, of course, if I REALLY like them as a person.

[vertigoxo]

I was just sharing to you my viewpoint when I was a virginal 18-year old. I don't believe your past was skanky and I would never call a woman a skank, ho, sl&t, etc. regardless of number of past sexual partners. Women are only skanks when they sleep with whomever they want and are hurting people in the process.

 

It's funny because I have had people telling me, "God what a ____ she is! Look at her!" when they themselves have a colorful past. I think people have a certain range of numbers before one surpasses and thus receive the sl&t label.

 

Anyway, I agree with your statement. People who have sex and hurt people in the process are the real harlots here.

[greywolf]

Are you saying there's a negative correlation between # of partners and loss of sex drive?

 

Not sure I follow. By 'the ones that have issues about sex', are you referring to men or women?

 

I am saying that, in my experience (I don't speak for all women here), the women who throw around the words 'skank' or 'ho' to other women who have slept with more people than they have (and they are usually the 'less promiscuous' ones), are usually the ones that have issues when it comes to sex.

 

Yes, I was referring to women.

[diabolik]

I am saying that, in my experience (I don't speak for all women here), the women who throw around the words 'skank' or 'ho' to other women who have slept with more people than they have (and they are usually the 'less promiscuous' ones), are usually the ones that have issues when it comes to sex.

 

Yes, I was referring to women.

Is this a widely observed phenomenon? I don't see why a girl who is very selective about who she sleeps with, and has had, say, 5 partners, is more likely to have issues when it comes to sex, than a woman with 50 partners. In fact, I would think the opposite is true.

[vertigoxo]

Is this a widely observed phenomenon? I don't see why a girl who is very selective about who she sleeps with, and has had, say, 5 partners, is more likely to have issues when it comes to sex, than a woman with 50 partners. In fact, I would think the opposite is true.

 

I agree with this.

[shikashika]

Is this a widely observed phenomenon? I don't see why a girl who is very selective about who she sleeps with, and has had, say, 5 partners, is more likely to have issues when it comes to sex, than a woman with 50 partners. In fact, I would think the opposite is true.

 

I didn't see it as an issue as how many people someone's slept with.

 

I thought greywolf was talking about calling someone nasty names.

 

It only reflects poorly on the person who is calling someone a skank or ho, not the actual 'skank or 'ho'.

 

Anyone who calls someone names has issues.

[shikashika]

 

 

 

Exactly what I've been trying to say here. I mean, I don't go around preaching about religious stuff to people who are sexually liberating, nor do I think I am better than them in any way. They are still people in my eyes. We all have a past and we all make mistakes,

 

.

 

The point is, you think they've made a mistake and 'are still people'. That's a little patronizing. It's like saying, "I will forgive you" and the other person says, "but i didn't do anything wrong"

 

Maybe the don't think they've made any mistakes!

 

the funny thing in this whole thread, is that I don't even have a high number, in my opinion. And, I would never judge someone's date-a-bility by it! or say things like "You've made your mistakes, but oh no, I don't judge"

 

That would be so insulting if someone ever said that.

[diabolik]

I didn't see it as an issue as how many people someone's slept with.

 

I thought greywolf was talking about calling someone nasty names.

OK, that makes sense. But then it isn't really a critique of my argument (which is how I initially interpreted it and thus why I was confused by the subsequent explanation).

[shikashika]

OK, that makes sense. But then it isn't really a critique of my argument (which is how I initially interpreted it and thus why I was confused by the subsequent explanation).

 

well, when greywolf steps back in she can let us know what she meant... that's how I interpreted it!

[greywolf]

The point is, you think they've made a mistake and 'are still people'. That's a little patronizing. It's like saying, "I will forgive you" and the other person says, "but i didn't do anything wrong"

 

Maybe the don't think they've made any mistakes!

 

the funny thing in this whole thread, is that I don't even have a high number, in my opinion. And, I would never judge someone's date-a-bility by it! or say things like "You've made your mistakes, but oh no, I don't judge"

 

That would be so insulting if someone ever said that.

 

I know, it's like those people who say to me, "Oh you're gay? That's ok, I'll still be your friend."

[greywolf]

well, when greywolf steps back in she can let us know what she meant... that's how I interpreted it!

 

What I meant was that many women who judge others based on their sexual experience usually aren't very sexually experienced, and have issues when it comes to sex.

 

And when I say sexual experience, I don't just mean sleeping around. I agree that many women that sleep around may have issues themselves, but if we're just talking numbers, assuming that many of those were people the woman cared about, then I don't really see a problem.

 

I'm not saying that all women are like that. In fact, my number is very low and many people consider me a virgin when they learn of my number; however, people who only know of my viewpoints on sex assume that I'm promiscuous. My point is that the generalization is that people that have an open-minded view of sex are thought to be more promiscuous than others that are more close-minded. And like all generalizations, while not exactly true, it comes from somewhere.

 

Not that I think there's anything wrong with being promiscuous. I'd probably never use that word myself because I think it sounds very negative, but that's the word that was used earlier.

[shikashika]

I agree with what I wrote and what you said too.

 

Whenever I see some people's posts on here, and they have admitted they haven't had many sexual partners, but then totally blast someone that does, it just screams ISSUE!

 

for me, no I don't want to date someone with zero experience, then again, I've never come accross a guy virgin my age...... who knows?

 

but then I'll just leave as a 'no thanks'.

 

Quite often on ENA, the most judgmental posts i read are from people who admit they've only been with one or two people and talk about how people who've slept with such a huge number don't have values, or must have STDs.

 

I'm always surprised to hear the amount of people on here who have such a problem with people's so-called high numbers, because in real life, in my world (and I know a lot of people) I've never met people who think 15 for someone in their thirties is something huge!

 

But I'm surprised with a lot things on ENA!

[sophie274]

Shika, what's the difference between you not wanting to date someone who's had very few partners, and someone else not wanting to date someone who's had a lot? Or between you not wanting to date someone who won't have sex within the first few dates?

 

I don't think it's judgmental to say that someone who's had a lot of partners (which generally means having at least some 'casual sex', ie not in a relationship) has different values than someone who has chosen not to. Values to me means "sex means something different to each of them", and I really don't think it's judgmental to want a partner who thinks about sex the same way you do (just as you have said in the past that you wouldn't be interested in someone who wanted to wait to have sex).

 

I also think the term "judgmental" gets thrown around an awful lot on this subject, without people admitting that we judge people on all sorts of facets when we're dating. Why is it ok to not want to date someone who hasn't traveled, but not ok to not want to date someone who has casual sex? Judging someone on the number of sex partners might seem ridiculous to you, but it's not unfair - after all, that's the life they chose and presumably they are happy with it. Calling someone names is obviously a different animal, but saying "nope, no thanks, next" to someone with more sex partners than what you are comfortable with ... what's the big deal?

 

Not to mention, I honestly believe that there is a number for most everyone that would stop and give them pause. For some it might be 5, and for others it might be 500, but from reading many posts on this forum over the years and talking to others, my impression is that most everyone has some kind of "too much" number.

 

Oh, and on the matter of STDs, it's absolutely true that the more number of sex partners you have, the higher your risk of contracting an STD is. Luckily for everyone's future partners, STD tests are now pretty reliable, so that shouldn't be too much of an issue, except perhaps for HPV, which I don't think can be tested for in men, and for herpes where the tests could be ambiguous (because of the genital/oral location issue).

[shikashika]

we agree with each other, in saying that people have preferences. I was saying that there was no difference, so not sure what your point is in regards to the first comment?

 

and no, it is absolutely NOT true that the more people you sleep with the more chance you will get an STD.

 

I don't know why people keep saying that! It all depends on your attitude towards protecting yourself.

[annie24]

and no, it is absolutely NOT true that the more people you sleep with the more chance you will get an STD.

 

i think i disagree with you there. Unless you are getting an STD test from all of them (and you can get certain STDs while using a condom!!) I think just looking at it from a simple statistics/numbers game, the more people you sleep with, the higher the chance that you will pick the wrong person. It's not 100%. it doesn't mean that the 50th person you sleep with will give you an STD. some people get an STD with the first. I'm just looking at it from a simple High School Statistics class perspective.

[sophie274]

we agree with each other, in saying that people have preferences. I was saying that there was no difference, so not sure what your point is in regards to the first comment?

 

and no, it is absolutely NOT true that the more people you sleep with the more chance you will get an STD.

 

I don't know why people keep saying that! It all depends on your attitude towards protecting yourself.

 

I guess maybe I read your post wrong. I just got the impression in general that many in the thread were saying that it's necessarily wrong to have any sort of opinion about the number of sex partners has had - that is, that it's something that shouldn't matter at all. That's what I disagree with.

 

I agree with you, there is judgment on both sides and it's unfortunate because it's so much easier to say no thanks.

 

And, holding protection as a constant, higher number of sex partners does translate into higher risk of STDs. Obviously whether or not you use protection is an extremely important factor as well. But as I said before, given how accurate STD tests are now, this probably isn't really a factor for most people.