Jump to content

Number of partners.


LoveSoDeep

Recommended Posts

I got his link in an e-mail from Marcus...you know the guy from PoF that sends messages to everyone when there's an update or something.

 

 

 

It's interesting to me that some people think POF is just for hook-ups and promoting this video seems like they are trying to change their reputation.

 

Either way it's an interesting talk (beware it is long).

 

They say the average number of sexual partners for a human being is around 5....so I just wondered if that seemed right to anyone else? They talk about how so many more people are single longer...so it would make sense that the number was higher....thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I think the fact is most people think it'a a low number and that's what is wrong with society today.

 

We have made sex cheap and this it available to everyone anytime.

 

Its not about whether you tell your partner this number...it just what this number say about where our society is headed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I think the fact is most people think it'a a low number and that's what is wrong with society today.

 

We have made sex cheap and this it available to everyone anytime.

 

Its not about whether you tell your partner this number...it just what this number say about where our society is headed.

 

 

"Society today?" Hardly.

 

My "number" is much higher than 5....but my "number" for the past 12 years is 1.

 

Most of my "number" was racked up in the 1980s....pre-AIDS.

 

Sorry, but folks today aren't treading any new ground with the number malarkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the average number is 5, that would be refreshing.

 

Promiscuity seems to get the limelight most of the time. And why not. Sex sells. And let's face it...promiscuous people get around more. They are more visible sexually.

 

It's interesting you mentioned what you did, Shes2smart. I was having a conversation with a friend of mine the other day about sex. She was talking about her "crazy year" where as she put it, she went wild and slept with a LOT of men. Then she said "it was a miracle I didn't get pregnant". I was like "what?? you didn't use condoms??!!" She said "It was the early 80s". And I instantly knew what she meant - pre AIDS awareness era. People weren't worrying about STDs the way we do now. They worried more about getting pregnant. By the time I was in school and learning sex-ed, people knew about AIDS and were terrified of it. They really drilled home "use a condom! birth control doesn't mean you can go bare back". Well, not in those words. But that was the message. And it stuck with me; to me, the idea of sleeping around and not using condoms is hardly comprehensible - you just don't do it. But not so very long ago....it was the norm if and when people were sleeping around. Now it is associated with a specific set of people.

 

Just as an aside to the question of numbers. I DO think they are relevant. I know that doesn't make me popular in these parts. But I do. I'm not inferring anything with that statement except that it is something important to me to have an idea about so that I can know someone and feel comfortable with them sexually. A reasonable amount of information about what they are about. I don't see why it can't be something that is spoken about in a general sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting you mentioned what you did, Shes2smart. I was having a conversation with a friend of mine the other day about sex. She was talking about her "crazy year" where as she put it, she went wild and slept with a LOT of men. Then she said "it was a miracle I didn't get pregnant". I was like "what?? you didn't use condoms??!!" She said "It was the early 80s". And I instantly knew what she meant - pre AIDS awareness era. People weren't worrying about STDs the way we do now. They worried more about getting pregnant. .

 

It was certainly an interesting time in history - there were easily & cheaply available reliable BC methods (as I recall, I was getting BC pills from a planned parenthood clinic for $5 a month while in college) and just about anything you could catch could be cured...except herpes, but that wasn't going to, y'know, kill you. I'd hazard a guess that there was more promiscuity back then than there is now. Really, your biggest worry was getting knocked up (or getting someone knocked up). If a female was on the pill, the male (and likely the female as well) didn't see much need for a condom....unless you were extra-super paranoid about getting pregnant and were tyring to be extra-super careful. That whole "you could catch something that'll kill you" put a damper on the party.

 

Anytime I hear someone going on about how "society today" is so awful and things are just deteriorating, I don't buy it. People have not found any new or different ways to screw up. We just have tools and technology that help us make our mistakes faster and more publicly than we used to. Sure enough, if you poke around in history, people were still doing things like having sex outside of relationships, people cheated on each other, people screwed each other over financially -- all that kind of stuff was going on, but people didn't really broadcast it...it was spoken of in hushed voices and/or by gossipy people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

POF is a hookup site. OK it was. No action on there now. I got laid so many times over the last 3 years. The best ones were the ones that put " Do not contact me for sex" so you meet them and they are dragging you to their house LOL. It much quieter there now, I deleted myself since it was so dead.

 

I think I would pull 5 on there every month and a half, ok some would be repeaters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many of the kids we see around here are stuck in cyberland and have never even MET the person they've been 'talking to' for years yet claim they love...

 

No wonder today's average is so low. (Okay, that's probably not a reliable number.)

 

But, hey! Who needs penetration when there's...Skype?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many of the kids we see around here are stuck in cyberland and have never even MET the person they've been 'talking to' for years yet claim they love...

 

No wonder today's average is so low. (Okay, that's probably not a reliable number.)

 

But, hey! Who needs penetration when there's...Skype?

 

This day and age, the number of partners are irrelevant as long as one is responsible, gets tested regularly, wears protection, etc. It's only a problem if you let it be a problem. I don't care, as the only person I care about my partner having sex with is...well, me...I mean it's more complicated than that...with my predilections but the point stands...the only sexual relationship you have to worry about is the one between you and your partner (remembering that you both should protect yourselves and get tested prior...). That number shouldn't be used to judge the other person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I graduated from highschool in '73...and i always thought of the 60's as the hippies/drugs....and the 70's as the 'sexual revolution' . Isn't that what it was called? I know there are a FEW on here that are ALMOST as old as me! lol

 

So anyway...i have never been with a guy that used a condom...except once...or twice. I think my first bf tried it...didn't like it. I then got married in 1987 and that was the beginning of the Aid epidemic. I remember my future husband and i looking at each

other...and saying...lets get married QUICK!

 

When i was about 20 i went thru a promiscuous time. Thought a person should be married before having sex. All of a sudden there i was...20 and the 3rd person i had sex with dumped me......so i went on a rampage! Can't remember the number...or their faces, much less names...but WAAAY more than 5.

 

Now i have no one...hardly. The last time was with my ex.....this summer...who dumped me 3 years ago. Yeah...pathetic.

 

5 huh? hmmmm.....during their WHOLE life?? Musta been married. I was married for 20 years and probably only had sex 20 times during that time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This day and age, the number of partners are irrelevant as long as one is responsible, gets tested regularly, wears protection, etc. It's only a problem if you let it be a problem. I don't care, as the only person I care about my partner having sex with is...well, me...I mean it's more complicated than that...with my predilections but the point stands...the only sexual relationship you have to worry about is the one between you and your partner (remembering that you both should protect yourselves and get tested prior...). That number shouldn't be used to judge the other person.

 

This isn't about judging the people--it's about debating the accuracy of whatever study came up with that figure and wondering what factors might contribute to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the average number is 5, that would be refreshing.

 

Promiscuity seems to get the limelight most of the time. And why not. Sex sells. And let's face it...promiscuous people get around more. They are more visible sexually.

 

Popular culture does seem to skew our view of what's "normal". Amongst people my again and younger, I can't shake the impression that 5 is low. From college I know people whose number was way higher than 5!

 

However, it could be the 80/20 rule in effect. Where 80% of the sex is being had by 20% of the population. Because even now, I know a couple of people my age or slightly older whose number is 0. Myself, my number is 2. So there are plenty of folks who have less than 5 partners too, but since they don't offer up this information in casual conversation the perception continues that "everybody I know has had X amount of partners".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there are statistics then I assume that only married (or maybe engaged) people are considered to be "not single" so single might include many people in long term but non-marital relationships. I had a low number at the time I married -I was 42. I am sure I had a much higher number of men I had dated or had short term or long term relationships with after more than 2 decades of being single (if single is defined as non-marital).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to watch it again to be able to quote some real statistics but this was admittedly "reported sexual partners" and they say men lie up (add a few) women lie down (drop a few) even in an anonymous study. They made a big point about how everyone is being sold by the media that 5-6 is a low number and what we believe is not always the truth.

 

They said most college students only have 1 hook-up per year (casual sex no strings attached basically a one night stand) but most people think that number is higher too. I have to admit when I was in college that was pretty accurate for me I was in longer relationships so no chance for a hook-up so that could be affecting that number.

 

They also say we think there are a lot more "players" out there. This is defined as a guy who has more than 3 partners a year for 3 consecutive years. Honestly I'd say a player has more partners than that and I'd still say there are more of them than they say. They say Players are like 1-3% of the male population...maybe I just tend to meet more players than other women. or men are feeding me a line of bull about how suave they are and I'm buying it.

 

Here's a quote I found:

 

"Walsh said in the book that when women are in power positions, men are less likely to jump at marriage. “When women are disadvantaged, marriage rates go up,” she said.

 

But men are less likely to commit when women are independent. Walsh’s advice was to practice slow love “and build some intimacy before they start knocking boots.”

 

So this sexual revolution is causing men to commit less and my favorite thing was she said is was causing what she calls the "George Clooney effect" in women where we are all holding out for George Clooney. I would say if you listen to some of the men on here there must be women who are holing out for George (I'm not) but men are also holding out for a supermodel or always searching for the next best thing...I'm not sure that can be attributed to people having more sex. However, it does seem to me that there are more single people then there were in say the 60s and 70s...so while this may have been a slow change it does seem something is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this sexual revolution is causing men to commit less and my favorite thing was she said is was causing what she calls the "George Clooney effect" in women where we are all holding out for George Clooney.

 

Heh...when you first mentioned the "George Clooney effect", I thought you'd be referring to the fact that he refuses to marry any of his girlfriends. A man after my own heart.

 

5 is, like, a nun number. For the record, I think that people should have whatever number they want, regardless of whether society thinks that number is too high or too low. Life, as I'm fond of saying, isn't a democracy. Other people's approval shouldn't factor in.

 

The Sexual Revolution and feminism were two of the best things to ever happen for men. The bar for sex was lowered so much that even a can't-jump white guy like myself can comfortably leap over it. The reason that so many of us are single now? There are a lot of people that aren't cut out for long-term relationships, and a lot of people that aren't cut out for relationships, period. Pretending otherwise is no longer necessary. And it's the same way with marriage: it isn't in men's legal or financial interests to get married, while women get married and end up with a husband that suddenly wants them to be more traditional/submissive, because they had opinions about marriage/genders that they'd previously kept hidden. Why would anyone want to bother with that, especially if you can easily have sex without marriage and no one really cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with your points about marriage. It certainly doesn't suit everyone and better not to be in a relationship if you're not cut out for one rather than stringing someone along. However to say 5 is a nun number is bizarre. Some people love being in a relationship and may be in several long term relationships throughout their lives, hence that number being the average. Not everyone is in to casual sex with strangers and that's their prerogative. I don't think that makes them prudish at all and this is coming from someone with a higher number than that. People are obsessed with numbers and at the end of the day who cares. Having a small number of partners doesn't necessarily make you a nun and having a large number doesn't necessarily make you a wh***. People and situations are a lot more complex than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Sexual Revolution and feminism were two of the best things to ever happen for men. The bar for sex was lowered so much that even a can't-jump white guy like myself can comfortably leap over it. The reason that so many of us are single now? There are a lot of people that aren't cut out for long-term relationships, and a lot of people that aren't cut out for relationships, period. Pretending otherwise is no longer necessary. And it's the same way with marriage: it isn't in men's legal or financial interests to get married, while women get married and end up with a husband that suddenly wants them to be more traditional/submissive, because they had opinions about marriage/genders that they'd previously kept hidden. Why would anyone want to bother with that, especially if you can easily have sex without marriage and no one really cares?

 

I agree with your thoughts here about why many people are single. There really are many people who are not cut-out for relationships.

 

I also thought the average of 5 sex partners was really low too and I was a bit surprised. But then I thought about it a bit, and I have to say, most of the women I know have had under 5 sex partners, my own number is under 5 and i am in my 30's. I don't have sex outside of relationships, and many women I know are the same. I can't say the same for guy friends and ex BF's and other men I have met--who mostly all claim to have been with a lot more than 5 women. Maybe it's just the company I keep, but I don't have any promiscuous female friends, but then I am an introvert and don't maintain a vast network of friends/acquaintances so...maybe I just don't know enough people!

 

I don't want to know a guys number though. I feel like it's none of my business really. I assume that any guy I meet has been promiscuous in the past and is dating multiple women besides me--even if that is not the case, this is my default assumption when I meet a guy, and it's not a bad thing, it's just that this is usually the case anyway, I would be totally surprised if I met a guy who didn't sleep around in his past. What I do care about is his attitude to promiscuity in the present. I don't really care so much if he got around in his past, *as long as it was in the past* and he is not currently partaking is said behaviour. I want to be with someone that is relationship minded and looking to settle-down, sleeping around doesn't equate to "settling-down" IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...