Urrrrgh ...single?

[ruralsurg4now]

It's common on SDN-and some other forums (should have seen the thread in the med students section) to support the the idea that you shouldn't dare question a woman's past... even if she's former hooker or banged 110 guys unprotected, you should be very accepting of her, and never even think about questioning her past.

My best friend was like that because he sort of got brainwashed into it in college. I had a conversation with him where he was trying to show he was Mr. Tolerance and I asked him "what if she was a porn star? Would you care?" And he goes "no, that would be fine because that's the past." I was like "OK, seriously? That's your problem, not mine. I have zero problem telling someone I wouldn't date a porn star. Or even someone who hadn't had that crazy number of sexual partners." And I'm not alone. If people didn't take that into consideration, then nobody WOULD lie about "their number."

By the way, no offense, but even though I agree with most of your views on relationships, I think the issue is you come off as a "pick up artist" kind of guy. Like, when you talk about how you're jacked or how people should lift to get women, that just brings to mind guys who walk around in muscle shirts and who are flexing all the time. I'm not saying they don't get women, but I think it's not exactly the type of crowd that runs on a medical forum. We had a guy in medical school, for example, who was really into his body and would actually go out to clubs and (this is not a joke), while he was dancing with girls, pull his shirt up and hold it in his mouth so that they could see his abs. I'm sure he got action, but he was sort of viewed as a douche.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SunsFun]

It's interesting because, if the guy DOES care about the woman's past, you characterize him as a loser who had no game, but if the same guy DOESN'T care about it, suddenly he's just a successful guy and the guys who the girl slept with are the losers who "got denied." Fascinating stuff.

Sorry, but the fact of the matter is that people don't all have skeletons in our closets and we are allowed to judge people.

Not really. I am just saying that normal people live their lives and don't care to belittle others out of spite. If you're gonna marry or date a girl you better know her well but if she is just some random person who is going to marry some random rich guy, then why do you care to judge her character? You don't know her circumstances, her story, why, or what. Calling her a leech or a slut just makes guys who say that look like sore losers who are just mad that they cannot attract a beautiful woman so to make themselves feel better they just dismiss her as some gold-digging dumb slut. This kind of mentality turns all women off. Not just the ones who sleep around. Just focus on your own happiness and finding the right person for you rather than worrying about women using men, sluts, etc.

 

[studentp0x]

My best friend was like that because he sort of got brainwashed into it in college. I had a conversation with him where he was trying to show he was Mr. Tolerance and I asked him "what if she was a porn star? Would you care?" And he goes "no, that would be fine because that's the past." I was like "OK, seriously? That's your problem, not mine. I have zero problem telling someone I wouldn't date a porn star. Or even someone who hadn't had that crazy number of sexual partners." And I'm not alone. If people didn't take that into consideration, then nobody WOULD lie about "their number."

By the way, no offense, but even though I agree with most of your views on relationships, I think the issue is you come off as a "pick up artist" kind of guy. Like, when you talk about how you're jacked or how people should lift to get women, that just brings to mind guys who walk around in muscle shirts and who are flexing all the time. I'm not saying they don't get women, but I think it's not exactly the type of crowd that runs on a medical forum. We had a guy in medical school, for example, who was really into his body and would actually go out to clubs and (this is not a joke), while he was dancing with girls, pull his shirt up and hold it in his mouth so that they could see his abs. I'm sure he got action, but he was sort of viewed as a douche.

lol the views are insane among people... on premed101 (another forum), someone said they wouldn't care if their daughter was an escort!!! Like damn. If someone holds such views, they should be in favour of the "animal kingdom lifestyle."

And yea, I come off that way. I wear a tight t shirt every single day (and have since I was 16). Actually had some trouble landing my current gf since she thought I was a "player" or whatever.
However, being jacked helps A LOT. If you have an average face.. or even a 7/10 face.. unless you're very social/know endless women and/or you have a really high status and you're very social... then you probably won't land a major hottie or bang many hotties. However, add in a 9/10 body and you're suddenly much more attractive to her than the other 25 guys hitting on her daily.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

If you're gonna marry or date a girl you better know her well but if she is just some random person who is going to marry some random rich guy, then why do you care to judge her character?

Because that's normal. Why do you form an opinion about Kim Kardashian? Or if you say "I have no opinion of her," then why do you form an opinion about a random person who you see on the street? And if you say "I never have any opinion about anyone I ever see," then you're just lying to make your point.

You don't have to like my opinion of a woman who acts the way she does, but that doesn't change the fact that a large majority of men think the way I do. And why does it bother you that we do? We're just random people.

 

[SunsFun]

Because that's normal. Why do you form an opinion about Kim Kardashian? Or if you say "I have no opinion of her," then why do you form an opinion about a random person who you see on the street? And if you say "I never have any opinion about anyone I ever see," then you're just lying to make your point.

You don't have to like my opinion of a woman who acts the way she does, but that doesn't change the fact that a large majority of men think the way I do. And why does it bother you that we do? We're just random people.

Kim Kardashian is a TV personality. She is in a spotlight and people talk about her. I don't think its a fair comparison to a random person on the street. I normally form opinions about things that I know. If I don't know a person, I don't form an opinion about her. I may get one impression or another, but it is not an opinion and I will not speak bad about her just because she didn't impress me. So since you just say bad things about people you don't really know, it is not really an opinion. It is a bias or a negative stereotypes.

I don't think large majority of men thinks like you. There are some, but to say majority of men would be too far without any proof. And it doesn't really bother me. I just expressed my opinion.

Regarding the skeletons in the closet. Sorry if this going to offend you but I can only conclude two things from you claiming that you have zero skeletons in yours. You are either in a state of denial and have not matured enough to admit that you have done things you're not too proud of or you are a robot. Being in a relationship with a person like that is very difficult.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Kim Kardashian is a TV personality. She is in a spotlight and people talk about her.

So what? Why are you even talking about her? Why does anything she does affect you? It doesn't. You're just trying to justify why it's OK for you to judge her but not OK for us to judge women who behave in a certain way. Good luck with that because you're not changing the world.

 

[that redhead]

Since you're (presumably) not of that nature, why would that bother you?

I'd had four partners by the time I was 18. In the eight years since, I've had one. Does that make me a slut? (Curious of your point of view.)

I don't know why you take offense at us "losers" here "judging" slutty women. So what? I mean, since we clearly value good judgement and restraint over rampant frolicking in the hay, our values don't line up well with someone who hooks up with a different frat boy every weekend.

It bothers me that people and society judge women for being so-called "sluts/hos/whatever derogatory term you'd like" to mean that they are sexually promiscuous. Back in the day, women were not supposed to be sexual creatures and any sexual behavior was severely frowned upon. Nowadays, women are "allowed" to be more overt with their sexuality, but only to a society-defined point. I don't consider that to be a fair standard, especially when men are viewed as more masculine for having more sexual encounters. It's a double standard and it's ridiculous. Why should women be less desirable because they've had multiple partners? Because you consider them used or dirty? Anyone can get an STD from one encounter and anyone can get zero STDs from fifty encounters - it's all about how you go about it. The concept of a woman saving herself for this ideal man is promoted in certain circles, and is carried on however subconsciously into society as a whole. It is her body to do with as she pleases, not some object to be given away to her husband after being entirely abstinent for the entirety of her life that she has to keep "clean". And yes, it is absolutely your choice in whether or not that's okay with you.

Btw, if you found out your girlfriend was abusing cocaine and heroin, would you propose marriage to her or break up with her or make sure she went to rehab and dealt with her addiction before proposing? Would you ask a junkie out on a date?

Having multiple sexual partners is in no way equal to having a serious substance abuse problem. Sex addiction can occur, and in that case dealing with the addiction would be the foremost issue, as it would be with any addiction. But a woman having more than one partner does not make her a sex addict.

 

[studentp0x]

I'd had four partners by the time I was 18. In the eight years since, I've had one. Does that make me a slut? (Curious of your point of view.)



It bothers me that people and society judge women for being so-called "sluts/hos/whatever derogatory term you'd like" to mean that they are sexually promiscuous. Back in the day, women were not supposed to be sexual creatures and any sexual behavior was severely frowned upon. Nowadays, women are "allowed" to be more overt with their sexuality, but only to a society-defined point. I don't consider that to be a fair standard, especially when men are viewed as more masculine for having more sexual encounters. It's a double standard and it's ridiculous. Why should women be less desirable because they've had multiple partners? Because you consider them used or dirty? Anyone can get an STD from one encounter and anyone can get zero STDs from fifty encounters - it's all about how you go about it. The concept of a woman saving herself for this ideal man is promoted in certain circles, and is carried on however subconsciously into society as a whole. It is her body to do with as she pleases, not some object to be given away to her husband after being entirely abstinent for the entirety of her life that she has to keep "clean". And yes, it is absolutely your choice in whether or not that's okay with you.




Having multiple sexual partners is in no way equal to having a serious substance abuse problem. Sex addiction can occur, and in that case dealing with the addiction would be the foremost issue, as it would be with any addiction. But a woman having more than one partner does not make her a sex addict.

lmao...

I like how you make it seem like the odds of getting an STD is the same in one encounter vs. fifty... do you know of something called statistics?

Evolutionary, men always tried to "spread their seed." It's entirely biological in that men naturally want to bang as many chicks as possible and women don't have that subconscious "need" as much. Naturally, society shapes up to fit biological demands and needs.
I'm not saying it's legitimately gross to screw a girl who'd had so many partners (assuming she has no STDs, which is a long shot if you include genital herpes...) but it's rather more of a psychological thing.

No one really gets grossed at if a girl has had a few partners... it's girls who have 15..20..50.. whatever.. and more often than not, these girls will lie about it.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

I'd had four partners by the time I was 18. In the eight years since, I've had one. Does that make me a slut? (Curious of your point of view.)

Since you're asking, I'd probably say that you were a slut when you were young, not necessarily that you're a slut now. So my main question would be "what was going on with her when she was in her teens?" And I know that doesn't feel good to be called that, but honestly if I (and most guys, I think) met some great woman who was a professional and she said "oh, by the way, when I was 15, I was into getting gang-banged," that would still repulse us. You may say that's unfair and that was decades ago, but you're not going to get around that.

I do think it's unfair that men and women are judged by a double standard, but the solution to me is not for women to act equally poorly as men. I never understand how that works like "oh, men are pigs, so let's also be pigs." If men are pigs for being man-hos, then why is it that women feel "liberated" to act like hos themselves ...and then suddenly say you can't call them hos? That just makes me wonder why they were calling men pigs before, know what I mean? (By the way, the reason I don't get worked up about men who are promiscuous is because there is a literally zero percent chance that I'll be sexually interacting with them, not because they're my "brothers." I look down on men who are promiscuous, too, but it's just not as visceral a reaction.)

 

[that redhead]

I'm merely pointing out the concept that multiple sexual partners does not mean one is automatically "dirty". It's all about responsibility in these encounters.

Evolutionarily, yes, I agree. But things that happened in the past should not always dictate how we go about living as a society in present times. There are plenty of examples of that (racism, homophobia, etc.)

 

[that redhead]

Since you're asking, I'd probably say that you were a slut when you were young, not necessarily that you're a slut now. So my main question would be "what was going on with her when she was in her teens?" And I know that doesn't feel good to be called that, but honestly if I (and most guys, I think) met some great woman who was a professional and she said "oh, by the way, when I was 15, I was into getting gang-banged," that would still repulse us. You may say that's unfair and that was decades ago, but you're not going to get around that.

I do think it's unfair that men and women are judged by a double standard, but the solution to me is not for women to act equally poorly as men. I never understand how that works like "oh, men are pigs, so let's also be pigs." If men are pigs for being man-hos, then why is it that women feel "liberated" to act like hos themselves ...and then suddenly say you can't call them hos? That just makes me wonder why they were calling men pigs before, know what I mean? (By the way, the reason I don't get worked up about men who are promiscuous is because there is a literally zero percent chance that I'll be sexually interacting with them, not because they're my "brothers." I look down on men who are promiscuous, too, but it's just not as visceral a reaction.)

It seems the heart of my argument that you disagree with is the fact that sexual promiscuity is not inherently an evil or character flaw. We're programmed to think that, so it's understandable that so many people see it that way, but after a lot of reading and thinking, I find myself drifting further and further from that viewpoint.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

I'm merely pointing out the concept that multiple sexual partners does not mean one is automatically "dirty".

But it does, to the guy. Like, look, hang on for a second and let me backtrack before you get all angry. I know that even guys who are man-hos want to sow their wild oats and then marry the virgin (or as close to it as he can get). First of all, I also find that ludicrous (and unfair to the woman in that scenario). And similarly, I feel that way in the case of women who are promiscuous and then want to marry the guy who is boring and responsible. There's no double standard with me. I'm not defending the behavior of men, as women believe. I just don't often talk about the guys because, frankly, as I said, I don't care about them as much since I'm not into guys.

The issue of you being or not being "dirty" is not something you can change. If some guy had sex with 19 women and you had sex with 20 guys, then, yes, it would be silly for him to say "wow, what's your problem?" But if you had sex with 30 guys and a guy had sex with two women, then it would be equally silly for you to say "we're the same." Sorry, but that's just how it is. We don't go to school to learn this, that's just peoples' natural inclination.

 

[that redhead]

Definitely not angry, just continuing with the discussion.

It's great that you'd don't subscribe to the double standard. And yes, I understand that no one can fully change another's perspective of them based on any factor in their history. But society defines multiple sexual encounters as "dirty" for no real reason, and that frustrates many people, women especially as they are often the focus of this "purity" campaign or view point. I wish people would step back and realize that they can think for themselves outside of media and society's influence. But it's al so deeply ingrained, and that's truly unfortunate.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

But society defines multiple sexual encounters as "dirty" for no real reason, and that frustrates many people, women especially as they are often the focus of this "purity" campaign or view point.

Well, women say that, but I don't understand that, either. I mean, when you say "society," that doesn't really mean much because "society" doesn't know (or care) how many people you've had sex with, so long as you don't have sex in the middle of the road, right? So you really mean "guys I meet." But we both know that guys who are promiscuous don't really care if a woman is promiscuous. They may not be inclined to marry them, but neither are they going to run away from them, screaming in terror. And you already know that they won't marry the promiscuous woman, generally, so it's not even like they're being deceptive. So, really, the only person who would treat a promiscuous woman as "dirty" is a non-promiscuous man ...and, as I said, that makes total sense. And if you don't want THAT guy to treat you as dirty, then, well, sorry but you shouldn't have been promiscuous, right? There are no secrets about this, it's all well-known to people, so I never get why people are frustrated about it.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Since you're asking, I'd probably say that you were a slut when you were young, not necessarily that you're a slut now. So my main question would be "what was going on with her when she was in her teens?" And I know that doesn't feel good to be called that, but honestly if I (and most guys, I think) met some great woman who was a professional and she said "oh, by the way, when I was 15, I was into getting gang-banged," that would still repulse us. You may say that's unfair and that was decades ago, but you're not going to get around that.

If she started being sexually active at 16, that is a guy every six months, or about two guys a year. That's a lot different than getting gang-banged at 15. Hence why numbers by themselves aren't wholly accurate (unless yes, of course, we're talking the extremes like 50 people). You need context.

I mean hell, I'm 29. I became sexually active at 16 and have had 10 partners total, the last of which is my fiance. Never had a one-night stand in my whole life. Never taken home anyone from a party or bar (I never really partied in college anyway). Never had sex outside a committed and monogamous relationship (which ranged from 6mo to ~3 yrs). If someone would call that slutty and the equivalent of a girl who gets drunk every weekend and bangs a bunch of dudes every month, they have a few screws loose.

Being promiscuous isn't simply having had X number of partners. It is a general attitude about sex/relationships which can LEAD to lots of partners if said promiscuous person is attractive enough to attain that. While the two are related, one does not necessitate the other. Someone can still have a promiscuous attitude and have a ****ty view of commitment and only have slept with a few people due to where they live, their attractiveness, etc. Someone can have a "high" number of partners but not be promiscuous because of their age (i.e. they've just been in the dating game a long time), or the fact that it was difficult to maintain relationships due to moving or work, etc. It's not black and white.

I agree with you that people tend to take the whole "Oh, you shouldn't care, they're with you now!" thing way too seriously. If a dude had banged 20 girls over the course of a year or two, then yes - I would automatically question his views of sex and relationships. That's totally natural.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

It seems the heart of my argument that you disagree with is the fact that sexual promiscuity is not inherently an evil or character flaw. We're programmed to think that, so it's understandable that so many people see it that way, but after a lot of reading and thinking, I find myself drifting further and further from that viewpoint.

It's not evil or a character flaw per se. It is a different attitude and a different set of priorities that not everyone agrees with (myself included). I mean if people want to go and be promiscuous, or have open relationships, or whatever they want to do - that's totally fine with me. It's their life. But they can't get all pissy when I tell them I don't want to be associated with that and find it distasteful - that's my right too. I have a different set of priorities and if someone were to make me feel guilty because of that, I'd tell 'em to shove it.

I guess my issue is with tolerance vs acceptance. I tolerate people that to that, but don't ask me to date them or commit to then, because they have made it clear that we have very different outlooks on the place of sex within a relationship (not picking on you TRH, just speaking generally).

However, I think the definition of what is "promiscuous" can be so variable (hence my numbers argument above) - that is where a lot of the disagreement arises.

 

[that redhead]

It's not evil or a character flaw per se. It is a different attitude and a different set of priorities that not everyone agrees with (myself included). I mean if people want to go and be promiscuous, or have open relationships, or whatever they want to do - that's totally fine with me. It's their life. But they can't get all pissy when I tell them I don't want to be associated with that and find it distasteful - that's my right too. I have a different set of priorities and if someone were to make me feel guilty because of that, I'd tell 'em to shove it.

I guess my issue is with tolerance vs acceptance. I tolerate people that to that, but don't ask me to date them or commit to then, because they have made it clear that we have very different outlooks on the place of sex within a relationship (not picking on you TRH, just speaking generally).

However, I think the definition of what is "promiscuous" can be so variable (hence my numbers argument above) - that is where a lot of the disagreement arises.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as forcing acceptance of the matter. I wholeheartedly agree that people have the right to select their partners as they see fit and if number of sexual encounters or partners is one of those criteria, I absolutely will not fault anyone for that decision. Finding the right partner is so nuanced for each individual. My problem comes when people suggest that women with multiple sexual partners are somehow worth less and that if these women seek out a stable relationship they are back-stabbing gold diggers. I think everyone I know, myself included, would take back something about their past; to suggest that these women cannot possibly have changed "for the better" is what grates me.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

If she started being sexually active at 16, that is a guy every six months, or about two guys a year. That's a lot different than getting gang-banged at 15. Hence why numbers by themselves aren't wholly accurate (unless yes, of course, we're talking the extremes like 50 people). You need context.

I mean hell, I'm 29. I became sexually active at 16 and have had 10 partners total, the last of which is my fiance. Never had a one-night stand in my whole life. Never taken home anyone from a party or bar (I never really partied in college anyway). Never had sex outside a committed and monogamous relationship (which ranged from 6mo to ~3 yrs). If someone would call that slutty and the equivalent of a girl who gets drunk every weekend and bangs a bunch of dudes every month, they have a few screws loose.

Being promiscuous isn't simply having had X number of partners. It is a general attitude about sex/relationships which can LEAD to lots of partners if said promiscuous person is attractive enough to attain that. While the two are related, one does not necessitate the other. Someone can still have a promiscuous attitude and have a ****ty view of commitment and only have slept with a few people due to where they live, their attractiveness, etc. Someone can have a "high" number of partners but not be promiscuous because of their age (i.e. they've just been in the dating game a long time), or the fact that it was difficult to maintain relationships due to moving or work, etc. It's not black and white.

I agree with you that people tend to take the whole "Oh, you shouldn't care, they're with you now!" thing way too seriously. If a dude had banged 20 girls over the course of a year or two, then yes - I would automatically question his views of sex and relationships. That's totally natural.

See, the problem with discussing sex is that everyone wants to believe they're the baseline. For example, you said your number and you, of course, consider yourself "totally normal," right? Guess what? Someone who had twice as many as you would also consider themselves "normal" and feel insulted if they were labeled promiscuous, I promise you. I mean, sure, I get that you say that you were in committed and monogamous relationships and didn't have one-night stands, but speaking solely for myself, I'd be turned off. For instance, you've been sexually active for 13 years (I don't mean to make this about you, but I'm just saying), and you -- and most people -- would consider having sex with someone you've been in a relationship with for 6 months to be totally normal. But while you're focused on the "I was with him for 6 months" part, I'm looking at the "serial monogamy" part. I mean, what if you had 26 partners over 13 years, which is just two per year? You'd probably say "yeah, that's TWO PER YEAR." And I'd say "yeah, that's TWENTY-SIX PEOPLE." I mean, "two per year" sounds like you're almost a nun, by today's standards, but twenty-six is still a whole lot. Right?

 

[ruralsurg4now]

My problem comes when people suggest that women with multiple sexual partners are somehow worth less and that if these women seek out a stable relationship they are back-stabbing gold diggers. I think everyone I know, myself included, would take back something about their past; to suggest that these women cannot possibly have changed "for the better" is what grates me.

But the thing is that you say that you would take back something about your past ...yet you defend your past vigorously. Know what I mean? For example, let's say you regretted having so many partners at a young age. Then why act like it's no big deal and essentially normal? I don't think that if a promiscuous woman seeks a stable relationship and has changed that she is necessarily a gold-digger ...but you MUST realize how it will be interpreted as "wanting to have your cake and eat it, too," right? Just as if a guy went around banging lots of women and then said "I'm a changed man now," you wouldn't just buy it and go "awwww, what a prince!!"

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

See, the problem with discussing sex is that everyone wants to believe they're the baseline. For example, you said your number and you, of course, consider yourself "totally normal," right? Guess what? Someone who had twice as many as you would also consider themselves "normal" and feel insulted if they were labeled promiscuous, I promise you. I mean, sure, I get that you say that you were in committed and monogamous relationships and didn't have one-night stands, but speaking solely for myself, I'd be turned off. For instance, you've been sexually active for 13 years (I don't mean to make this about you, but I'm just saying), and you -- and most people -- would consider having sex with someone you've been in a relationship with for 6 months to be totally normal. But while you're focused on the "I was with him for 6 months" part, I'm looking at the "serial monogamy" part. I mean, what if you had 26 partners over 13 years, which is just two per year? You'd probably say "yeah, that's TWO PER YEAR." And I'd say "yeah, that's TWENTY-SIX PEOPLE." I mean, "two per year" sounds like you're almost a nun, by today's standards, but twenty-six is still a whole lot. Right?

I don't consider myself totally "normal" - technically speaking I'm above average in terms of numbers. I was speaking in terms of attitude - promiscuous vs not. I was looking for relationship first, sex second, rather than the other way around. It is the switch in priorities that equals promiscuous in my mind.

And absolutely, 26 is a lot. Heck, 10 is a lot. I'm in no way debating you on that, and I don't take offense at your opinion of it - that's totally your choice and I 100% respect it. But again, context is lacking. It wasn't because I had a shyte view of commitment and jumped from man to man - it was the inherent difficulty of managing relationships while moving all around for college, then vet school, then residency, and then again for fellowship (and my SOs also having to do the same which inevitably resulted in having to end things due to distance/moving/work), combined with the normal "failure rate" for relationships. And I know that many people have the same problem. Having relationships while being in a professional program is more difficult than most. But anyway, that's a bit of an aside.

The point I'm trying to make is that I do agree with you that people who say numbers don't mean *anything* are FOS. Do numbers mean something? Yes. But, can you judge whether a person is promiscuous or not just by numbers (again, excluding the obvious stuff like 50 people or whatever)? I don't think it's quite that easy because you don't know WHY that number is higher than average - whether it is due to their own choices or factors beyond their control (eg lots of moving). And everyone has their own "baseline" or what is an acceptable number and what isn't to further complicate things.

Tl;dr being a "slut" is more about how you view relationships and sex, and how much importance you put on one versus the other, rather than your "number". Having a "slutty" attitude may lead people to have more partners than average, but just because you have more partners than average does necessarily not = "slutty". And I'm using the word in quotations specifically because I'm focusing on the definition, not necessarily whether it is "bad" or "good" - that's a whole 'nother argument altogether,

 

[that redhead]

Why is your assumption that the thing I would take back would be the number of sexual partners I had? See - it's deeply ingrained.

I don't defend my own past - it is what it is, and it's unchangable anyway - but those of others whose situations are unknown. What about your own past of no relationship leading you to your current situation? Why should you have to defend your desire to focus on school instead of forming a long term relationship? It was a choice you made that you may wish you could change, but now cannot and must deal with the repercussions. Just as some women may have decided to sleep with different guys before she met the proverbial you and now regrets that decision but can't take it back either. People have to deal with the consequences of their past all of the time and again, I can't dictate how anyone choses a partner. I just think it's sad that women who may be changing their approach are automatically looked down on as sluts.

And yes, there are doubtless women out there that want to "have their cake and eat it too". But assuming the worst in every woman (or human being, for that matter) is a poor way to form solid relationships of any sort. If a woman is perfect for you in every way and yet had more sexual partners than you find ideal, do you let her go? I don't know, but I certainly hope you (anyone) would be able to come to terms with something less desirable about their partner if the overall picture were good.

 

[that redhead]

The point I'm trying to make is that I do agree with you that people who say numbers don't mean *anything* are FOS. Do numbers mean something? Yes. But, can you judge whether a person is promiscuous or not just by numbers (again, excluding the obvious stuff like 50 people or whatever)? I don't think it's quite that easy because you don't know WHY that number is higher than average - whether it is due to their own choices or factors beyond their control (eg lots of moving). And everyone has their own "baseline" or what is an acceptable number and what isn't to further complicate things.

Tl;dr being a "slut" is more about how you view relationships and sex, and how much importance you put on one versus the other, rather than your "number". Having a "slutty" attitude may lead people to have more partners than average, but just because you have more partners than average does necessarily not = "slutty". And I'm using the word in quotations specifically because I'm focusing on the definition, not necessarily whether it is "bad" or "good" - that's a whole 'nother argument altogether,

Nail on the head, WTF.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as forcing acceptance of the matter. I wholeheartedly agree that people have the right to select their partners as they see fit and if number of sexual encounters or partners is one of those criteria, I absolutely will not fault anyone for that decision. Finding the right partner is so nuanced for each individual. My problem comes when people suggest that women with multiple sexual partners are somehow worth less and that if these women seek out a stable relationship they are back-stabbing gold diggers. I think everyone I know, myself included, would take back something about their past; to suggest that these women cannot possibly have changed "for the better" is what grates me.

You didn't TRH, I was just kind of rambling.

I don't think anyone here is saying changing is impossible, they are saying that you should take this proposed change with a very large grain of salt (which I agree with). Just as you would with any person who has acted a certain way (promiscuous or prude or liberal or conservative or anything you want) for years and years and then abruptly says they are going to stop acting that way.

 

[that redhead]

I don't think anyone here is saying changing is impossible, they are saying that you should take this proposed change with a very large grain of salt (which I agree with). Just as you would with any person who has acted a certain way (promiscuous or prude or liberal or conservative or anything you want) for years and years and then abruptly says they are going to stop acting that way.

Agreed. It came across to me as though the argument was "never under any circumstances trust these people not to be going for your money and your stable lifestyle."

 

[ruralsurg4now]

I don't consider myself totally "normal" - technically speaking I'm above average in terms of numbers. I was speaking in terms of attitude - promiscuous vs not. I was looking for relationship first, sex second, rather than the other way around. It is the switch in priorities that equals promiscuous in my mind.

And I get that and I understand why it therefore may make you feel "that's unfair" if someone labels you as promiscuous, but honestly I don't think you can stop that. It's hard to distinguish between someone who had a bunch of sexual partners because they were just laying down for anyone versus someone who had the exact same number of sexual partners but had feelings for all of those people, you know? I don't know how to put that any better, and I know that may sound insulting, but that's the best I can do.

But who cares, right?? I mean, you found a guy who (I guess, since you didn't mind posting it on a forum, lol) knows your number and didn't mind and you guys are engaged. So what I or anyone else thinks is irrelevant. But I think it's important for people to let others know so that they CAN make that decision. Unfortunately, people are scared that they may be rejected based on "the number" and therefore most people lie about it, which is why nobody trusts anyone about their number and part of the reason people make assumptions about it.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Agreed. It came across to me as though the argument was "never under any circumstances trust these people not to be going for your money and your stable lifestyle."

I think the argument is more like "we're approaching you with that belief if you act like that and it's going to be on you to convince us otherwise." It's like if a guy cheated on their girlfriend. The next woman isn't going to be like "I welcome you with open arms and think that was a one-time thing," right? There's naturally going to be suspicion and maybe it cannot be overcome.

 

[that redhead]

But who cares, right?? I mean, you found a guy who (I guess, since you didn't mind posting it on a forum, lol) knows your number and didn't mind and you guys are engaged. So what I or anyone else thinks is irrelevant. But I think it's important for people to let others know so that they CAN make that decision. Unfortunately, people are scared that they may be rejected based on "the number" and therefore most people lie about it, which is why nobody trusts anyone about their number and part of the reason people make assumptions about it.

I don't condone lying at all, but you can see why women would be motivated to lie, with stable men thinking they're just in it for the money/security.

And @ruralsurg4now, I do see what you're saying. Fair enough.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

What about your own past of no relationship leading you to your current situation? Why should you have to defend your desire to focus on school instead of forming a long term relationship?

Sorry, I missed this post. The thing is, I've actually heard that lots of women look with suspicion on an unmarried guy who hasn't really dated and is in his 30s. Right? I mean, actually the fact that I'm a physician works against me because they're like "OK, what the f**k, what's going on here? Is he a child molestor?" So I actually do have to defend it, hilariously (or so I presume, whenever I meet someone I'm interested in).

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

And I get that and I understand why it therefore may make you feel "that's unfair" if someone labels you as promiscuous, but honestly I don't think you can stop that. It's hard to distinguish between someone who had a bunch of sexual partners because they were just laying down for anyone versus someone who had the exact same number of sexual partners but had feelings for all of those people, you know? I don't know how to put that any better, and I know that may sound insulting, but that's the best I can do.

But who cares, right?? I mean, you found a guy who (I guess, since you didn't mind posting it on a forum, lol) knows your number and didn't mind and you guys are engaged. So what I or anyone else thinks is irrelevant. But I think it's important for people to let others know so that they CAN make that decision. Unfortunately, people are scared that they may be rejected based on "the number" and therefore most people lie about it, which is why nobody trusts anyone about their number and part of the reason people make assumptions about it.

That's what I'm getting at, and it doesn't sound insulting at all. It's difficult terrain, which is why I balk at automatically labeling someone as loose just because they have had more partners than I - BUT if someone has a high-ish number, I want context. I would not consider someone who had slept around a bunch for fun and then was telling me he had changed and only wanted me to be a serious prospect - maybe I'm dumb for that, but it's how I am. I have rejected men in the past because when the whole history thing came up ,and casual sex was a prominent part of theirs. It wasn't the number per se, it was the lackadaisical attitude.

But I agree that, without knowing said context, the default response is one of promiscuity, for right or wrong. Getting people to talk about the context is the hardest thing because people can be very guarded (and lie, like you said).

 

[that redhead]

Sorry, I missed this post. The thing is, I've actually heard that lots of women look with suspicion on an unmarried guy who hasn't really dated and is in his 30s. Right? I mean, actually the fact that I'm a physician works against me because they're like "OK, what the f**k, what's going on here? Is he a child molestor?" So I actually do have to defend it, hilariously (or so I presume, whenever I meet someone I'm interested in).

Sure, I'd probably wonder why you hadn't really dated or had any relationships over all this time. Don't think I'd assume you were terrible, but it would definitely catch my attention. Knowing what I do of the medical field and dealing with my own rigorous education-to-career path, I can understand how you've come to be in the position that you're in, but I can see how others might not get it. Especially if they know of a physician that is married - they'll wonder if that person could do it, why couldn't you.

That's tough. And I guess it's just something you'll deal with and hopefully not be punished for in the long-run.

 

[njac]

This is why I like to use the "sluttiness spectrum", similar to a "political spectrum"

Compared to some of my friends, I'm a coked up *****. Compared to some of my friends, I'm on my 4th virginity. It's all about where you are on the spectrum.

There's an ok Cupid question "your partner says they've been with 14 people, how does This sound to you" and the overwhelming response is "that sounds about normal."

Admittedly, I had a boyfriend when I was 27 who chastised me for having not slept with enough guys. I think he was #7. That was by far more emotionally scarring than if someone were to call me a slut.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

There's an ok Cupid question "your partner says they've been with 14 people, how does This sound to you" and the overwhelming response is "that sounds about normal."

Yeah, but isn't OK Cupid where people go to get laid?

Admittedly, I had a boyfriend when I was 27 who chastised me for having not slept with enough guys. I think he was #7. That was by far more emotionally scarring than if someone were to call me a slut.

That sounds hilarious. He was seriously like "we need to get your vagina out there more!"? I would assume he was a man-ho.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Sure, I'd probably wonder why you hadn't really dated or had any relationships over all this time. Don't think I'd assume you were terrible, but it would definitely catch my attention. Knowing what I do of the medical field and dealing with my own rigorous education-to-career path, I can understand how you've come to be in the position that you're in, but I can see how others might not get it. Especially if they know of a physician that is married - they'll wonder if that person could do it, why couldn't you.

That's tough. And I guess it's just something you'll deal with and hopefully not be punished for in the long-run.

Right, but the point is that I realize that and I realize I have to deal with the attitude. So my point is, whether someone has a negative or an ambivalent or a positive attitude about it, that's not something they're not allowed to have. Similarly, if some woman has a high number to me -- even if she thinks it's normal or low -- that's going to be a decision I make. If she says her number if five and I go "what a ho!" then that's sort of the way it goes, you know? It doesn't do any good to start talking about societal double standards or the history of feminism or whatever.

 

[that redhead]

Right, but the point is that I realize that and I realize I have to deal with the attitude. So my point is, whether someone has a negative or an ambivalent or a positive attitude about it, that's not something they're not allowed to have. Similarly, if some woman has a high number to me -- even if she thinks it's normal or low -- that's going to be a decision I make. If she says her number if five and I go "what a ho!" then that's sort of the way it goes, you know? It doesn't do any good to start talking about societal double standards or the history of feminism or whatever.

Yes, you and others have to deal with the attitudes of society/potential significant others, etc. But I think having the dialogue is important because hopefully, one day, people will realize that number of sexual encounters doesn't make a woman damaged goods and unworthy of respect or love from men or other women and doesn't blemish her whole life because of poor decisions or even difficult circumstances. For now, as you say, people just have to deal with it.

njac, that was something I'd been thinking about too - women are valued when sexually skilled but how the hell do you gain the skills without practice? Ugh.

 

[Silent Cool]

 

[njac]

Yeah, but isn't OK Cupid where people go to get laid?



That sounds hilarious. He was seriously like "we need to get your vagina out there more!"? I would assume he was a man-ho.

Everything guys do is to get laid. I'm sure there are guys on eharmony trying to put it in on the first date.

It was really quite demoralizing for someone who had just gotten out of a 4 year relationship. When was I supposed to have slept with all these people?

And I see WTFs point. I've lived in 6 states in my adult life. In the 12 years since i turned 18 I've spent about 8 of those in relationships with 3 people.

 

[SunsFun]

It's not evil or a character flaw per se. It is a different attitude and a different set of priorities that not everyone agrees with (myself included). I mean if people want to go and be promiscuous, or have open relationships, or whatever they want to do - that's totally fine with me. It's their life. But they can't get all pissy when I tell them I don't want to be associated with that and find it distasteful - that's my right too. I have a different set of priorities and if someone were to make me feel guilty because of that, I'd tell 'em to shove it.

I guess my issue is with tolerance vs acceptance. I tolerate people that to that, but don't ask me to date them or commit to then, because they have made it clear that we have very different outlooks on the place of sex within a relationship (not picking on you TRH, just speaking generally).

However, I think the definition of what is "promiscuous" can be so variable (hence my numbers argument above) - that is where a lot of the disagreement arises.

But that's not what usually happens. I normally enjoy reading your comments but this one of tolerance vs. acceptance came across the same way people who are anti-gay marriage present their argument. Like: "we are cool with gays, we just don't like when their push their view on us".

This whole discussion didn't start out with a girl who slept around saying that her behavior is normal and a guy who is a virgin should just deal with it and marry her. It is normally men who out of the blue proclaim "women who sleep around are dirty hoes" and then go onto pseudo-scientific offensive, even evoking evolution as to why they are justified to judge, look down, and use offensive language towards random people they know nothing about. They are not voicing their dislike in the face of someone pushing them into something, they are just spreading hatred and misogyny.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

But that's not what usually happens. I normally enjoy reading your comments but this one of tolerance vs. acceptance came across the same way people who are anti-gay marriage present their argument. Like: "we are cool with gays, we just don't like when their push their view on us".

This whole discussion didn't start out with a girl who slept around saying that her behavior is normal and a guy who is a virgin should just deal with it and marry her. It is normally men who out of the blue proclaim "women who sleep around are dirty hoes" and then go onto pseudo-scientific offensive, even evoking evolution as to why they are justified to judge, look down, and use offensive language towards random people they know nothing about. They are not voicing their dislike in the face of someone pushing them into something, they are just spreading hatred and misogyny.

I don't think you can equate homosexuality with lifestyle choices.

Perhaps my use of sensitive buzzwords was incorrect. But I still maintain that, to me, if people want to be promiscuous, that's their business and it doesn't involve me until they bring me into it by trying to enter my life as a relationship (note - this is much different and much more invasive than gay couples seeking marriage, because their seeking of marriage does not impact heterosexuals seeking marriage - so it's not an apt comparison). If they are trying to affect my life in such a manner, then yes, I will make it known that I do not accept these things (ie promiscuity) in a partner.

I can assure you I've had to bite my tongue a few times also on account of specific derogatory words being thrown about. I don't like the tone, but I'm trying to keep things civil.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

But that's not what usually happens. I normally enjoy reading your comments but this one of tolerance vs. acceptance came across the same way people who are anti-gay marriage present their argument. Like: "we are cool with gays, we just don't like when their push their view on us".

This whole discussion didn't start out with a girl who slept around saying that her behavior is normal and a guy who is a virgin should just deal with it and marry her. It is normally men who out of the blue proclaim "women who sleep around are dirty hoes" and then go onto pseudo-scientific offensive, even evoking evolution as to why they are justified to judge, look down, and use offensive language towards random people they know nothing about. They are not voicing their dislike in the face of someone pushing them into something, they are just spreading hatred and misogyny.

This post is just you getting mad at reality. Actually, science says that it makes sense that men should be promiscuous and women should be choosy, if you want to discuss science. But that's a poor excuse for poor behavior. Nevertheless, someone such as yourself, who just wants to act any way you want and not be judged for it, is laughable.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

njac, that was something I'd been thinking about too - women are valued when sexually skilled but how the hell do you gain the skills without practice? Ugh.

If you're going for guys who "value" you for being sexually skilled, then part of the blame falls on you for going after those types of men, though, right? For example, I'm always amazed at how women complain bitterly about guys who cheat on them. And yet those guys have almost no problem finding another girlfriend, who they also proceed to cheat on. He's not blameless by any stretch of the imagination, but his behavior is not in any way harming him.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

It was really quite demoralizing for someone who had just gotten out of a 4 year relationship. When was I supposed to have slept with all these people?

But the point is, why would you want to be with some guy who thinks you should have slept with a bunch of people? I've never heard of anyone suggest such a thing and it blows my mind that someone would ever say that to a woman. And then it blows my mind further that the woman would say "he's right ...I should have!!"

 

[njac]

But the point is, why would you want to be with some guy who thinks you should have slept with a bunch of people? I've never heard of anyone suggest such a thing and it blows my mind that someone would ever say that to a woman. And then it blows my mind further that the woman would say "he's right ...I should have!!"

He's very much an ex. It was a weird time in my life.

But those people do exist.

 

[that redhead]

If you're going for guys who "value" you for being sexually skilled, then part of the blame falls on you for going after those types of men, though, right? For example, I'm always amazed at how women complain bitterly about guys who cheat on them. And yet those guys have almost no problem finding another girlfriend, who they also proceed to cheat on. He's not blameless by any stretch of the imagination, but his behavior is not in any way harming him.

I think of it again as a societal thing in general. Someone valuing sexual skills isn't usually outwardly apparent, so it isn't exactly easy to avoid. Similarly, not everyone confesses to having cheated in a previous relationship right away either, making avoidance difficult (I think that's what you were getting at there.) it's up to you to decide what to do after learning these things.

 

[that redhead]

But the point is, why would you want to be with some guy who thinks you should have slept with a bunch of people? I've never heard of anyone suggest such a thing and it blows my mind that someone would ever say that to a woman. And then it blows my mind further that the woman would say "he's right ...I should have!!"

And my point is, why would you want to be with someone who thinks they should be able to judge your worth and value as a partner based on the number of sexual partners, be it "too few" or "too many" (which we all agree is subjective)? You're doing the same thing, just in the other direction.

 

[SunsFun]

I don't think you can equate homosexuality with lifestyle choices.

Perhaps my use of sensitive buzzwords was incorrect. But I still maintain that, to me, if people want to be promiscuous, that's their business and it doesn't involve me until they bring me into it by trying to enter my life as a relationship (note - this is much different and much more invasive than gay couples seeking marriage, because their seeking of marriage does not impact heterosexuals seeking marriage - so it's not an apt comparison). If they are trying to affect my life in such a manner, then yes, I will make it known that I do not accept these things (ie promiscuity) in a partner.

I can assure you I've had to bite my tongue a few times also on account of specific derogatory words being thrown about. I don't like the tone, but I'm trying to keep things civil.

Certainly you are free to day whoever you like. Nobody has a problem with it. I get your point here and agree with you. I just feel like this sidesteps an actual argument was made prior to your comment. These guys are not forced to date someone promiscuous. A girl who sleeps around doesn't come here crying about not being able to find a nice guy for a serious relationship. Hoes, sluts, etc topic is usually brought up by the "nice" guys complaining how (supposedly) all these girls sleep around with a-holes and then want to marry a decent guy. I've seen this discussion happen multiple times and it is always this exact same context which I have a problem with for obvious reasons.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

It was a weird time in my life.

Last week??

 

[ruralsurg4now]

And my point is, why would you want to be with someone who thinks they should be able to judge your worth and value as a partner based on the number of sexual partners, be it "too few" or "too many" (which we all agree is subjective)? You're doing the same thing, just in the other direction.

I never said I wanted to be with someone who thinks I've been with too few people. If they don't want to be with me, then they don't want to be with me. That's certainly their decision to make, just as it is my decision to make whether they've been with too many people. Right?

 

[njac]

Last week??

Funny.

No, it was in the middle of a miserable residency, almost 3 years ago.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Funny.

No, it was in the middle of a miserable residency, almost 3 years ago.

Aren't you a pharmacist? I didn't know you guys had residency. Or that it was that bad.

 

[njac]

Aren't you a pharmacist? I didn't know you guys had residency. Or that it was that bad.

It's optional. And some are rougher than others.