Support NeoGAF

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

It can be a concern, maybe it shouldn't be a deal breaker, but how do you judge if someone is right for you besides looking into the past? Sure, the point at which they came into your life should be where you primarily look...but to use an extreme; if you knew your partner killed her last husband should you not be concerned? Now take that, to a much lesser extent, and you'll realize that knowing someone who has had hundreds of partners can at least contribute towards deciding if that person is right for you.

Well, following that analogy, knowing that your partner had a lot of sex means... you're going to have a lot of sex. And you don't know if she had sex with other people while in a relationship.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Does not compute. If someone "really doesn't want" vaginal intercourse to happen but it does anyway, what is that?

Pressure?
Intoxication?

 

[José Mourinho]

I would take a punt and say 30 is well above average. However, it's not like there's a magic number that equates to too many. It's an entirely personal choice.

 

[xelios]

Pressure?
Intoxication?

It's not abuse if you pressure or intoxicate a woman into vaginal intercourse?

 

[Gotchaye]

If that were the case, then avoiding cheaters would be very easy, which - given the apparently high proportion of people in committed relationships who cheat - is not the case.

Wait, so what statistics are you talking about now? I thought we were talking about correlations with things like "number of prior sex partners". I'm not claiming that you can always tell exactly how a relationship is going to end once you're a few months in. And people who go on to cheat can be presently committed to a relationship, and some people who cheat can even be committed to a relationship as they cheat.

 

[Devolution]

The study makes no remarks about sexual abuse. What the women were asked was "'whether they 'really wanted,' 'had mixed feelings about,' or 'really didn’t want' their first vaginal intercourse to happen at the time." The study also notes that "had mixed feelings" was ambiguous and that the answer to that question "it is based on a single retrospective measure, so recall bias is an issue." It also cites other studies that correlate wanted sex outside a committed framework with higher divorce rates. Playing the blame game with me for citing academic research is pretty dishonest.

Serious question: Are you capable of reading comprehension? The questions are asking them if they've been raped or sexually assaulted.

 

[TAJ]

Does not compute. If someone "really doesn't want" vaginal intercourse to happen but it does anyway, what is that?

Then throw 13yos into that equation.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Well, following that analogy, knowing that your partner had a lot of sex means... you're going to have a lot of sex. And you don't know if she had sex with other people while in a relationship.

You mean knowing that your partner had sex *with a lot of other people*. That is a major difference, for some people.

Edit: but yea, if you're with that person for a certain period of time and everything is going great, your concern can and probably should be put to rest.

 

[Derwind]

Hang on. How many of you:

A. Ask their partners how many people they have been with
B: actually know how many you have been with


I'm 36, and honestly couldn't give you an accurate number. That said, I cannot imagine ever asking someone how many people they have bee with.

Didn't you know? Its all the rage pillow talk material now.

"So, hey baby, um, I was wondering... oh, great sex btw, like phenomenal, I was working the corners and everything, go me... so um... so like, I was doing some talking... you remember Fred... yeah and we got to talking... Oh shit, did we clock that, TWO and Half (mins).... thats like a new record... I spoil you... *snicker*... shit, so yeah, me and Fred, there we were, just chillin and shit and he told me his girl had a number.. like a big number.. like 5 or something... I was like WAh...no way... so whats your number babe...just remember, I'll forever think less of you and this will probably affect whether I present you with that ring in your drawer, oh and that trip you can forget about that, shit, I might not even be able to look you in the eye anymore... you disgust me.... no pressure tho"

 

[RDreamer]

Pretty crazy to want to break up with someone after getting to know them and liking them because of a number in their past. I mean I guess I could see being apprehensive to begin with. Even though I think it's silly, I can see that, I suppose. If you're a few months in and things are great, then what the fuck? You just come off as a big insecure douche at that point.

 

[Vermillion]

It's not abuse if you pressure or intoxicate a woman into vaginal intercourse?

Drunk women have made choices that they regret sexually, same as men. Similarly, women may have sex their first time just to get it over with, same as men.

EDIT: I don't know if women have the same amount of peer pressure to have sex as men do... I don't think they do, but it's possible.

 

[Air]

Depends on how insecure you are.

 

[Devolution]

Drunk women have made choices that they regret sexually, same as men. Similarly, women may have sex their first time just to get it over with, same as men.

Stop. That's not what the final question was asking, at all. They know it's best not to ask women directly "have you been raped" because of the baggage and different definitions "rape" can entail. But the question is essentially, have you had sex against your will.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It's not abuse if you pressure or intoxicate a woman into vaginal intercourse?

Oh, I have no idea what the study is about, thought it was just generally about first sex experiences.
I would call being pressured into sex abuse, but social pressure & intoxication not so much.

 

[PSYGN]

That would be too many for me, but you can't pick an arbitrary number that is "too many".

 

[Vermillion]

Stop. That's not what the final question was asking, at all. They know it's best not to ask women directly "have you been raped" because of the baggage and different definitions "rape" can entail. But the question is essentially, have you had sex against your will.

I wouldn't know - I didn't read the study, I was following the chain of conversation. I suppose it could be implying rape.

EDIT: What Squiddy said.

 

[Winterfang]

12 I guess.

 

[Devolution]

Oh, I have no idea what the study is about, thought it was just generally about first sex experiences.
I would call being pressured into sex abuse depending on the circumstances, but social pressure & intoxication not so much.

The whole point, and maybe this flew over some heads is that many women lose their virginity by being raped as a child or teenager.

I wouldn't know - I didn't read the study, I was following the chain of conversation. I suppose it could be implying rape.

Implying?

"'really didn’t want' their first vaginal intercourse to happen at the time" is basically asking was your first experience consensual.

 

[readLeader]

Wait, so what statistics are you talking about now? I thought we were talking about correlations with things like "number of prior sex partners". I'm not claiming that you can always tell exactly how a relationship is going to end once you're a few months in. And people who go on to cheat can be presently committed to a relationship, and some people who cheat can even be committed to a relationship as they cheat.

I may have misunderstood you. I thought you suggested that cheaters are easily distinguished.

Does not compute. If someone "really doesn't want" vaginal intercourse to happen but it does anyway, what is that?

Serious question: Are you capable of reading comprehension? The questions are asking them if they've been raped or sexually assaulted.

Can be rape, can be a bad decision - "I actually really don't want to but I do it for whatever reason anyway" without the guy knowing. Assuming that the girls/women who said "didn't want" were all raped at their first time would imply at least 63% of the women who were asked were rape victims, after their first intercourse. I assume that would have been noted in the section on methodology of that study.

Implying?

"'really didn’t want' their first vaginal intercourse to happen at the time" is basically asking was your first experience consensual.

No, asking "was your first vaginal intercourse consensual" would be asking them about rape. "Did you want it to happen" is about their desire, not their legal consent/dissent.

 

[Dog food is delicious]

Don't ask, don't tell is my policy.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

The whole point, and maybe this flew over some heads is that many women lose their virginity by being raped as a child or teenager.

That... is kinda obvious, is it not?
A lot of women are raped, of course for some that will be at a time they are virgins.

This little side-discussion you're having with readLeader seems like a waste of your time.

 

[Devolution]

No, asking "was your first vaginal intercourse consensual" would be asking them about rape. "Did you want it to happen" is about their desire, not their legal consent.

They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[User 100115]

No, asking "was your first vaginal intercourse consensual" would be asking them about rape. "Did you want it to happen" is about their desire, not their legal consent/dissent.

Erm...what?

 

[TAJ]

The way the the article is worded, wanted vs. unwanted sounds like "Sex? Yes, please!" vs. "Meh, I guess." or straight-up rape. That said...

Just 1 percent chose to have sex at age 13 or younger

This is the kicker for me... what really puts it over the top as a molestation study.

 

[Vermillion]

Implying?

"'really didn’t want' their first vaginal intercourse to happen at the time" is basically asking was your first experience consensual.

Alright, just found the study - it juxtaposes a chosen sexual experience with the unwanted/not completely wanted ones, then goes on to break it down to "not completely wanted" or "occurring withing traumatic context." You're right.

 

[xelios]

That... is kinda obvious, is it not?
A lot of women are raped, of course for some that will be at a time they are virgins.

This little side-discussion you're having with readLeader seems like a waste of your time.

Perhaps you should read the thread instead of coming in and saying, "Oh, I have no idea what the study is about, but here's my opinion anyway," so you don't make a fool of yourself.

He claimed higher promiscuity correlates with higher divorce rates, and linked a study to back it up. The "promiscuity" he was referring to largely involves teenage girls who "really didn't want" the sex to happen in the first place. Sure sounds like promiscuity to me.

 

[MrToughPants]

Depends how big the penises were.

Don't want no gaping hotdog in a hall way.

 

[Derwind]

Just because she says she doesn't want to fuck doesn't mean she "says" she doesn't want to "fuck".

I think I've heard that somewhere before. Hmmmm....

 

[Evolution_1ne]

who cares, it shouldn't matter

 

[Devolution]

This is the kicker for me... what really puts it over the top as a molestation study.

Which pisses me off that he framed in as a "promiscuous" issue when really the damn study was how badly sexual abuse as a child affects future relationships.

 

[Can Crusher]

Usually it will matter more not how many partners she had in her life, but how many partners she had recently. I reckon that will more directly affect your relationship than simply the overall amount.

Like say you meet a woman/girl whatever, and she's 200 total in her whole life. Now 200 will scare a lot of guys if not most, but really if she's like 27 and started at 17 that's an average of 20 or so a year, not even two guys a month. Now if when you meet her she has a pattern that hasn't been broken yet, then that shit is a red light for you because you're just next in line so take and leave it. But if she's broken a pattern, and in this case she hadn't been with anyone for two months for example then why would it matter that she had 200 sexual partners? Maybe she was simply not able to emotionally commit to somebody before, but now she's over that stage in her life.

So yeah, I generally care more about patterns and recent history. Overall number of sexual partners might not mean anything, aside from your own insecurities. In the case of your friend given it's only 30 and she's 24, plus they have been dating for months.... I would say your friend is a bitch for wanting to break up with her.

 

[Unbounded]

who cares, it shouldn't matter

Plenty of things people look for in a partner don't really matter in the context of a relationship but people care about anyway, with height as an example.

It all just comes down to personal preference for whatever reason, so I don't understand why we're being so aggressive about people having preferences in their partners.

 

[Bleepey]

It's funny that men who value a woman being with as few people as possible never count themselves. Like they aren't going "shit, I can't have sex with you, it steals some of your value as a person."

Good point. That said my mate told me that his gf was upset with how many girls he's slept with ( he claims about 80). She said her number was less than 10 with only one one night stand. She called him a man whore and he countered that his ability to sleep with so many women is probably what attracted her to him at some level. Something which she agreed on.

 

[Can Crusher]

Good point. That said my mate told me that his gf was upset with how many girls he's slept with ( he claims about 80). She said her number was less than 10 with only one one night stand. She called him a man whore and he countered that his ability to sleep with so many women is probably what attracted her to him at some level. Something which she agreed on.

From personal experience, it's more damaging when you have certain sexual experiences the other one didn't. Like being in a menage when your GF hasn't, has a bigger impact than having slept with 4x as many partners.

 

[Vermillion]

To be fair to readLeader, the study does say this:

If the young woman waited until age 16 or 17 and the first sex was wanted, there was no direct link to dissolution down the road. But, while the sex itself did not increase the likelihood of a marital split, other factors related to sexuality -– such as a higher number of sexual partners, pregnancy, or out-of-wedlock birth -– increased the risk for some respondents.

Though that is still an unquantified claim (to what degree did risk increase, how many is some, etc.).

Good point. That said my mate told me that his gf was upset with how many girls he's slept with ( he claims about 80). She said her number was less than 10 with only one one night stand. She called him a man whore and he countered that his ability to sleep with so many women is probably what attracted her to him at some level. Something which she agreed on.

From what I've seen, it looks like (perhaps a result of society being as it is) many men prefer women with less partners, while women prefer the men who have had more. Obviously doesn't apply to all people of either gender, and this thread is filled with males who would rather women with more partners.

 

[Devolution]

To be fair to readLeader, the study does say this:



Though that is still an unquantified claim (to what degree did risk increase, how many is some, etc.)..

"The results are consistent with the argument that there are down sides to adolescent sexuality, including the increased likelihood of divorce," Paik said. "But there's also support for the 'more sex positive' view, because if a teen delays sex to late adolescence and it is wanted, that choice in itself doesn't necessarily lead to increased risk of divorce."

.

 

[readLeader]

They're not mutually exclusive.

They're also not identical.

Which pisses me off that he framed in as a "promiscuous" issue when really the damn study was how badly sexual abuse as a child affects future relationships.

It is about early sexual experiences and promiscuous sexuality, not about sexual abuse (while that probably is involved in some of the studied groups). Quote:

"This research investigates whether first sexual intercourse during adolescence is associated with increased risk of first marriage dissolution and tests whether the results are consistent with causal or selection explanations. Drawing on a sample of 3,793 ever-married women from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, this study estimated event-history models of first-marriage dissolution. Results indicate that wanted sexual debut in later adolescence does not directly increase the risk of marital dissolution but is linked indirectly as a result of subsequent premarital sexual outcomes. Sexual debut that is not completely wanted or that occurs before age 16 is associated with increased risk of marital dissolution. The results suggest that the timing and context of adolescent sexual debut have important implications for marital stability."

Just because she says she doesn't want to fuck doesn't mean she "says" she doesn't want to "fuck".

I think I've heard that somewhere before. Hmmmm....

I'm not a rape apologist, painful that I even have to say that. A "no" is obviously a "no". The study didn't ask the girls/women whether they consented, but whether they "wanted", so it's not about the legal question of whether their first intercourse was rape/assault, but about whether they wanted to have it, and as noted in the study, the meaning the girls/women attribute to that is ambiguous.

Alright, just found the study - it juxtaposes a chosen sexual experience with the unwanted/not completely wanted ones, then goes on to break it down to "not completely wanted" or "occurring withing traumatic context." You're right.

I could not find the bolded quote, could you give me a page number?

 

[oneils]

I do think there is a limit that would give me pause or cause to ask more questions than usual. But that probably says more about me than about the potential partner.

Hope that makes sense.

Either way, that "limit" would apply to either gender (er, if I were bi - I guess).

 

[readLeader]

.

And in that study he goes on to say, quote:

"Women who reported that they wanted their sexual debut in late adolescence, ages 16 and 17, do not directly have an increased risk of marital dissolution. The onset of sexual activity at these ages is associated with subsequent premarital sexual outcomes, such as having multiple premarital partners and premarital fertility, both of which are determinants of divorce."

 

[params7]

Guys want to get laid.

Slut shame the women who get men laid.

Devo laughs and laughs and laughs.

It makes no sense to me either. Men have sex with many women - nothing wrong. Women have sex with many men - oh so wrong slut shame no honor hurr durr.

Makes no sense whatsoever. Some people love a lot of sex and love to have it with many people - some don't. Why does gender matter? One day we human beings will overcome this shitty part of our culture.

 

[Currygan]

I wouldn't be that comfortable with that number, but not enough of a reason to dump someone

 

[Gotchaye]

And in that study he goes on to say, quote:

"Women who reported that they wanted their sexual debut in late adolescence, ages 16 and 17, do not directly have an increased risk of marital dissolution. The onset of sexual activity at these ages is associated with subsequent premarital sexual outcomes, such as having multiple premarital partners and premarital fertility, both of which are determinants of divorce."

I'm still not really sure what the point of all of this is. I think you have to make an argument for there being significant information value in statistics like these as applied to someone you know quite a bit about if you want to justify saying "Nope, you've had sex with more than 20 people. I am not willing to let this relationship go any further because now the risk of eventual divorce exceeds my pre-determined tolerance." Likewise there's a concern about your pre-determined tolerance being gerrymandered.

Of course, you're also taking this as a bad correlation. I'd suggest that some divorces are actually good, and that one possible underlying cause here is that people who are less likely to have premarital sex are also less likely to seek divorce in a failed marriage.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Perhaps you should read the thread of coming in and saying, "Oh, I have no idea what the study is about, but here's my opinion anyway," so you don't make a fool of yourself.

He claimed higher promiscuity correlates with higher divorce rates, and linked a study to back it up. The "promiscuity" he was referring to largely involves teenage girls who "really didn't want" the sex to happen in the first place. Sure sounds like promiscuity to me.

Thanks for the summary, that does make it a whole lot clearer.

 

[BamYouHaveAids]

Why are you guys so judgmental about what qualities one looks for in a partner they expect to spend the rest of their life with? How is it any of your business what criteria they use? There is nothing wrong with wanting a certain number of sexual partners from your S/O. It simply means they are incompatible.

I slept with about 22 women in the last 8 months and have been turned down for relationships when women have found out my number. I've never cheated and never will, nor have I had an STD but I understand their position and respect it. Individuals are allowed to be selective with their partners no matter how arbitrary the criteria. How pompous and narcissistic do you have to be to determine what an individual should be comfortable with?


Also the thought that a woman who is promiscuous is better at sex then someone with significantly less partners is laughable. My worst lays bar none have been the girls whomgot around a lot.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

None.

Dependent on the number is whether I high five her or not.

 

[readLeader]

I'm still not really sure what the point of all of this is. I think you have to make an argument for there being significant information value in statistics like these as applied to someone you know quite a bit about if you want to justify saying "Nope, you've had sex with more than 20 people. I am not willing to let this relationship go any further because now the risk of eventual divorce exceeds my pre-determined tolerance." Likewise there's a concern about your pre-determined tolerance being gerrymandered.

Of course, you're also taking this as a bad correlation. I'd suggest that some divorces are actually good, and that one possible underlying cause here is that people who are less likely to have premarital sex are also less likely to seek divorce in a failed marriage.

I agree that in some cases, divorce is the right thing for the couple to do. What I'm trying to say is that the expectation that someone who has lots of casual sex is more likely not to have a lasting relationship than someone who doesn't is a fair assumption, given those statistics, and that as a rule of thumb that expectation is fair. Granted, in probably almost all cases, that expectation isn't the result of research, but it's still corroborated by it. As a statistical result, it should go without saying that it's not a black and white issue that applies exactly like that to every specific couple.

I took the discussion to have deviated from OP's specific case to general assumptions by page 2 at the latest, so that's where I'm coming from.

Thanks for the summary, that does make it a whole lot clearer.

It's also not true.

 

[Vermillion]

.

There he says that choice "in itself." What I quoted expounds on that - it's not the choice itself, rather the other factors - multiple sexual partners and the like.

If the young woman waited until age 16 or 17 and the first sex was wanted, there was no direct link to dissolution down the road. But, while the sex itself did not increase the likelihood of a marital split, other factors related to sexuality -– such as a higher number of sexual partners, pregnancy, or out-of-wedlock birth -– increased the risk for some respondents.

"The results are consistent with the argument that there are down sides to adolescent sexuality, including the increased likelihood of divorce," Paik said. "But there's also support for the 'more sex positive' view, because if a teen delays sex to late adolescence and it is wanted, that choice in itself doesn't necessarily lead to increased risk of divorce."

It's not the sex - it's the multiple sexual partners.

I could not find the bolded quote, could you give me a page number?

"If the sex was not completely wanted or occurred in a traumatic context, it's easy to imagine how that could have a negative impact on how women might feel about relationships, or on relationship skills," Paik said. "The experience could point people on a path toward less stable relationships."

Third paragraph from the bottom.

 

[Harlock]

So my friends in a bit of a dilemma, which I think he's stupid for but would like some other opinions. He's been dating this girl for a couple months and he really likes her and she's pretty but he found out she'd slept with 30+ different guys in her life, mostly in college. She's 24. I think that's about average, if anything a little high, but nothing crazy, but he says he's thinking about breaking up with her. My wife has had more sexual partners than me but I'm not really bothered by that, if anything I think it's better because she got it out of her system.

Tell your friend that is a good thing. If the woman made sex with few people is more likely to feel that not enjoyed life and be unhappy in a fixed relationship

 

[Devolution]

There he says that choice "in itself." What I quoted expounds on that - it's not the choice itself, rather the other factors - multiple sexual partners and the like.

It's not the sex - it's the multiple sexual partners.

But it doesn't say the reason for the divorce. People staying together in a marriage instead of divorcing doesn't make that a healthy relationship either. You'd need to list the reasons for divorce to clarify the issues with more sexual partners. It could be that the people with more sexual partners have perspective and don't feel the need to stay in a dysfunctional marriage. Without the real numbers on what initiated the divorce you can spin it any way you want.

 

[MrToughPants]

Boyfriend says I have roast beef vagina...?

My boyfriend was drunk and really angry (At something i did not do) and somehow turned around to be angry at me. He told me I had a "roast beef pussy.". He also said it's cause I'm a slut blahblahblah and that now he has to deal with a "30 year old vagina."

I've been with a handful of people but I'm not a slut,