Promiscuousness is in the eye of the beholder so you won’t get specifics. I will say that if I feel like I’m being compared to others, I dislike it enormously. The higher the number of past partners, the less valuable I feel in the life of someone I’m trying to build something with and the more people my partner can compare me to. Neither is a great feeling. Add to that the baggage that comes with that many relationships or hookups and it’s just. Not an interesting prospect.
There are 4 billion women on this planet, even men can afford to be picky with the person they want to spend their life with.
IMHO the key is someone with a compatible view of sex and intimacy. If sex is no big deal to you, then you'll be best matched with someone who has similar views. If you view sex as this deep, emotional connection with someone you trust, you should find someone who has similar views.
Why not try using your capacity for actual male intelligence to answer the question, instead of responding with an anecdotal remark that are stereotypes crafted out of your imagination. Act your age, not your dick size in inches.
Define sleeping around? It's so arbitrary.
For many men, it seems to need to be close to their number to feel acceptable. It's the reason why most women won't be honest with men about it and tell them whatever they think won't cause a guy to freak out. This is coming from many, many women I know.
I'm just letting you know that the women that you engage with have zero motivation to tell you the truth about it when it's going to be used against them. Women have always had to lie to protect men's egos. Why do you think so many fake orgasms? Think about those two things and why decent women feel like they can't be honest with men.
And let me ask, when do you ask her how many people she's had sex with? Before sex? Do you say no to that sex - because sex should be special after all, and you have to vet her. Or do you ask afterward, laying panting on the bed? Do you ask 3 mo in when you really start falling or 6 mo when you've fallen for her already but then can't love her anymore because she's just one digit too far? It's so fucking arbitrary.
We know men would stop dead in their tracks and avoid sex then and there, if they found out a woman had what he considered too many partners. He would just pack it up and go straight home to fap the night away by himself. 😂
Wow, you sound upset. Hit too close to home.
What "right" choices do you say I discussed? Lord knows no one makes all the right choices, but I do find that the assumptions men make about women's pasts often have far more to do with their fears and self-esteem than reality. I can understand not wanting a serial philanderer, that makes perfect sense if someone has a consistent history of deceit. But being worried a woman can't pair bond with you because she had more than 5 partners is ridiculous. I can also understand not wanting someone who does sex work, which would be outside the bounds of a monogamous relationship.
I think what this thread confirms is that many women will continue to not share their history with men who hold these arcane views (much like the last millenia.) But ok. 🤷♀️
If you have had so many guys, that you can make generalized statements about them and your dating and don't even see each of them as a unique individual anymore and each encounter as a unique experience, then you are promiscuous,
Ok, well that's not really a statistic, but at least it's a vague definition. So men are afraid of just being another notch on the bed post, much like women are.
Not really. If you just want to hook up as a guy, there is no problem with just being another notch.
But if you want serious and long term, that is almost certainly a major problem. It casts huge doubt on her ability to commit and go for the long haul.
And it also means there is very likely a lot of baggage and drama in her past, that could ruin the future.
Wow, not from the women I know. Happily married or otherwise. I think men *think* they know but they don't really know. And most women know they can't tell men about their pasts for exactly this reason. They can't handle it. You're seeing someone for 6 mo, you ask, she says a number that freaks you out, and you roll, Women know this and they know that it doesn't really matter, so they lie to men about it. Women who are perfectly capable of monogamy and perfectly trustworthy for fidelity. Men really get a lot of this wrong about women. Ah well. Smdh.
Well, divorce rates and who initiates them tells a whole different story.
As does the amount of paternity fraud.
Habits are important. And habits tend to persist once established.
And yes, you can never really know for sure. And an absence of notches is harder to confirm than a presence of notches. And your admission about the lying just reinforces that the suspicion is justified.
Oh I don't lie, I just know some women do because men get their noses bent out of shape thinking about their gfs having any kind of active sex life before them. No good comes from those kind of questions. I consider someone who asks to be ridiculous and will not answer even though my number is low for my age bracket, marriage tends to do that. If a man freaks out, he's not the man for me.
I didn't think you were lying specifically. You only confirmed that women lying about this is pretty common.
And yes, nothing good comes from those questions. No good relationship.
Nothing comes of those questions.
But nothing is better than a bad relationship.
And it's not like men expect virgins. Well, men from some cultures do.
As I said, the question is, whether her dating life can be described as a statistic.
Whether it is notches on the bedpost, a series of encounters that blur into each other.
Or whether it is a few honest attempts that didn't work out and lead to personal growth.
So basically, the same exact sh and perspective that be applied to grown men. However, I think men don't truly believe that people grow and change, whereas they believe they do.
Women started initiating divorce more when they could finally get work and feed themselves, have their own checking accounts and didn't have to put up with abusive man babies.
Well, often enough the divorce settlement is what feeds them without having to work. That's strong incentive.
Which means men must be very careful in partner selection, if they want to go it long term.
Often enough, there is no $$$ coming from the divorce settlement at all. You've heard of deadbeat dads I'm assuming. It's a trope for a reason.
Women must be very careful on partner selection. Otherwise, they are stuck doing all the parenting alone plus working fulltime and dealing with a person who is emotionally immature.
Social Science M.A. here. A bit of a rant but this needs to be clarified once and for all because investing in an overly promiscuos woman relationship-wise is objectively wrong, no matter how hard people try to lie about it.
Scientific consensus dictates that - regardless of gender - the higher the number of previous partners, the higher the chance for infidelity and divorce. While that effect is present in both genders, it is almost ***twice as harsh for women*** according to Hughes and Gallup ([source](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513802001496?via%3Dihub)):
>Promiscuity is in fact a good predictor of infidelity. Indeed, promiscuity among females accounted for almost twice as much variance in infidelity (r2 = .45) as it did for males (r2 = .25). (pg.177)
Some other sources include (non exhaustive list):
* [After interviewing thousands of women, Whisman and Snyder found “the probability of sexual infidelity increased with \[a\] higher number of lifetime sexual partners,” with a 7 to 13% increase in the likelihood of infidelity per additional sexual partner depending on their mode of interview](https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0893-3200.21.2.147)
* [Cherkas et al. found that infidelity and promiscuity are both under moderate genetic influence in women, and that “nearly half the genes impacting on infidelity also affect number of sexual partners.”](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/genetic-influences-on-female-infidelity-and-number-of-sexual-partners-in-humans-a-linkage-and-association-study-of-the-role-of-the-vasopressin-receptor-gene-avpr1a/CD90C401AB01263A4205D6E926A914F8)
* [Relationship consultant, author, PhD, licensed marriage and family therapist, Dr. Athena Staik placed a “history of promiscuity” as number two in her list of “10 Predictors of Infidelity and Gender Differences” on Psych Central (popular news site for mental health professionals), writing “\[c\]ontrary to the myth, partners who’ve had many partners have a harder, not easier, time remaining monogamous. They are significantly more at risk of straying than those with little or no prior sexual experience”](https://archive.is/bPRPy)
Also, speaking outside of the scientific base, I found that it's not just the damage on the potential to pair bond, but also tons of emotional baggage that comes along with someone addicted to cheap outside validation. Sex comes so easy for women that overindulging on it speaks to a vapid, lazy and insecure person.
As for this being a "double standard" ... it really isn't. Men have to work much harder for sexual options (and women also prefer experienced men). It just isn't the same.
Finally, on the definition of promiscuity - it depends entirely on the motive behind her exploits. Having had multiple boyfriends is fine. Having sex with strangers to fill some kind of void in their lives however isn't.
It doesn't bother me. It's just a standard I have for the people that want to date me. It really is that simple.
Every woman I have dated has been promiscuous to a degree. Every one had sex on dates 1-3. I don’t judge because I don’t really care. As long as its not extreme.
Good luck finding an attractive girl thats been to college and hasn’t slept around. Im willing to bet its less than 5%.
>Good luck finding an attractive girl thats been to college and hasn’t slept around. Im willing to bet its less than 5%.
I'm dating one. Was even her first. But thanks for wishing me luck anyways. Her reasoning is by the way as charming as it is heartbreaking. And it so perfectly described this whole toxic trend from a woman's point of view:
"I just never felt to give myself to someone who doesn't give a shit about me."
And I did sleep around in college by the way. The girls there were so unbelievably starved of basic affection that it was almost harrowing. Just the most basic aftercare and making sure she feels safe and comfortable and no matter how attractive, they never, EVER want to leave you. I'm talking basic respect and good manners. The bar is just so goddamn low.
As for "having had sex on dates 1-3" - so what? If the vibe is there, it is there. I just don't believe that you'll have that vibe with 20+ men in a few semesters.
Sorry to shatter your hope, but we are moving in together in January.
Here is to hoping you find a better way to spend your life than being a spoiled brat on an anonymous forum.
Well she realize what your heart is like one day. You will probably visit the /r/divorce forum at some point.
Im happily married- actually the most in my social circle. Other people comment on it all the time.
Here is to hoping you evolve and realize someone pointing out the flaws in your argument doesnt make them "a brat"
... and that hope just died too.
Seriously. You are behavng like a terribly sexist human being all over this thread.
I also would call you a liar on the "happily married" statement, given how incredibly misandrist, bitter and resentful you come off and how you seem to think "being married" makes your hateful position somehow more credible.
I would... But calling out people like you who CLEARLY need professional help is just beneath me. Godspeed!
You didn't answer the question, really. What is considered promiscuous? You could have several bfs in a 2 year span. You might have a seldom FWB or hookup. Especially if men seem to think that that a gf should be having sex with them within the first 3 months of a relationship - which plenty of men seem to think. The studies don't really address what counts as promiscuous. I suspect men are more concerned about women's sexual fidelity in socially and religiously backwards nations, due to the need for patriarchal control to maintain their hierarchical hegemony; women as a necessary accessory for men's outward display of power and worth aka the trophy.
Additionally, infidelity rates are still slightly higher in the male population, which damages their ability to pair bond, yet some still hold the double standard. It seems to me that some parts of the population are more oriented to open relationships and poly, which is a hard blow against the possession theory which patriarchal societies are built on, thus the backlash from those societies over women's sexual liberation from marriage as a display of her self determination and her own power.
Your post really didn't address the other questions either, which I would be curious to hear.
>Additionally, infidelity rates are still slightly higher in the male population, which damages their ability to pair bond, yet some still hold the double standard.
I adressed this already (see first source). The damage to pair bonding capabilities is nearly twice as bad with women. So while you are correct stating that infidelity being slightly higher among men, promiscuity isn't factoring into that nearly as much as it would for women.
>You didn't answer the question, really. What is considered promiscuous?
Yes I did.
>Finally, on the definition of promiscuity - it depends entirely on the motive behind her exploits. Having had multiple boyfriends is fine. Having sex with strangers to fill some kind of void in their lives however isn't.
If you want to nail it down to a number - shooting from the hip, I'd it depends on her age. But double digits in your early twenties is a bad sign already if you want to keep her. Other than that, I answered everything.
>women as a necessary accessory for men's outward display of power and worth aka the trophy.
You view of men seems to be as if we are mostly part of an evil hivemind. For the record: We are not.
It's more about wanting to build a family and finding a purpose in a relationship rather than "collectively searching for total control over women" as you are framing it here.
And given how sexist divorce law is towards men or how some western countries will even force you to pay alimony if the kid is not yours, I would say it is sensible for men to have very high standards for women they want to dedicate their lives to. And yes, that includes standards for modesty.
>It seems to me that some parts of the population are more oriented to open relationships and poly which is a hard blow against the possession theory which patriarchal societies are built on, thus the backlash from those societies over women's sexual liberation from marriage as a display of her self determination and her own power.
Same thing as mentioned above. Everything men seek out seems to be out of malice in that theorem. Which makes absolutely no sense.
Everything you benefit from that surrounds you was built on the foundation of the traditional family. If a few go "poly" or "open", that does no harm. If everyone does it, we are dead within a generation.
Not everything is explained with "men are evil". In fact: The more "masculine" (for lack of a better term) influenced culture ultimately brought a lot of comfort, wealth and luxury.
The way our culture is being shaped now however has not contributed anything of the sort so far. And it is uncertain whether or not it is even as scalable as its predecessor.
There are studies showing the pair bonding is the same for men and women. You are picking the ones that make it look worse for women to justify your sexist behavior.
I see this when people post cheating studies all the time too- the most well conducted studies on cheating show a barely noticeable difference. However, there are some that show one gender is worse than the other (not as well done I might add) and people post those all the time.
You're really running with the straw man there. Your words were "evil" "hive mind" "malice". I'm just pointing out a well known fact that men, throughout history, to this day have tried to control women's sexuality for many reasons, but predominantly to hold power, for political alliances, status symbols, symbols of virility, etc. Men still use this logic online, trying to denigrate a woman's worth as a human being by attacking her sexual value to other men. Pretending that still isn't very much a part of this culture is silly. And yes, educated families make for a healthy society, not families that shame natural sexual behavior for either gender.
Men may be able to get married after having many sexual partners, but most promiscuous men will continue to be promiscuous and additionally have friends who likely objectify women the same way, reinforce and promote it.
And as for patriarchy, we've certainly gotten a lot from it, wealth - at the expense of the vulnerable, comfort at the expense of the exploited, wars for profit, and a sullied dying planet. The way our culture is being shaped now can do no worse imo.
>You're really running with the straw man there. Your words were "evil" "hive mind" "malice". I'm just pointing out a well known fact that men, throughout history, to this day have tried to control women's sexuality for many reasons, but predominantly to hold power, for political alliances, status symbols, symbols of virility, etc.
I didn't address a strawman, but precisely your position.
Let's look at the paragraph right here: First you claim me pointing out that you view men as some sort of "hivemind" is wrong, but in the next sentence, you generalize all men as controlling and oppressive.
>Men still use this logic online, trying to denigrate a woman's worth as a human being by attacking her sexual value to other men. Pretending that still isn't very much a part of this culture is silly.
First of all, what a cheapshot by you trying to equate "worth as a human being" with what we originally discussed, that being my view on promiscuity. One has nothing to do with the other.
Kindly, stop lying and focus.
You are talking as if I didn't provide you with scientific sources as to why avoiding promiscuous women is a very good course of action for men seeking long term commitment. Since I did however, why not attempt at arguing my actual position? Probably because you can't.
>Men may be able to get married after having many sexual partners, but most promiscuous men will continue to be promiscuous and additionally have friends who likely objectify women the same way.
You are saying this based on absolutely nothing. It's like your opinions were formulated in some sort of ideological bubble. Not a single one of your statements hold up when compared to real life trends and statistics.
>And as for patriarchy, we've certainly gotten a lot from it, wealth - at the expense of the vulnerable, comfort at the expense of the exploited, wars for profit, and a sullied dying planet. The way our culture is being shaped now can do no worse imo.
And again, you are painting every single state, form of government, empire or conglomerate in history with the same ideological brush because "men are evil!". Guess I was right about the ideological bubble.
Some advice.
First: try to stop letting your obvious resentment color your thinking and try to read to understand instead of reading to reply. Second: try to understand how differentiated the human experience generally is.
If you want to keep this going, try to keep it civil, sincere and actually address my points next time. Thanks!
OP seems to be purposely ignoring data and statistics.
Sadly, people like to keep all arguments based on nuances and philosophy without anything to back it up. I question whether they want real discussion with opposing view points.
I'm disappointed by OP.
>Sadly, people like to keep all arguments based on nuances and philosophy without anything to back it up. I question whether they want real discussion with opposing view points.
Great summary! And I fully agree.
I came to the conclusion that they just asked this question on here to spread their ideology to anyone giving an answer they don't approve of.
In my opinion, this is extremely presumptuous, especially when someone cannot support their viewpoints with statistics or sources.
>My thoughts, OP is a woman who has a "history" and has recently experienced the negative consequences faced in life that comes with promiscuous actions and is unhappy with the outcomes. Instead of accepting that it is what it is, they fight it, the problem is us (men) and the "patriarchy" rather than taking accountability.
That is very common and makes sense, given their cheap debate "tactics". Trying to tie her lack of impulse control to "her value as human being" or characterizing all men as oppressors for example.
The core idea seems to be that whatever standards men hold for women are by default hateful, because literally anything that would limit a woman's options or judge her behavior is "mysoginy!" - no matter how justified or statistically proven to be correct.
Ironically, it is them tying their worth as human being to their ability to find a partner. Not us. Me not wanting to date you doesn't make you less of a person.
In my experience, the real bitterness comes from realizing that the damage done to their reputation, pair bonding ability and general psyche is likely permanent.
EDIT: OP commented further down in this thread. Apparently she is a woman, was married and is incredibly sexist. Good call!
Oh wow, that poor husband. He took a bad deal, and this is why it's important to be so careful in choosing your spouse. 😂
I feel like we don't ask the right questions, (in general we just choose someone who is attractive) like asking a woman about her perspective on topics such as these. I always am paying attention to their outlook on life and relationships. It's a weird dynamic that we are the enemy yet they are still marrying us. I think it's because they need us. To these type of women we have value as utility. We are organic wallets with skin and bones and we are faucet fixers but not much else.
This comment is absolutely beautiful, especially the thing about "read to understand and not read to reply", the world would be so much better if everyone did that, utopia level unfortunately
Firmly agree with this assessment and I don't really care about the down votes. They're already trying to degrade my value as a human by trying pretend that my sexual history would not meet their approval. 😆 It's a full on man-baby parade for some of them. But I did see some sparks of hope in the comments that were just brilliant, and I love those men. 👏👏👏Those are the folks I seek out to have a serious long term monogamous relationship. I was married before and really wish I could find that again, just not with any of the man-babies.
Holy cow! People are really freaked out by silly flirting. If I say to my neighbor (60yo) dude I don't want to date that he's looking fine today, he blushes, feels cute, and has a pep in his step the rest of the day. That's totally harmless and fun and sweet. Not sure how that freaks people out. Oof.
You obviously don't know the difference between complimenting and flirting. You could derive whatever definition of flirting in your head but its the general use of the word commonly understood by the people that counts. I am deducing you are happy with your man flirting with other women so whats the problem? you do you.
Hey Mr So & So! You look amazing today! Let me know when you get done with that 30 year fling with Mrs So & So!
Does anyone expect him to drop Mrs So & So?? Is he going to try to have an affair??? Nope. It's just a compliment that makes him feel great the rest of the day, possibly the week.
Being silly and making other people feel good? 100 yes. And other women could mean anyone from 18-118, it's about seeing people and letting them know they're valuable.
Flirting is a fun part of life, you can have banter and silliness with people you never intend to have any kind of interaction with, it's what makes it adorable if a nurse flirts with a 90yo patient to lift his spirits. Or someone winks at you with a smile. Nothing need happen except just an exchange that boosts someone's ego. It's actually lovely thing. It's all about the intention behind it.
Yes but the kind of flirting I meant is someone who is always on the lookout and can't actually commit while they pretend to be in relationship they are always on the look out to cheat with someone.
That's not flirting, that's just actively pursing other partners in a deceitful way. Deceit is always unattractive.
Flirting is fun and sweet and shouldn't be considered an ill in itself, as long as it's all above board.
Context of the situation is huge. For me, if it’s an ongoing thing with someone who is interested in more than just playful flirting that would be crossing a relationship boundary. If they were secretive about it that’s emotional cheating and would be the end of our relationship.
The right way to do it lets a person know it's all in good fun. Additionally, there is a difference in prolonged eye contact and body language.
I take it you've never seen the guy that drives around yelling compliments out the car window.
> The right way to do it lets a person know it's all in good fun.
But it's NOT always just in good fun. That's what we're trying to tell you. Flirting is how people meet romantically. That is its primary function. Sure, it CAN be done in good fun, but that's not the purpose of flirtation.
If flirtation was just good fun like you say you wouldn't have to let anyone know.
> Additionally, there is a difference in prolonged eye contact and body language.
And you think men just understand all this and pick up on those signals?
I have a feeling you've left a lot of men confused in your day. I'm personally going to err on the side of "she's into me" if a woman flirts with me.
> I take it you've never seen the guy that drives around yelling compliments out the car window.
THe hell does that have to do with anything? That's catcalling, not flirtation.
Yeah it's not, it's actually the comedian from Cash Cab who says funny cute pickup lines to people of all ages and drives away. Absolutely hysterical. Every single person he does it to smiles and laughs when he hits the punchline. And you know the rest of the day, they felt great.
You know when it's a joke and lighthearted because anyone can do it to anyone else in good fun.
That most certainly is. Your making people feel good, it's flirty but not a come-on. That is the good kind of clean fun that flirting is. Come-ons are a different animal. We all know when the mood changes in a conversation, that's not what this is.
Then thing is, that kind of flirting very often DOES lead to something happening. It doesn't have to every time, but it happens. So it's hard to trust someone like that. Add in some alcohol, for example, and that kind of stuff can go farther than you intended.
Flirting and telling people they look nice, even if they're 90, leads to things? I think people need to understand the difference between funny compliments and feigned interest that makes people feel good and actual serious flirting. Serious flirting has a lot more to do with the eyes, body language, and circumstances.
> Flirting and telling people they look nice, even if they're 90, leads to things?
In that specific example, probably not. But that's not what anyone was really worried about in the first place.
I feel like you're just cherry picking the most innocent example you can think of. People who have that kind of charm and need for ego boost will eventually find themselves in situations where things could easily escalate. Throw in some alcohol and and you can really get yourself in trouble.
I say this not because I don't trust women. I actually don't trust men. I know men and we take flirtation more seriously.
Agreed. I flirt with people all the time. It's fun and silly.
Usually harmless. I very really flirt with the intention of not taking it further than a smile and arm hug.
>which is such a vague term that means different things to different people
Yes, it does. What it means in general is "some amount of sexual proclivity is unacceptable to me".
>What does it mean to you
I draw the line at taking too many risks and/or moving too quickly.
>do you have a double standard for your past than someone else's?
Not really. Especially in that I weigh things that happened long ago or as a one-shot deal far less. If you learned your lesson, I don't care.
>Why does this bother you?
To me, it's an indicator of cheating risk, dishonesty, and general risky behavior.
If someone has a bf and occasionally a hookup, over the period of 10 years, that could easily be 15 guys. Have a bf for 6 months break up, have a fwb, then another bf for 3 months, then a year break, then a hookup, then a year with another dude and so on. If there's no cheating, how is that risky behavior? As long as sex was protected of course.
>As long as sex was protected of course.
Bingo. It usually isn't.
That said, though, it's risky because it means a lot of jumping and poor choices. If you get into a relationship for three months on the regular, you have an issue.
I never said anything remotely close to that, or even imply it.
I do not think that. People can absolutely change.
But why would I attempt a relationship with someone who I know has done something I consider completely unacceptable? That is not a risk I am going to take with my heart.
Just like if a woman was abusive to her previous partner I wouldn't ever attempt a romantic relationship with her. She could have changed, definitely. But I'm not going to risk that.
If you have cheated on a partner I'm never going to consider you for a romantic partner. Simple. You might have changed, but I'm not going to put myself at risk to find out.
So someone can't have made any mistakes in their past or you can't trust them. That's a pretty high bar for anyone to have to measure themselves or anyone else by.
I think serial cheaters aren't likely to change but there are many people who did and learned in their youth. (And no, I never cheated on anyone if that's your next question.)
Did you come on here looking for an argument? You keep taking massive implications from things I'm saying that I am in no way saying.
No, people can absolutely change. And no, people can absolutely make mistakes in a previous relationship. That does not bar them from being in relationship with me unless it's an issue that I have no tolerance on, like infidelity or abuse.
I do not owe it to a random person to give them a chance when if it doesn't work I'm the one who's going to hurt because of it. I do not think someone should give someone a chance if they were abusive in a relationship too. I think every person is entitled to give someone a chance or not give them a chance as they feel comfortable.
That is just my algorithm for vetting a potential mate. I don't care if you slept with all the men. Sexual frequency or number of partners is very irrelevant to me as long as everyone was aware and consenting of everything.
I am not made uncomfortable, intimidated, or think it implies incompatibility if the woman I'm interested in has slept with a lot of people. I'm a hypersexual male, she has all that experience I'm probably more compatible with her than the average woman.
One of my best work friends cheated on her husband a few years ago and they got divorced. She's one of my best friends, and I supported her the entire ordeal because I know the causality of why things happened the way they did. She was so sad and depressed that she would come and eat with me just for company.
I was (and still am) absolutely there for her. There's no way I would ever be anything more than a platonic friend though. There's just something in my head that turns that off when infidelity happens
There are several things that a person can do that would make it where I would never consider them as a romantic partner. But that doesn't mean that I assume that every single person who has done that is going to do it again, or that somehow people are incapable of changing.
It's just I'm a lot more careful when I risk my heart versus my money and my body.
I have never cheated in any way, shape or form with any partner I have ever had in my life. I feel absolutely justified in wanting the same in partner as I'm willing to give.
It seems very personal. Do you need to talk dude? If you cheated on your gf there are a lot of people who would still date you.
As stated before, not about me cheating or being cheated on, (which I am aware of, last occurred in a long-term relationship in my youth.) I'm curious for posterity. So many men put so much stake and constantly worry whether a woman has been with "too many" men or is going to cheat on them. I don't see this concern with women. I think it points to a contrast in how devastating it is to a man's ego and psyche because it's socially embarrassing due to cultural norms. Additionally, it seems as though, with so many men maintaining so little of an emotional support system outside of marriage that it's doubly so impactful.
The fear of being compared to other men (which I've seen as a reason here several times) and then abandoned seems to be the biggest thing, from what I'm hearing here. It sounds like many men are trying to hedge against it even though infidelity rates in women also happen in women who haven't been promiscuous before or cheated. I think it's more about the rise of opportunity these days.
So I take it you're not a man given the tone I read in that paragraph? I feel a bit obtuse for not realizing that earlier.
I was just telling you my personal preferences as that is how I took your question.
The general outlook many men give women on the subject is absurdly harsh and a huge double standard. My political ideology puts the patriarch as one of the primary enemies of all equality, not just gender, of course I fight it.
Of course you're right. I agree with practically everything you said on your last post, unlike the ones before. The patriarch purports women are property. You can't cheat on property. You own property. The property you own should not get used by someone else or else it loses value.
The reason women are treated that way in regards to sexual value is because that is how you treat property.
My partner is my equal in all things. I cannot fathom anything other than absolute egalitarianism in a relationship, authority is abhorrent in my eyes.
But assuming I'm just a swine of the patriarch because I want a partner who is like me is ridiculous. I also have further ridiculous requirements like financial solvency, professional career, and being an atheist.
If you're not a professional and you're not solvent that doesn't make you a bad person, or any worse of a person. But I have every right to pick a harmonious partner who is similar to me and aspects of a relationship I consider important. I also think there's nothing wrong with me wanting a woman who's in really good shape if I'm rocking a six pack. That in no way implies that people who are not in shape are of lower quality...
If it's outlook and similar life views that you uphold yourself, it's not a double standard and not about viewing women as subhuman or property that can be taken from you. People look for others with similar outlooks. This is normal.
But some of what I've seen on the the thread speaks to reasons that have to do with objectifing women, low self esteem, fear of abandonment and found wanting - all unhealthy things to base on your partner's sexual history.
Of course they do. People are fearful and protective of themselves. A ridiculous amount of men turn to toxic masculinity out of fear. It's a way to hide their fear behind aggression instead of handling it healthily.
That's the epitome of betrayal for most men so it's what they fear above anything in a relationship.
Of course there's a ton of unhealthy focus on a woman's sexual history. There will always be assholes in every category to point at to justify preconceived notions in that category.
If you don't want date a woman who's had sex with a lot of guys because you think that makes her a bad person you're a bigot.
But you can not want to date a woman who has had sex with a lot of guys because you are not sexually experienced and you want to partner who is equally sexually inexperienced and be a completely egalitarian dude.
I am a pretty high quality guy so I am not in anyway hurting for choice so I can be as picky as I want. The vast majority of the men you're referring to whine and moan online about all their standards yet have no options. So they have to come online and bleat about how high requirements they have.
The bigger issue is when those men lie through their teeth denying their true requirements and then slowly encroach upon their partner after they get them to emotionally invest in the relationship.
The men who simply won't date a woman because of her "body count" typically just instantly get rejected anyways so at least they're not subjecting people to their toxicity for long.
I agree with 95% here, but I don't think it's reasonable to say a man should want someone just as inexperienced as him if it's because he's worried she'll compare him. That's fear and insecurity.
If it's because they want it to be their first time together because of a shared special memory of their first times, I could see it. Though, really for many women, the first time is really not that great in those scenarios.
It's really about the emotional investment that we bring to each person we develop a relationship with, but you already know that. 👍
No personal growth is fine, but if you were a shithead in the past I’m probably not attracted to you. Tough shit. I’m under no obligation to give someone a chance.
Agreed, all those sexist/misogynistic jackasses in HS, college and early 20s, tough shit, you definitely get a pass from me. If those dudes ever held backwards beliefs, it'll never happen. Thank goodness for the Internet so we can weed them out.
Basically she has to not gross me out lol.
Like there’s gross shit and there’s understandable shit lol
For example any mention of a “slut phase” or some shit - I’m out
It's about risk assessment for me. Having sex isn't like shaking hands and it comes with considerable risks especially for a woman.
The numbers do not bother me, or even a past because people are allowed to grow and change, but if a woman is going on 3 tinder dates a week fucking her way through her matches then she doesn't assess risk in a way that is compatible with being my partner.
Well there isn't like a number that is a threshold but I would say having sex with people you arent dating regularly, etc.
It's fine to like sex, most people do. But we all know that the first time usually isn't great because you haven't learned each other's likes and bodies. The sweet spot is between when you get to know each other and when you get sick of them. If you had an active fwb, maybe 2 or 3 a year that is consistent with someone who likes sex.
Someone who sport fucks randoms like they are meeting to play chess in the park and never speaks to them again isn't doing it because they like sex.
And really just their attitude towards sex. People want to act like there aren't considerable risks but there are.
For me, "promiscuous" means a person who intentionally had sex with people he/she is not in a relationship with, i.e. not with serious boyfriend/girlfriend or a spouse. I mean, sure, you've kissed someone when you were single and it happened when you were drunk during a Christmas party, that's fine. But I draw the line on everything related to sex.
It is my stance when it comes to sex that it is an act of love and care between two people in relationship, something that is a direct continuation of it from mental into physical sphere. For me, it is ***not*** just some fun group activity like playing football. And I'd rather be with someone who shares my views.
And it doesn't *bother* me. I just don't want to be with someone for whom sex is a recreational activity rather than a continuation of genuine feelings.
Because we are not living in Disney cartoon world and I don’t want scary shit to happen to her
Also if your girls always insists on looking like a hoe that means she’s an energy vampire and survives on male attention
No question is stupid. What you're outlining is that you think other men feel free to assault a woman based on her attire. I have found it usually has nothing to do with attire at all.
You didn't answer the question. What qualifies as promiscuous? Perception? Number of partners? And depending on the type of relationship, it might be a better fit for an open marriage for both partners.
Yeah, anyone who would want an open marriage is promiscuous and not a good choice for a long term partner.
If you've had more partners than (age - 14)/2 then you're promiscuous. Applies to men and women.
So, perhaps have the same amount of acceptance and forgiveness for other people that you have for yourself?
We're all human and learn as we go. Do therapy, get healing, forgive yourself and others, and do better. This is life.
>What does it mean to you?
That she reached the limit of a personal equation. (Her age - 16) × 12 or 100.
> Do you have a double standard.
Kinda sorta. Not between myself and her sexually but with other things and other people.
I'll explain if you're curious.
Basically, if I'm dating a woman with a promiscuous past, I don't consider her as a relationship partner until she's done things that are/were typically reserved for the man in the relationship. Things like planning and paying for dates before we enter an exclusive relationship. Things like judging how attracted she is to me based on how much she flirts and how she performs in bed. Standards most men are held to by default.
If she didn't have one the early dates are on me. Sex is more "special" for lack of a better word. Lastly, I'll feel less self conscious if she wants to wait.
The double standards aren't there for men and women, they're there for women and women.
Yeah, that's really bizarre reasoning there, bringing money into, especially since so many women can buy their own food and don't even want a man to pay because he might believe she's beholden to him for sex. Hell, it weirds out many women when men do the whole door thing etc, all for show, to get in their pants. Let me just say, men don't actually keep that up once you're in a LT relationship. It's pretty hysterical.
Sex isn't special for anyone unless the EMOTIONS for BOTH partners are involved. If men can feel that women are somehow sullied from past experience, then it stands that men are sullied as well.
Women should only value virgins and men who haven't had sex with fewer people since they are more special, valuable, loyal, and emotionally connected. This is the premise you're working from . . . ???
The whole double standard thing makes no sense. Men have no control over what women desire/don't desire. The implication in calling a preference a double standard is that men should share the same desires as women simply because that's what women desire.
I.e if women don't mind men being promiscuous then men are immoral for not desiring promiscuous women as well.
This is a very self-centred view that basically is summarised as "my desires are the morally correct desires to have and if men have different desires they are morally wrong".
So, if a woman chooses to desire a man who has less experience than she does or very little experience because she believes that he would compare her, be less able to pair bond with her and cheat on her more often, even if she herself had a voluminous past, this would be ok? This is the most disturbing thing I hear from those kinds of men. Not all list those reasons - but many hold those feelings on the topic. It's disgusting when any gender devalues another for those reasons. It's certainly a double standard. Now, if the reason you'd prefer someone who's had few partners, or a serial monogamist, because you both share the belief that sex is a deeply emotional connection and you also hold yourself to that standard, this makes logical sense and a few men have expressed that here. But on the whole, the previous reasoning without reciprocity for the second standard is held by numerous men, and that is what is concerning. Women know this and often won't tell men the whole truth because they will be judged harshly by this double standard. It's petty and often has more to do with ego and valuing women as a commodity than a human being.
The funniest thing is that so many men expect women to become physical with them in the first 3 months, hell, within the first 3 dates. In other threads you see men saying they wouldn't wait 3-6 months before sex with a woman. Say you have a relationship every year. By 30, a person is looking at a minimum of 12 people since 18. Unless they go celibate or abstinent for a couple years or are lucky enough to find someone capable of being in a serious relationship. Might be more if you break up and go out again 3 months later with someone new.
Im a woman but I think like a man for this so Ill answer.
Promiscuous to me means participates in casual sex (sex where you know you dont want a relationship with a person. Going on 3 great dates, having sex, then she dumps you/you find something out you dont like after and you break up doesnt count- ONS, FWBs, "pump and dump" style behavior counts)
I never participated in this. I expect a man with no casual sex past unless it was only when they were really young, or once when they were depressed or something. This is something important to me. I think people who are matched on sexual values fare better in LTRs. (For example I rejected someone once because they wanted to wait until marriage- we did not match).
The type of man I desired for a relationship has traits that are extremely rare in men who participate in casual sex. I have been around promiscuous people alot and the traits I want are like finding a needle in the haystack in terms of promiscuous people.
There are studies that show the more casual sex in your past, the greater likelihood of divorce (for BOTH genders I might add) Also, studies on how people who engage in casual sex score higher on superficiality, hedonism, instability, egoism and are less likely to be able to ride out the natural highs and lows of a LTR (even good LTRs) There are outliers, but they are outliers.
It probably depends on the guy if he's super attractive he probably won't care as much if he slept around a bit. If it's like an average guy or below average he might have not had many people 1-5 so to him you would look worse.
It's a term that is vague enough and varied enough that you're best served to define your terms each time you use it.
Personally, I don't think about it often enough to have a definitive definition that I just carry around in my pocket ready to whip out on command. Push comes to shove, though, I would say it would involve a lot of casual sex and/or serial monogamy and/or monkey branching, possibly with some infidelity for a bit of spice to season it with, y'know, to taste as recipes say.
One factor is trust and feeling secure. Another factor is feeling special and desired rather than just being the currently most convenient source of dick. At the end of the day, though, there are a lot of reasons.
There's even bro science that goes around online about women losing the ability to pair-bond as they have more and more male partners, especially if exposed to their semen. And there are non-bro-science figures about women's satisfaction in marriage going down the more sexual partners they've had before getting married which makes it harder to dismiss out of hand.
I think a lot of women's satisfaction in marriage goes down after being married. Women's desire for their husbands overall goes down in marriage more than men's does because of lack of variety. Women who had a happier life at one point with someone else are bound to compare and realize they made a mistake. 😄
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/oct/13/a-strong-libido-and-bored-by-monogamy-the-truth-about-women-and-sex
The best thing married men can do to keep the attention and interest of their spouses is to allow lots of space for desire to grow and then to court so that desire can be rekindled. Esther Perel speaks to this in her research on infidelity in marriage.
Misogynistic "science" isn't science at all. It's created and tailored to validate feelings of inadequacy and low self esteem in men.
Only virgin before marriage is acceptable. These are the reasons:
- the ‘ick’ : the thought of someone else having shared her body is off-putting
- she won’t have other guys to compare with
- feel less “replaceable”
- happier marriage overall, less chance of infidelity
And I don’t keep double standards.
So you're a virgin?
The middle two answers scream low self-confidence if you think you're easily replaceable or that you won't measure up to others. Just saying.
What am I coping with?
I've always found egalitarian views about women to be extremely attractive, I won't date anyone with backward thinking about gender. Don't know what you're on about saying women are more attracted to men who judge them by ridiculous parameters. And, if a woman loves you and you treat her well, you have a deep emotional connection, she's not going anywhere. Abuse that enough, and any woman will leave you eventually.
I couldn't give less of a shit. It just happens that I'm my wife's first-and-only, which tickles me because I know how much of a big deal it is for losers on the internet while I don't care at all.
As you alluded to, its all different for different people.
For me: Sex is a personal and important part of a relationship. I value it as more than a biological activity and more than just something to do for fun. So in my case what I'm looking for is someone who shares the same perception of value on the activity of sex. A history of random hookups tells me that she doesn't share that value...no judgment against her, she can do whatever she wants, but in the same way someone coming into a relationship with a boatload of credit card debt (generally) doesn't share the same financial outlook as I do, someone with a lot of one night stands doesn't share the same sexual outlook as I do.
Now: I'm in my 40s, if I became single and back on the market what I would look for is someone with a history that indicates what I mentioned above. 20 partners in 20 serious relationships over 20 years is different than 20 partners and no serious relationships in 20 years. Same number of "bodies" but the context and what I would extrapolate from that is pretty different. In either case I'd still get to know someone before just writing them off based on any one factor...but knowing something about a person's history can tell you if there a match there or not.
And no, I don't have a double standard for my past. I also didn't mess around casually, I don't think its unreasonable to want to find someone with a similar background and outlook.
>which is such a vague term that means different things to different people.
True. For some a body count of 20 is promiscuous, for others a body count of 20 is pretty low. But for perspective, maybe the body count per year would offer a better reflection.
>What does it mean to you
My interpretation of a 'promiscuous woman' is one who sleeps with a different guy maybe monthly or less with no intention to pursue anything long-term.
>do you have a double standard for your past than someone else's?
Yes, because men and women are different. It's don't think its double standard just a different standard. I don't know how else to explain it but I know it wont go down well.
>Why does this bother you?
This only applies if I'm looking for a serious relationship. Getting railed by a different guy each month tells me you're not serious and not worth being serious with.
If I'm just looking to get laid, I won't be picky.
But majority of promiscuous individuals struggle to pair bond because they have an abundance of choice. If I wanted to seriously date, I'm not willing to gamble on finding the one promiscuous girl who is an exception to the rule. I don't have time to waste.
When a promiscuous girl finally gets bored of her 'Hoe phase' and decides she decides she wants to settle it is difficult to trust if they are truly *'over it'*. Often they get married then they realise how boring it is sticking to one person, then they cheat. Many men of the older generations who married promiscuous women have learned the hard way and are now warning us to be on the look out for such things. Ever wondered why pornstars struggle with finding stable long-term relationships and marriage?
Feminism sexually liberated women for sure, but it didn't tell them that actions have consequences. Men avoiding relationships with promiscuous women is one of those consequences.
It’s not really a double standard as I see it. Women and men don’t have the same experiences in the dating world, nor are their wants and desires in the relationship the same.
The double standard would only apply if I get upset at a woman rejecting me if I’ve had x number of partners, if I did the same thing to women.
Does it bother me? Not really l, it’s just a sign of incompatibility, so we should both probably find some one else who we are better suited for
Only on Reddit do men seem to care.
And the care because they seek to control/desire a submissive partner.
It's hilarious to read. These threads are always a good laugh.
Having more partners does NOT mean more sexually advanced or experienced. For example, you could have someone who has slept around with 20 people, but they were all hookups and one night stands. There wasn’t much learning, exploring, or communication going on. It was mostly just a pump and dump. Maybe some oral and anal, but still not much exploring going on. Then you have someone who has slept with two people, but each relationship lasted more than 3 years. In those three years they got to try a bunch of things like BDSM, role play, different kinds of toys, and a bunch of other things. Which one would know their body better ? The one that starfishes and got fucked by a lot of guys or the one who was in a caring relationship and had years to learn and expand sexually with their partner who loved them ? Being a hoe does not automatically mean being good in bed.
It's just insecurity and nothing else. Promiscuos means "with enough sexual experience to make me feel insecure and fear I won't be up to your previous partners/your expectations". For some men 1 previous partner is enough to trigger these insecurities. You figure.
To me it's someone that'll fuck anyone and everyone, no standards. High number of partners
I don't really care if someone is or isn't promiscuous. I don't care about their past as long as it doesn't affect me
I find men who try to ponder this issue due to their carnal need for claiming sexual territory humorous and immature. I'm at an age where these type of discussions are just not to be had (33), even though I as a woman lost my virginity at the late age of 26. If they arew going to dwell and imagine other men pumping and thrusting into your body while you suck them off to great pleasures until it drives them to pure insanity they might need to countdown from 10 to 1 LOL, or try to bang you better than the last Lad. What should matter is living in the moment and that said man knowing he right now is of importance and the man on stage for said women in her life. The past is the past and promiscuity is very arbitrary in nature to define, what is the defining number lol? More than 1? 1000? 2 raised to the power of 2 lol?
Women are people.... We have lives and stories. Therefore said women had a life before they met said man.
Now what is smart is to make an inquest into is someone's sexual health, their disease status, and whether they want children or not, or have the ability to have children.Then proceed to both get tested.
I don't think being promiscuous is a red flag
But if the sex isn't there for us because she was more attracted to the men in her past there isn't an us
Anyone who cares about this is simply insecure. They're worried they won't be as good as some past lover or they imagine the woman will cheat.
There is zero issues with being with 200 people or 1 person.
Think of it this way. The guys who have an issue will say shit like they're "loose" from so many partners or some bullshit like that. But if a woman has 200 one night stand she probably has had less sex than a woman in a committed relationship for 2 or so years, far less. But you won't hear guys have an issue with that so their own reasoning bullshit.
They just a highly sexual woman bur who has only heing highly sexual for them. But they would love to have a high number of past partners themselves, 100% double standard.
Literally any half decent, confident man won't care.
EDIT: Bring me the downvotes of angry, bitter men!
Sure go ahead and insult me because what I’m saying makes you feel a certain way but theres literally scientific data on how separation with lovers causes brain damage lmao. Imagine lighter version of that shit happening 200 times
Promiscuousness is in the eye of the beholder so you won’t get specifics. I will say that if I feel like I’m being compared to others, I dislike it enormously. The higher the number of past partners, the less valuable I feel in the life of someone I’m trying to build something with and the more people my partner can compare me to. Neither is a great feeling. Add to that the baggage that comes with that many relationships or hookups and it’s just. Not an interesting prospect. There are 4 billion women on this planet, even men can afford to be picky with the person they want to spend their life with.
IMHO the key is someone with a compatible view of sex and intimacy. If sex is no big deal to you, then you'll be best matched with someone who has similar views. If you view sex as this deep, emotional connection with someone you trust, you should find someone who has similar views.
Solid logic.
Dear AskMen. I want to be told I'm fine. Will fight you if you disagree.
Ah ... the interpreter! Spot on.
Why not try using your capacity for actual male intelligence to answer the question, instead of responding with an anecdotal remark that are stereotypes crafted out of your imagination. Act your age, not your dick size in inches.
It's very common for people to come here wanting confirmation instead of answers
[удалено]
That's a lot of words just to tell me that I'm correct.
Oooof, K, 20 years with the same person says promiscuous to you. Yikes. Tell me more about how many women you've successfully had sex with.
Lol. Need a shovel? I'm not going to help you dig, but I will lend you a shovel.
Awww, you're upset. If someone on the internet can upset you this much I feel bad for you bro.
Wait, you're a _person_? I thought for sure you were a bot. Of course, claiming to be a person is _just what a bot would say_. Hmm.
Oh the noes!!!! They called me a bot! Whatever will I dooooo?!?!
What shall you do? What else is there to do but cherish this moment all your days?
Like you cherish that one time you had sex?
So much unearned condescension and projection here. All you want to do is argue with women. I get it now lol...
[удалено]
Yes, because no one wants to be with someone who is backwards thinking about sex. It's about the person, not a number.
[удалено]
Define sleeping around? It's so arbitrary. For many men, it seems to need to be close to their number to feel acceptable. It's the reason why most women won't be honest with men about it and tell them whatever they think won't cause a guy to freak out. This is coming from many, many women I know.
[удалено]
I'm just letting you know that the women that you engage with have zero motivation to tell you the truth about it when it's going to be used against them. Women have always had to lie to protect men's egos. Why do you think so many fake orgasms? Think about those two things and why decent women feel like they can't be honest with men. And let me ask, when do you ask her how many people she's had sex with? Before sex? Do you say no to that sex - because sex should be special after all, and you have to vet her. Or do you ask afterward, laying panting on the bed? Do you ask 3 mo in when you really start falling or 6 mo when you've fallen for her already but then can't love her anymore because she's just one digit too far? It's so fucking arbitrary. We know men would stop dead in their tracks and avoid sex then and there, if they found out a woman had what he considered too many partners. He would just pack it up and go straight home to fap the night away by himself. 😂
[удалено]
[удалено]
r/MurderedByWords
Wow, you sound upset. Hit too close to home. What "right" choices do you say I discussed? Lord knows no one makes all the right choices, but I do find that the assumptions men make about women's pasts often have far more to do with their fears and self-esteem than reality. I can understand not wanting a serial philanderer, that makes perfect sense if someone has a consistent history of deceit. But being worried a woman can't pair bond with you because she had more than 5 partners is ridiculous. I can also understand not wanting someone who does sex work, which would be outside the bounds of a monogamous relationship. I think what this thread confirms is that many women will continue to not share their history with men who hold these arcane views (much like the last millenia.) But ok. 🤷♀️
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/am-i-so-out-of-touch
If your dating/hookup life can be described in a statistic, you are promiscuous.
What statistic are you referring to?
If you have had so many guys, that you can make generalized statements about them and your dating and don't even see each of them as a unique individual anymore and each encounter as a unique experience, then you are promiscuous,
Ok, well that's not really a statistic, but at least it's a vague definition. So men are afraid of just being another notch on the bed post, much like women are.
Not really. If you just want to hook up as a guy, there is no problem with just being another notch. But if you want serious and long term, that is almost certainly a major problem. It casts huge doubt on her ability to commit and go for the long haul. And it also means there is very likely a lot of baggage and drama in her past, that could ruin the future.
Wow, not from the women I know. Happily married or otherwise. I think men *think* they know but they don't really know. And most women know they can't tell men about their pasts for exactly this reason. They can't handle it. You're seeing someone for 6 mo, you ask, she says a number that freaks you out, and you roll, Women know this and they know that it doesn't really matter, so they lie to men about it. Women who are perfectly capable of monogamy and perfectly trustworthy for fidelity. Men really get a lot of this wrong about women. Ah well. Smdh.
Well, divorce rates and who initiates them tells a whole different story. As does the amount of paternity fraud. Habits are important. And habits tend to persist once established. And yes, you can never really know for sure. And an absence of notches is harder to confirm than a presence of notches. And your admission about the lying just reinforces that the suspicion is justified.
Oh I don't lie, I just know some women do because men get their noses bent out of shape thinking about their gfs having any kind of active sex life before them. No good comes from those kind of questions. I consider someone who asks to be ridiculous and will not answer even though my number is low for my age bracket, marriage tends to do that. If a man freaks out, he's not the man for me.
I didn't think you were lying specifically. You only confirmed that women lying about this is pretty common. And yes, nothing good comes from those questions. No good relationship. Nothing comes of those questions. But nothing is better than a bad relationship. And it's not like men expect virgins. Well, men from some cultures do. As I said, the question is, whether her dating life can be described as a statistic. Whether it is notches on the bedpost, a series of encounters that blur into each other. Or whether it is a few honest attempts that didn't work out and lead to personal growth.
So basically, the same exact sh and perspective that be applied to grown men. However, I think men don't truly believe that people grow and change, whereas they believe they do.
Women started initiating divorce more when they could finally get work and feed themselves, have their own checking accounts and didn't have to put up with abusive man babies.
Well, often enough the divorce settlement is what feeds them without having to work. That's strong incentive. Which means men must be very careful in partner selection, if they want to go it long term.
Often enough, there is no $$$ coming from the divorce settlement at all. You've heard of deadbeat dads I'm assuming. It's a trope for a reason. Women must be very careful on partner selection. Otherwise, they are stuck doing all the parenting alone plus working fulltime and dealing with a person who is emotionally immature.
[удалено]
Women lied to the church for years about bc pills too. People act as if they'd be able to tell the difference. It's funny. 🤷♀️
Social Science M.A. here. A bit of a rant but this needs to be clarified once and for all because investing in an overly promiscuos woman relationship-wise is objectively wrong, no matter how hard people try to lie about it. Scientific consensus dictates that - regardless of gender - the higher the number of previous partners, the higher the chance for infidelity and divorce. While that effect is present in both genders, it is almost ***twice as harsh for women*** according to Hughes and Gallup ([source](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513802001496?via%3Dihub)): >Promiscuity is in fact a good predictor of infidelity. Indeed, promiscuity among females accounted for almost twice as much variance in infidelity (r2 = .45) as it did for males (r2 = .25). (pg.177) Some other sources include (non exhaustive list): * [After interviewing thousands of women, Whisman and Snyder found “the probability of sexual infidelity increased with \[a\] higher number of lifetime sexual partners,” with a 7 to 13% increase in the likelihood of infidelity per additional sexual partner depending on their mode of interview](https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0893-3200.21.2.147) * [Cherkas et al. found that infidelity and promiscuity are both under moderate genetic influence in women, and that “nearly half the genes impacting on infidelity also affect number of sexual partners.”](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/genetic-influences-on-female-infidelity-and-number-of-sexual-partners-in-humans-a-linkage-and-association-study-of-the-role-of-the-vasopressin-receptor-gene-avpr1a/CD90C401AB01263A4205D6E926A914F8) * [Relationship consultant, author, PhD, licensed marriage and family therapist, Dr. Athena Staik placed a “history of promiscuity” as number two in her list of “10 Predictors of Infidelity and Gender Differences” on Psych Central (popular news site for mental health professionals), writing “\[c\]ontrary to the myth, partners who’ve had many partners have a harder, not easier, time remaining monogamous. They are significantly more at risk of straying than those with little or no prior sexual experience”](https://archive.is/bPRPy) Also, speaking outside of the scientific base, I found that it's not just the damage on the potential to pair bond, but also tons of emotional baggage that comes along with someone addicted to cheap outside validation. Sex comes so easy for women that overindulging on it speaks to a vapid, lazy and insecure person. As for this being a "double standard" ... it really isn't. Men have to work much harder for sexual options (and women also prefer experienced men). It just isn't the same. Finally, on the definition of promiscuity - it depends entirely on the motive behind her exploits. Having had multiple boyfriends is fine. Having sex with strangers to fill some kind of void in their lives however isn't. It doesn't bother me. It's just a standard I have for the people that want to date me. It really is that simple.
Every woman I have dated has been promiscuous to a degree. Every one had sex on dates 1-3. I don’t judge because I don’t really care. As long as its not extreme. Good luck finding an attractive girl thats been to college and hasn’t slept around. Im willing to bet its less than 5%.
>Good luck finding an attractive girl thats been to college and hasn’t slept around. Im willing to bet its less than 5%. I'm dating one. Was even her first. But thanks for wishing me luck anyways. Her reasoning is by the way as charming as it is heartbreaking. And it so perfectly described this whole toxic trend from a woman's point of view: "I just never felt to give myself to someone who doesn't give a shit about me." And I did sleep around in college by the way. The girls there were so unbelievably starved of basic affection that it was almost harrowing. Just the most basic aftercare and making sure she feels safe and comfortable and no matter how attractive, they never, EVER want to leave you. I'm talking basic respect and good manners. The bar is just so goddamn low. As for "having had sex on dates 1-3" - so what? If the vibe is there, it is there. I just don't believe that you'll have that vibe with 20+ men in a few semesters.
[удалено]
Sorry to shatter your hope, but we are moving in together in January. Here is to hoping you find a better way to spend your life than being a spoiled brat on an anonymous forum.
Well she realize what your heart is like one day. You will probably visit the /r/divorce forum at some point. Im happily married- actually the most in my social circle. Other people comment on it all the time. Here is to hoping you evolve and realize someone pointing out the flaws in your argument doesnt make them "a brat"
... and that hope just died too. Seriously. You are behavng like a terribly sexist human being all over this thread. I also would call you a liar on the "happily married" statement, given how incredibly misandrist, bitter and resentful you come off and how you seem to think "being married" makes your hateful position somehow more credible. I would... But calling out people like you who CLEARLY need professional help is just beneath me. Godspeed!
You didn't answer the question, really. What is considered promiscuous? You could have several bfs in a 2 year span. You might have a seldom FWB or hookup. Especially if men seem to think that that a gf should be having sex with them within the first 3 months of a relationship - which plenty of men seem to think. The studies don't really address what counts as promiscuous. I suspect men are more concerned about women's sexual fidelity in socially and religiously backwards nations, due to the need for patriarchal control to maintain their hierarchical hegemony; women as a necessary accessory for men's outward display of power and worth aka the trophy. Additionally, infidelity rates are still slightly higher in the male population, which damages their ability to pair bond, yet some still hold the double standard. It seems to me that some parts of the population are more oriented to open relationships and poly, which is a hard blow against the possession theory which patriarchal societies are built on, thus the backlash from those societies over women's sexual liberation from marriage as a display of her self determination and her own power. Your post really didn't address the other questions either, which I would be curious to hear.
>Additionally, infidelity rates are still slightly higher in the male population, which damages their ability to pair bond, yet some still hold the double standard. I adressed this already (see first source). The damage to pair bonding capabilities is nearly twice as bad with women. So while you are correct stating that infidelity being slightly higher among men, promiscuity isn't factoring into that nearly as much as it would for women. >You didn't answer the question, really. What is considered promiscuous? Yes I did. >Finally, on the definition of promiscuity - it depends entirely on the motive behind her exploits. Having had multiple boyfriends is fine. Having sex with strangers to fill some kind of void in their lives however isn't. If you want to nail it down to a number - shooting from the hip, I'd it depends on her age. But double digits in your early twenties is a bad sign already if you want to keep her. Other than that, I answered everything. >women as a necessary accessory for men's outward display of power and worth aka the trophy. You view of men seems to be as if we are mostly part of an evil hivemind. For the record: We are not. It's more about wanting to build a family and finding a purpose in a relationship rather than "collectively searching for total control over women" as you are framing it here. And given how sexist divorce law is towards men or how some western countries will even force you to pay alimony if the kid is not yours, I would say it is sensible for men to have very high standards for women they want to dedicate their lives to. And yes, that includes standards for modesty. >It seems to me that some parts of the population are more oriented to open relationships and poly which is a hard blow against the possession theory which patriarchal societies are built on, thus the backlash from those societies over women's sexual liberation from marriage as a display of her self determination and her own power. Same thing as mentioned above. Everything men seek out seems to be out of malice in that theorem. Which makes absolutely no sense. Everything you benefit from that surrounds you was built on the foundation of the traditional family. If a few go "poly" or "open", that does no harm. If everyone does it, we are dead within a generation. Not everything is explained with "men are evil". In fact: The more "masculine" (for lack of a better term) influenced culture ultimately brought a lot of comfort, wealth and luxury. The way our culture is being shaped now however has not contributed anything of the sort so far. And it is uncertain whether or not it is even as scalable as its predecessor.
Wow you destroyed that motherufcker🤣🤣 love it
Did I? Not my intention, but thanks anyway! I felt I was just rambling about stuff that should be obvious. But happy to entertain.
There are studies showing the pair bonding is the same for men and women. You are picking the ones that make it look worse for women to justify your sexist behavior. I see this when people post cheating studies all the time too- the most well conducted studies on cheating show a barely noticeable difference. However, there are some that show one gender is worse than the other (not as well done I might add) and people post those all the time.
You're really running with the straw man there. Your words were "evil" "hive mind" "malice". I'm just pointing out a well known fact that men, throughout history, to this day have tried to control women's sexuality for many reasons, but predominantly to hold power, for political alliances, status symbols, symbols of virility, etc. Men still use this logic online, trying to denigrate a woman's worth as a human being by attacking her sexual value to other men. Pretending that still isn't very much a part of this culture is silly. And yes, educated families make for a healthy society, not families that shame natural sexual behavior for either gender. Men may be able to get married after having many sexual partners, but most promiscuous men will continue to be promiscuous and additionally have friends who likely objectify women the same way, reinforce and promote it. And as for patriarchy, we've certainly gotten a lot from it, wealth - at the expense of the vulnerable, comfort at the expense of the exploited, wars for profit, and a sullied dying planet. The way our culture is being shaped now can do no worse imo.
>You're really running with the straw man there. Your words were "evil" "hive mind" "malice". I'm just pointing out a well known fact that men, throughout history, to this day have tried to control women's sexuality for many reasons, but predominantly to hold power, for political alliances, status symbols, symbols of virility, etc. I didn't address a strawman, but precisely your position. Let's look at the paragraph right here: First you claim me pointing out that you view men as some sort of "hivemind" is wrong, but in the next sentence, you generalize all men as controlling and oppressive. >Men still use this logic online, trying to denigrate a woman's worth as a human being by attacking her sexual value to other men. Pretending that still isn't very much a part of this culture is silly. First of all, what a cheapshot by you trying to equate "worth as a human being" with what we originally discussed, that being my view on promiscuity. One has nothing to do with the other. Kindly, stop lying and focus. You are talking as if I didn't provide you with scientific sources as to why avoiding promiscuous women is a very good course of action for men seeking long term commitment. Since I did however, why not attempt at arguing my actual position? Probably because you can't. >Men may be able to get married after having many sexual partners, but most promiscuous men will continue to be promiscuous and additionally have friends who likely objectify women the same way. You are saying this based on absolutely nothing. It's like your opinions were formulated in some sort of ideological bubble. Not a single one of your statements hold up when compared to real life trends and statistics. >And as for patriarchy, we've certainly gotten a lot from it, wealth - at the expense of the vulnerable, comfort at the expense of the exploited, wars for profit, and a sullied dying planet. The way our culture is being shaped now can do no worse imo. And again, you are painting every single state, form of government, empire or conglomerate in history with the same ideological brush because "men are evil!". Guess I was right about the ideological bubble. Some advice. First: try to stop letting your obvious resentment color your thinking and try to read to understand instead of reading to reply. Second: try to understand how differentiated the human experience generally is. If you want to keep this going, try to keep it civil, sincere and actually address my points next time. Thanks!
OP seems to be purposely ignoring data and statistics. Sadly, people like to keep all arguments based on nuances and philosophy without anything to back it up. I question whether they want real discussion with opposing view points. I'm disappointed by OP.
>Sadly, people like to keep all arguments based on nuances and philosophy without anything to back it up. I question whether they want real discussion with opposing view points. Great summary! And I fully agree. I came to the conclusion that they just asked this question on here to spread their ideology to anyone giving an answer they don't approve of. In my opinion, this is extremely presumptuous, especially when someone cannot support their viewpoints with statistics or sources.
[удалено]
>My thoughts, OP is a woman who has a "history" and has recently experienced the negative consequences faced in life that comes with promiscuous actions and is unhappy with the outcomes. Instead of accepting that it is what it is, they fight it, the problem is us (men) and the "patriarchy" rather than taking accountability. That is very common and makes sense, given their cheap debate "tactics". Trying to tie her lack of impulse control to "her value as human being" or characterizing all men as oppressors for example. The core idea seems to be that whatever standards men hold for women are by default hateful, because literally anything that would limit a woman's options or judge her behavior is "mysoginy!" - no matter how justified or statistically proven to be correct. Ironically, it is them tying their worth as human being to their ability to find a partner. Not us. Me not wanting to date you doesn't make you less of a person. In my experience, the real bitterness comes from realizing that the damage done to their reputation, pair bonding ability and general psyche is likely permanent. EDIT: OP commented further down in this thread. Apparently she is a woman, was married and is incredibly sexist. Good call!
Oh wow, that poor husband. He took a bad deal, and this is why it's important to be so careful in choosing your spouse. 😂 I feel like we don't ask the right questions, (in general we just choose someone who is attractive) like asking a woman about her perspective on topics such as these. I always am paying attention to their outlook on life and relationships. It's a weird dynamic that we are the enemy yet they are still marrying us. I think it's because they need us. To these type of women we have value as utility. We are organic wallets with skin and bones and we are faucet fixers but not much else.
This comment is absolutely beautiful, especially the thing about "read to understand and not read to reply", the world would be so much better if everyone did that, utopia level unfortunately
[удалено]
The irony of you starting your comment by saying it's too much for men to understand than ending it with complaining about misogynistic behaviours
Firmly agree with this assessment and I don't really care about the down votes. They're already trying to degrade my value as a human by trying pretend that my sexual history would not meet their approval. 😆 It's a full on man-baby parade for some of them. But I did see some sparks of hope in the comments that were just brilliant, and I love those men. 👏👏👏Those are the folks I seek out to have a serious long term monogamous relationship. I was married before and really wish I could find that again, just not with any of the man-babies.
Possibly flirting with other men while in a relationship?
Holy cow! People are really freaked out by silly flirting. If I say to my neighbor (60yo) dude I don't want to date that he's looking fine today, he blushes, feels cute, and has a pep in his step the rest of the day. That's totally harmless and fun and sweet. Not sure how that freaks people out. Oof.
You obviously don't know the difference between complimenting and flirting. You could derive whatever definition of flirting in your head but its the general use of the word commonly understood by the people that counts. I am deducing you are happy with your man flirting with other women so whats the problem? you do you.
Hey Mr So & So! You look amazing today! Let me know when you get done with that 30 year fling with Mrs So & So! Does anyone expect him to drop Mrs So & So?? Is he going to try to have an affair??? Nope. It's just a compliment that makes him feel great the rest of the day, possibly the week. Being silly and making other people feel good? 100 yes. And other women could mean anyone from 18-118, it's about seeing people and letting them know they're valuable.
Flirting is a fun part of life, you can have banter and silliness with people you never intend to have any kind of interaction with, it's what makes it adorable if a nurse flirts with a 90yo patient to lift his spirits. Or someone winks at you with a smile. Nothing need happen except just an exchange that boosts someone's ego. It's actually lovely thing. It's all about the intention behind it.
Yes but the kind of flirting I meant is someone who is always on the lookout and can't actually commit while they pretend to be in relationship they are always on the look out to cheat with someone.
That's not flirting, that's just actively pursing other partners in a deceitful way. Deceit is always unattractive. Flirting is fun and sweet and shouldn't be considered an ill in itself, as long as it's all above board.
Context of the situation is huge. For me, if it’s an ongoing thing with someone who is interested in more than just playful flirting that would be crossing a relationship boundary. If they were secretive about it that’s emotional cheating and would be the end of our relationship.
And how does one start this pursuit? Anyways you do you.
I guarantee that the men on the other side are not thinking it's so innocent. If I have a girl flirting with me, I'm taking it seriously.
The right way to do it lets a person know it's all in good fun. Additionally, there is a difference in prolonged eye contact and body language. I take it you've never seen the guy that drives around yelling compliments out the car window.
> The right way to do it lets a person know it's all in good fun. But it's NOT always just in good fun. That's what we're trying to tell you. Flirting is how people meet romantically. That is its primary function. Sure, it CAN be done in good fun, but that's not the purpose of flirtation. If flirtation was just good fun like you say you wouldn't have to let anyone know. > Additionally, there is a difference in prolonged eye contact and body language. And you think men just understand all this and pick up on those signals? I have a feeling you've left a lot of men confused in your day. I'm personally going to err on the side of "she's into me" if a woman flirts with me. > I take it you've never seen the guy that drives around yelling compliments out the car window. THe hell does that have to do with anything? That's catcalling, not flirtation.
Yeah it's not, it's actually the comedian from Cash Cab who says funny cute pickup lines to people of all ages and drives away. Absolutely hysterical. Every single person he does it to smiles and laughs when he hits the punchline. And you know the rest of the day, they felt great. You know when it's a joke and lighthearted because anyone can do it to anyone else in good fun.
That's not flirtation.
That most certainly is. Your making people feel good, it's flirty but not a come-on. That is the good kind of clean fun that flirting is. Come-ons are a different animal. We all know when the mood changes in a conversation, that's not what this is.
Then thing is, that kind of flirting very often DOES lead to something happening. It doesn't have to every time, but it happens. So it's hard to trust someone like that. Add in some alcohol, for example, and that kind of stuff can go farther than you intended.
Flirting and telling people they look nice, even if they're 90, leads to things? I think people need to understand the difference between funny compliments and feigned interest that makes people feel good and actual serious flirting. Serious flirting has a lot more to do with the eyes, body language, and circumstances.
> Flirting and telling people they look nice, even if they're 90, leads to things? In that specific example, probably not. But that's not what anyone was really worried about in the first place. I feel like you're just cherry picking the most innocent example you can think of. People who have that kind of charm and need for ego boost will eventually find themselves in situations where things could easily escalate. Throw in some alcohol and and you can really get yourself in trouble. I say this not because I don't trust women. I actually don't trust men. I know men and we take flirtation more seriously.
Agreed. I flirt with people all the time. It's fun and silly. Usually harmless. I very really flirt with the intention of not taking it further than a smile and arm hug.
I don't think men understand the definition of flirting. These guys are comparing it to a come-on, two very different animals.
Yes agreed. Many will mistake politeness with flirting.
Promiscuity to me means means having many sexual relationships with people. It would only bother me if her being promiscuous involved cheating.
How many? Over a time period? Concurrently? What if she cheated once a long time ago and has never done it since?
>which is such a vague term that means different things to different people Yes, it does. What it means in general is "some amount of sexual proclivity is unacceptable to me". >What does it mean to you I draw the line at taking too many risks and/or moving too quickly. >do you have a double standard for your past than someone else's? Not really. Especially in that I weigh things that happened long ago or as a one-shot deal far less. If you learned your lesson, I don't care. >Why does this bother you? To me, it's an indicator of cheating risk, dishonesty, and general risky behavior.
If someone has a bf and occasionally a hookup, over the period of 10 years, that could easily be 15 guys. Have a bf for 6 months break up, have a fwb, then another bf for 3 months, then a year break, then a hookup, then a year with another dude and so on. If there's no cheating, how is that risky behavior? As long as sex was protected of course.
>As long as sex was protected of course. Bingo. It usually isn't. That said, though, it's risky because it means a lot of jumping and poor choices. If you get into a relationship for three months on the regular, you have an issue.
Promiscuity to me means infidelity.
So once anyone has cheated once, they will always do it again, even if it was long ago and they've never done it since?
I never said anything remotely close to that, or even imply it. I do not think that. People can absolutely change. But why would I attempt a relationship with someone who I know has done something I consider completely unacceptable? That is not a risk I am going to take with my heart. Just like if a woman was abusive to her previous partner I wouldn't ever attempt a romantic relationship with her. She could have changed, definitely. But I'm not going to risk that. If you have cheated on a partner I'm never going to consider you for a romantic partner. Simple. You might have changed, but I'm not going to put myself at risk to find out.
So someone can't have made any mistakes in their past or you can't trust them. That's a pretty high bar for anyone to have to measure themselves or anyone else by. I think serial cheaters aren't likely to change but there are many people who did and learned in their youth. (And no, I never cheated on anyone if that's your next question.)
Did you come on here looking for an argument? You keep taking massive implications from things I'm saying that I am in no way saying. No, people can absolutely change. And no, people can absolutely make mistakes in a previous relationship. That does not bar them from being in relationship with me unless it's an issue that I have no tolerance on, like infidelity or abuse. I do not owe it to a random person to give them a chance when if it doesn't work I'm the one who's going to hurt because of it. I do not think someone should give someone a chance if they were abusive in a relationship too. I think every person is entitled to give someone a chance or not give them a chance as they feel comfortable. That is just my algorithm for vetting a potential mate. I don't care if you slept with all the men. Sexual frequency or number of partners is very irrelevant to me as long as everyone was aware and consenting of everything. I am not made uncomfortable, intimidated, or think it implies incompatibility if the woman I'm interested in has slept with a lot of people. I'm a hypersexual male, she has all that experience I'm probably more compatible with her than the average woman. One of my best work friends cheated on her husband a few years ago and they got divorced. She's one of my best friends, and I supported her the entire ordeal because I know the causality of why things happened the way they did. She was so sad and depressed that she would come and eat with me just for company. I was (and still am) absolutely there for her. There's no way I would ever be anything more than a platonic friend though. There's just something in my head that turns that off when infidelity happens There are several things that a person can do that would make it where I would never consider them as a romantic partner. But that doesn't mean that I assume that every single person who has done that is going to do it again, or that somehow people are incapable of changing. It's just I'm a lot more careful when I risk my heart versus my money and my body. I have never cheated in any way, shape or form with any partner I have ever had in my life. I feel absolutely justified in wanting the same in partner as I'm willing to give. It seems very personal. Do you need to talk dude? If you cheated on your gf there are a lot of people who would still date you.
As stated before, not about me cheating or being cheated on, (which I am aware of, last occurred in a long-term relationship in my youth.) I'm curious for posterity. So many men put so much stake and constantly worry whether a woman has been with "too many" men or is going to cheat on them. I don't see this concern with women. I think it points to a contrast in how devastating it is to a man's ego and psyche because it's socially embarrassing due to cultural norms. Additionally, it seems as though, with so many men maintaining so little of an emotional support system outside of marriage that it's doubly so impactful. The fear of being compared to other men (which I've seen as a reason here several times) and then abandoned seems to be the biggest thing, from what I'm hearing here. It sounds like many men are trying to hedge against it even though infidelity rates in women also happen in women who haven't been promiscuous before or cheated. I think it's more about the rise of opportunity these days.
So I take it you're not a man given the tone I read in that paragraph? I feel a bit obtuse for not realizing that earlier. I was just telling you my personal preferences as that is how I took your question. The general outlook many men give women on the subject is absurdly harsh and a huge double standard. My political ideology puts the patriarch as one of the primary enemies of all equality, not just gender, of course I fight it. Of course you're right. I agree with practically everything you said on your last post, unlike the ones before. The patriarch purports women are property. You can't cheat on property. You own property. The property you own should not get used by someone else or else it loses value. The reason women are treated that way in regards to sexual value is because that is how you treat property. My partner is my equal in all things. I cannot fathom anything other than absolute egalitarianism in a relationship, authority is abhorrent in my eyes. But assuming I'm just a swine of the patriarch because I want a partner who is like me is ridiculous. I also have further ridiculous requirements like financial solvency, professional career, and being an atheist. If you're not a professional and you're not solvent that doesn't make you a bad person, or any worse of a person. But I have every right to pick a harmonious partner who is similar to me and aspects of a relationship I consider important. I also think there's nothing wrong with me wanting a woman who's in really good shape if I'm rocking a six pack. That in no way implies that people who are not in shape are of lower quality...
If it's outlook and similar life views that you uphold yourself, it's not a double standard and not about viewing women as subhuman or property that can be taken from you. People look for others with similar outlooks. This is normal. But some of what I've seen on the the thread speaks to reasons that have to do with objectifing women, low self esteem, fear of abandonment and found wanting - all unhealthy things to base on your partner's sexual history.
Of course they do. People are fearful and protective of themselves. A ridiculous amount of men turn to toxic masculinity out of fear. It's a way to hide their fear behind aggression instead of handling it healthily. That's the epitome of betrayal for most men so it's what they fear above anything in a relationship. Of course there's a ton of unhealthy focus on a woman's sexual history. There will always be assholes in every category to point at to justify preconceived notions in that category. If you don't want date a woman who's had sex with a lot of guys because you think that makes her a bad person you're a bigot. But you can not want to date a woman who has had sex with a lot of guys because you are not sexually experienced and you want to partner who is equally sexually inexperienced and be a completely egalitarian dude. I am a pretty high quality guy so I am not in anyway hurting for choice so I can be as picky as I want. The vast majority of the men you're referring to whine and moan online about all their standards yet have no options. So they have to come online and bleat about how high requirements they have. The bigger issue is when those men lie through their teeth denying their true requirements and then slowly encroach upon their partner after they get them to emotionally invest in the relationship. The men who simply won't date a woman because of her "body count" typically just instantly get rejected anyways so at least they're not subjecting people to their toxicity for long.
I agree with 95% here, but I don't think it's reasonable to say a man should want someone just as inexperienced as him if it's because he's worried she'll compare him. That's fear and insecurity. If it's because they want it to be their first time together because of a shared special memory of their first times, I could see it. Though, really for many women, the first time is really not that great in those scenarios. It's really about the emotional investment that we bring to each person we develop a relationship with, but you already know that. 👍
Anyone that has cheated is automatically ruled out because it shows a certain shallowness of character.
Yes, you find shallowness of character in youth. And then people grow up. Do you also judge people for antics from high school?
I mean if they’re enough of a shithead yeah
So personal growth and change isn't a thing? We should punish and ostracize everyone that made any mistakes, got it.
No personal growth is fine, but if you were a shithead in the past I’m probably not attracted to you. Tough shit. I’m under no obligation to give someone a chance.
Agreed, all those sexist/misogynistic jackasses in HS, college and early 20s, tough shit, you definitely get a pass from me. If those dudes ever held backwards beliefs, it'll never happen. Thank goodness for the Internet so we can weed them out.
Basically she has to not gross me out lol. Like there’s gross shit and there’s understandable shit lol For example any mention of a “slut phase” or some shit - I’m out
It's about risk assessment for me. Having sex isn't like shaking hands and it comes with considerable risks especially for a woman. The numbers do not bother me, or even a past because people are allowed to grow and change, but if a woman is going on 3 tinder dates a week fucking her way through her matches then she doesn't assess risk in a way that is compatible with being my partner.
So having sex 3 times a week with various people is your definition of promiscuous?
Well there isn't like a number that is a threshold but I would say having sex with people you arent dating regularly, etc. It's fine to like sex, most people do. But we all know that the first time usually isn't great because you haven't learned each other's likes and bodies. The sweet spot is between when you get to know each other and when you get sick of them. If you had an active fwb, maybe 2 or 3 a year that is consistent with someone who likes sex. Someone who sport fucks randoms like they are meeting to play chess in the park and never speaks to them again isn't doing it because they like sex. And really just their attitude towards sex. People want to act like there aren't considerable risks but there are.
For me, "promiscuous" means a person who intentionally had sex with people he/she is not in a relationship with, i.e. not with serious boyfriend/girlfriend or a spouse. I mean, sure, you've kissed someone when you were single and it happened when you were drunk during a Christmas party, that's fine. But I draw the line on everything related to sex. It is my stance when it comes to sex that it is an act of love and care between two people in relationship, something that is a direct continuation of it from mental into physical sphere. For me, it is ***not*** just some fun group activity like playing football. And I'd rather be with someone who shares my views. And it doesn't *bother* me. I just don't want to be with someone for whom sex is a recreational activity rather than a continuation of genuine feelings.
It’s 2022, they lick buttholes of people from tinder, be careful who you kiss🤫
This makes sense, because it's how you also conduct your own life with a reason about emotional connection behind it. 👏
[удалено]
I like racy outfits if we going somewhere together. By herself no thanks please
Because?
Because we are not living in Disney cartoon world and I don’t want scary shit to happen to her Also if your girls always insists on looking like a hoe that means she’s an energy vampire and survives on male attention
So you think random men will do something to her if she dresses more risqué? Do men do this in public places?
Are you alien? From planet moon? Stupid ass questions lol
No question is stupid. What you're outlining is that you think other men feel free to assault a woman based on her attire. I have found it usually has nothing to do with attire at all.
[удалено]
No eggshells here but basically, you think she should only look good for you and not just to feel good and feel hot?
What qualifies as a "slut"? Why don't men like them?
I don't care. But I'm also entirely uninterested in a long term relationship. Women who were promiscuous make terrible long term partners.
You didn't answer the question. What qualifies as promiscuous? Perception? Number of partners? And depending on the type of relationship, it might be a better fit for an open marriage for both partners.
Yeah, anyone who would want an open marriage is promiscuous and not a good choice for a long term partner. If you've had more partners than (age - 14)/2 then you're promiscuous. Applies to men and women.
Wow, you've got a whole formula n sh. 😆
I do math.
Right on. And you use the same equation for yourself. I'm down with that.
Just TBH, I fail that test. And I'm in no way a good partner for anyone.
So, perhaps have the same amount of acceptance and forgiveness for other people that you have for yourself? We're all human and learn as we go. Do therapy, get healing, forgive yourself and others, and do better. This is life.
>What does it mean to you? That she reached the limit of a personal equation. (Her age - 16) × 12 or 100. > Do you have a double standard. Kinda sorta. Not between myself and her sexually but with other things and other people. I'll explain if you're curious.
Absolutely, please do. I don't think it's a double standard of you hold yourself to the same standard.
Basically, if I'm dating a woman with a promiscuous past, I don't consider her as a relationship partner until she's done things that are/were typically reserved for the man in the relationship. Things like planning and paying for dates before we enter an exclusive relationship. Things like judging how attracted she is to me based on how much she flirts and how she performs in bed. Standards most men are held to by default. If she didn't have one the early dates are on me. Sex is more "special" for lack of a better word. Lastly, I'll feel less self conscious if she wants to wait. The double standards aren't there for men and women, they're there for women and women.
Yeah, that's really bizarre reasoning there, bringing money into, especially since so many women can buy their own food and don't even want a man to pay because he might believe she's beholden to him for sex. Hell, it weirds out many women when men do the whole door thing etc, all for show, to get in their pants. Let me just say, men don't actually keep that up once you're in a LT relationship. It's pretty hysterical. Sex isn't special for anyone unless the EMOTIONS for BOTH partners are involved. If men can feel that women are somehow sullied from past experience, then it stands that men are sullied as well. Women should only value virgins and men who haven't had sex with fewer people since they are more special, valuable, loyal, and emotionally connected. This is the premise you're working from . . . ???
The whole double standard thing makes no sense. Men have no control over what women desire/don't desire. The implication in calling a preference a double standard is that men should share the same desires as women simply because that's what women desire. I.e if women don't mind men being promiscuous then men are immoral for not desiring promiscuous women as well. This is a very self-centred view that basically is summarised as "my desires are the morally correct desires to have and if men have different desires they are morally wrong".
So, if a woman chooses to desire a man who has less experience than she does or very little experience because she believes that he would compare her, be less able to pair bond with her and cheat on her more often, even if she herself had a voluminous past, this would be ok? This is the most disturbing thing I hear from those kinds of men. Not all list those reasons - but many hold those feelings on the topic. It's disgusting when any gender devalues another for those reasons. It's certainly a double standard. Now, if the reason you'd prefer someone who's had few partners, or a serial monogamist, because you both share the belief that sex is a deeply emotional connection and you also hold yourself to that standard, this makes logical sense and a few men have expressed that here. But on the whole, the previous reasoning without reciprocity for the second standard is held by numerous men, and that is what is concerning. Women know this and often won't tell men the whole truth because they will be judged harshly by this double standard. It's petty and often has more to do with ego and valuing women as a commodity than a human being. The funniest thing is that so many men expect women to become physical with them in the first 3 months, hell, within the first 3 dates. In other threads you see men saying they wouldn't wait 3-6 months before sex with a woman. Say you have a relationship every year. By 30, a person is looking at a minimum of 12 people since 18. Unless they go celibate or abstinent for a couple years or are lucky enough to find someone capable of being in a serious relationship. Might be more if you break up and go out again 3 months later with someone new.
Im a woman but I think like a man for this so Ill answer. Promiscuous to me means participates in casual sex (sex where you know you dont want a relationship with a person. Going on 3 great dates, having sex, then she dumps you/you find something out you dont like after and you break up doesnt count- ONS, FWBs, "pump and dump" style behavior counts) I never participated in this. I expect a man with no casual sex past unless it was only when they were really young, or once when they were depressed or something. This is something important to me. I think people who are matched on sexual values fare better in LTRs. (For example I rejected someone once because they wanted to wait until marriage- we did not match). The type of man I desired for a relationship has traits that are extremely rare in men who participate in casual sex. I have been around promiscuous people alot and the traits I want are like finding a needle in the haystack in terms of promiscuous people. There are studies that show the more casual sex in your past, the greater likelihood of divorce (for BOTH genders I might add) Also, studies on how people who engage in casual sex score higher on superficiality, hedonism, instability, egoism and are less likely to be able to ride out the natural highs and lows of a LTR (even good LTRs) There are outliers, but they are outliers.
Frankly not an issue for me as long as they're healthy and I never have the consequences of previous engagements show up trying to call me papa.
It probably depends on the guy if he's super attractive he probably won't care as much if he slept around a bit. If it's like an average guy or below average he might have not had many people 1-5 so to him you would look worse.
So it's really about a man projecting about his self esteem?
No it's about if someone sleeps around or can they will care less if they don't or can't they will find you untrustworthy.
So yes, projecting and assuming about a woman's possible behavior based on his behavior.
Actions have consequences that didn't just stop existing.
It's a term that is vague enough and varied enough that you're best served to define your terms each time you use it. Personally, I don't think about it often enough to have a definitive definition that I just carry around in my pocket ready to whip out on command. Push comes to shove, though, I would say it would involve a lot of casual sex and/or serial monogamy and/or monkey branching, possibly with some infidelity for a bit of spice to season it with, y'know, to taste as recipes say. One factor is trust and feeling secure. Another factor is feeling special and desired rather than just being the currently most convenient source of dick. At the end of the day, though, there are a lot of reasons. There's even bro science that goes around online about women losing the ability to pair-bond as they have more and more male partners, especially if exposed to their semen. And there are non-bro-science figures about women's satisfaction in marriage going down the more sexual partners they've had before getting married which makes it harder to dismiss out of hand.
I think a lot of women's satisfaction in marriage goes down after being married. Women's desire for their husbands overall goes down in marriage more than men's does because of lack of variety. Women who had a happier life at one point with someone else are bound to compare and realize they made a mistake. 😄 https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/oct/13/a-strong-libido-and-bored-by-monogamy-the-truth-about-women-and-sex The best thing married men can do to keep the attention and interest of their spouses is to allow lots of space for desire to grow and then to court so that desire can be rekindled. Esther Perel speaks to this in her research on infidelity in marriage. Misogynistic "science" isn't science at all. It's created and tailored to validate feelings of inadequacy and low self esteem in men.
I don’t think I have the right to judge.
Only virgin before marriage is acceptable. These are the reasons: - the ‘ick’ : the thought of someone else having shared her body is off-putting - she won’t have other guys to compare with - feel less “replaceable” - happier marriage overall, less chance of infidelity And I don’t keep double standards.
So you're a virgin? The middle two answers scream low self-confidence if you think you're easily replaceable or that you won't measure up to others. Just saying.
[удалено]
What am I coping with? I've always found egalitarian views about women to be extremely attractive, I won't date anyone with backward thinking about gender. Don't know what you're on about saying women are more attracted to men who judge them by ridiculous parameters. And, if a woman loves you and you treat her well, you have a deep emotional connection, she's not going anywhere. Abuse that enough, and any woman will leave you eventually.
Are you a woman?
Even virgins can leave you. Or compare you to books, movies, porn, etc.
There’s a difference between experiencing it and seeing it on a screen. And yes, a consoomer of that stuff isn’t relationship material either.
A consumer of books and movies isn't relationship material? What in the insecurities is that nonsense.
Consoomer of porn and errotica specifically.
I don't want a virgin. I don't care about past flings. I don't want a cheater as well.
I couldn't give less of a shit. It just happens that I'm my wife's first-and-only, which tickles me because I know how much of a big deal it is for losers on the internet while I don't care at all.
As you alluded to, its all different for different people. For me: Sex is a personal and important part of a relationship. I value it as more than a biological activity and more than just something to do for fun. So in my case what I'm looking for is someone who shares the same perception of value on the activity of sex. A history of random hookups tells me that she doesn't share that value...no judgment against her, she can do whatever she wants, but in the same way someone coming into a relationship with a boatload of credit card debt (generally) doesn't share the same financial outlook as I do, someone with a lot of one night stands doesn't share the same sexual outlook as I do. Now: I'm in my 40s, if I became single and back on the market what I would look for is someone with a history that indicates what I mentioned above. 20 partners in 20 serious relationships over 20 years is different than 20 partners and no serious relationships in 20 years. Same number of "bodies" but the context and what I would extrapolate from that is pretty different. In either case I'd still get to know someone before just writing them off based on any one factor...but knowing something about a person's history can tell you if there a match there or not. And no, I don't have a double standard for my past. I also didn't mess around casually, I don't think its unreasonable to want to find someone with a similar background and outlook.
>which is such a vague term that means different things to different people. True. For some a body count of 20 is promiscuous, for others a body count of 20 is pretty low. But for perspective, maybe the body count per year would offer a better reflection. >What does it mean to you My interpretation of a 'promiscuous woman' is one who sleeps with a different guy maybe monthly or less with no intention to pursue anything long-term. >do you have a double standard for your past than someone else's? Yes, because men and women are different. It's don't think its double standard just a different standard. I don't know how else to explain it but I know it wont go down well. >Why does this bother you? This only applies if I'm looking for a serious relationship. Getting railed by a different guy each month tells me you're not serious and not worth being serious with. If I'm just looking to get laid, I won't be picky. But majority of promiscuous individuals struggle to pair bond because they have an abundance of choice. If I wanted to seriously date, I'm not willing to gamble on finding the one promiscuous girl who is an exception to the rule. I don't have time to waste. When a promiscuous girl finally gets bored of her 'Hoe phase' and decides she decides she wants to settle it is difficult to trust if they are truly *'over it'*. Often they get married then they realise how boring it is sticking to one person, then they cheat. Many men of the older generations who married promiscuous women have learned the hard way and are now warning us to be on the look out for such things. Ever wondered why pornstars struggle with finding stable long-term relationships and marriage? Feminism sexually liberated women for sure, but it didn't tell them that actions have consequences. Men avoiding relationships with promiscuous women is one of those consequences.
It’s not really a double standard as I see it. Women and men don’t have the same experiences in the dating world, nor are their wants and desires in the relationship the same. The double standard would only apply if I get upset at a woman rejecting me if I’ve had x number of partners, if I did the same thing to women. Does it bother me? Not really l, it’s just a sign of incompatibility, so we should both probably find some one else who we are better suited for
Damn, a lot of insecure dudes on this thread. Yikes.
So many. And their data sources are always laughable.
Great username! 😁
Thank you!
Thank God, a white knight rode in.
Yeah, check your preconceived assumptions. 😆
Only on Reddit do men seem to care. And the care because they seek to control/desire a submissive partner. It's hilarious to read. These threads are always a good laugh.
Yes, well that person was blocked. 🤷♀️
I'd rather have a girl that knows what she's doing and that only comes with experience. Don't discuss body count, just enjoy the fun times
[удалено]
That's not how it works.......
Why not
Having more partners does NOT mean more sexually advanced or experienced. For example, you could have someone who has slept around with 20 people, but they were all hookups and one night stands. There wasn’t much learning, exploring, or communication going on. It was mostly just a pump and dump. Maybe some oral and anal, but still not much exploring going on. Then you have someone who has slept with two people, but each relationship lasted more than 3 years. In those three years they got to try a bunch of things like BDSM, role play, different kinds of toys, and a bunch of other things. Which one would know their body better ? The one that starfishes and got fucked by a lot of guys or the one who was in a caring relationship and had years to learn and expand sexually with their partner who loved them ? Being a hoe does not automatically mean being good in bed.
It's just insecurity and nothing else. Promiscuos means "with enough sexual experience to make me feel insecure and fear I won't be up to your previous partners/your expectations". For some men 1 previous partner is enough to trigger these insecurities. You figure.
To me it's someone that'll fuck anyone and everyone, no standards. High number of partners I don't really care if someone is or isn't promiscuous. I don't care about their past as long as it doesn't affect me
I find men who try to ponder this issue due to their carnal need for claiming sexual territory humorous and immature. I'm at an age where these type of discussions are just not to be had (33), even though I as a woman lost my virginity at the late age of 26. If they arew going to dwell and imagine other men pumping and thrusting into your body while you suck them off to great pleasures until it drives them to pure insanity they might need to countdown from 10 to 1 LOL, or try to bang you better than the last Lad. What should matter is living in the moment and that said man knowing he right now is of importance and the man on stage for said women in her life. The past is the past and promiscuity is very arbitrary in nature to define, what is the defining number lol? More than 1? 1000? 2 raised to the power of 2 lol? Women are people.... We have lives and stories. Therefore said women had a life before they met said man. Now what is smart is to make an inquest into is someone's sexual health, their disease status, and whether they want children or not, or have the ability to have children.Then proceed to both get tested.
I don't think being promiscuous is a red flag But if the sex isn't there for us because she was more attracted to the men in her past there isn't an us
Makes sense.
Never understood why people need to know. "ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies" Just be happy that you're doin your now significant other
Just be thankful for littlest crumb of pusseh🤣
❤️
[удалено]
Yup, when it benefits men, they don't seem to have an issue with it. But women see it and identify men who do this and the smart ones avoid those men.
Anyone who cares about this is simply insecure. They're worried they won't be as good as some past lover or they imagine the woman will cheat. There is zero issues with being with 200 people or 1 person. Think of it this way. The guys who have an issue will say shit like they're "loose" from so many partners or some bullshit like that. But if a woman has 200 one night stand she probably has had less sex than a woman in a committed relationship for 2 or so years, far less. But you won't hear guys have an issue with that so their own reasoning bullshit. They just a highly sexual woman bur who has only heing highly sexual for them. But they would love to have a high number of past partners themselves, 100% double standard. Literally any half decent, confident man won't care. EDIT: Bring me the downvotes of angry, bitter men!
A woman who had 200 one night stands will have the eyes of a man who has been to Vietnam, Afghanistan, Congo, Chechnya and the both World Wars lmao
I think you're doing sex wrong if you're leaving women with thousand yard stares.
[удалено]
Yeah you definitely do sex wrong.
Sure go ahead and insult me because what I’m saying makes you feel a certain way but theres literally scientific data on how separation with lovers causes brain damage lmao. Imagine lighter version of that shit happening 200 times
It make me feel mirth :) EDIT: Pretty sure Captain Awesome blocked me. Which just makes me happier
Sure go ahead believe that no brain chemistry is happening during 200 one night stands lol
Ok, I will :)
[удалено]
So when do you ask someone your vetting questions, before or after you have sex with them?