Do you know any women who admit to sleeping with over 100 men? (affair, social)

[Hivemind31]

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

IDK, something about the optimal combo of ONS and LTR....Anyway, my point is that increased #'s do not correlate to improved sexual performance IMO, which I believe you are both disputing because you think more experience with different women's bodies will improve your techniques. Is that about right?

No. I'm saying more experience with more people lets them key in on the little subtleties more easily. Unless you're flat out giving directions, there has to be some level of unspoken body language. Since different women communicate in different ways, it helps to be exposed to more of them. How do you think guys learn to pick up on these things in the first place? Sometimes they're told, sometimes they just know. See more below.

Originally Posted by jillabean

I agree with you. For what it's worth, for the longest time, the best guy I was ever with was a virgin when I first had sex with him. It's because he listened to me and what I liked (and vice versa). Other boyfriends who had more experience didn't ask and assumed a lot. Last guy I was with was great too and it's because, again, he listened (and he was well read on the subject according to his bookcase). But listening is all it took. I really don't think practice makes perfect with sex because with each new lover, you are back at square one trying to figure out their likes and dislikes. While you may have picked up a few tricks in the past, I think it's more important and makes you a lot better if you listen to your current lover than to reference past lovers.

I'm willing to bet that that guy (first underlined) is even better now. Would you disagree? (if you would, I can't imagine continuing this conversation). As for the second underlined, that's where the benefit of experience (both in LTR and multiple partners) helps. You guys keep saying "listen to your partner", but unless you're giving verbatim instructions, there's some level of intuition, body language, audible signals, etc. that you have to key in on. Unless you're implying that those signals are the same with every woman, then the guy has to learn somehow.

It's not about "referencing past lovers". It's not like a mental rolodex of techniques. Being exposed to new things and new people "cultures" you in a way to be able to recognize things in different partners that could be limited by only sticking with one.

Some people are showing up late to the conversation and interpreting all the wrong things about what some of us are saying. Nobody is saying that multiple partners is the only way to learn, or the best way. But it's definitely supplementary.

[Vic 2.0]

You people are thinking way too much, about the "how" of sex.

[GoCUBS1]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

You people are thinking way too much, about the "how" of sex.

Yes, they are overcomplicating it.

[CSD610]

Originally Posted by Stockyman

I know a few guys who love to brag they have slept with over a hundred girls. Just curious if you personally know any women who admit to sleeping with over a hundred guys.

I don't personally know anyone who has a running total of partners they have had so I would say I actually know one woman who has more than likely had more than 100 sexual partners but she is a hooker so....

[GoCUBS1]

Originally Posted by Hivemind31

No. I'm saying more experience with more people lets them key in on the little subtleties more easily. Unless you're flat out giving directions, there has to be some level of unspoken body language. Since different women communicate in different ways, it helps to be exposed to more of them. How do you think guys learn to pick up on these things in the first place? Sometimes they're told, sometimes they just know. See more below.

When I said "listen" I was referring to "unspoken body language" - not about some verbal directions. I believe many guys (even those who have had very few partners) are able to intuitively pick up on these things based on chemistry, physical attentiveness, raw animalistic magnetism, millions of years of natural evolutionary response, etc.... I think they often "just know" because their bodies are naturally in tune with the right partner, and even if they go through the crash course of many - 100's - of other women, they may not become any better in tune with a particular partner.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Stockyman

I know a few guys who love to brag they have slept with over a hundred girls. Just curious if you personally know any women who admit to sleeping with over a hundred guys.

There is a funny bias built into your OP that I am not even sure you noticed. Men "brag" about it. But women "admit" it. Your use of the word "admit" probably shows exactly why women do not talk about it as much as men. The mentality - implicit in your use of language - is that there is some kind of "guilt" associated with it when a woman does it. She can not talk about it - describe it - or any of that. No she has to "admit" to it.

But to answer your question without using the guilt implying language you do - I know of a few women in my social circles who are as open and upfront about their sexual past and present as their male counterparts.

Originally Posted by lovesMountains

It's tragically young

I would not see it as tragic. People are ready for sex at all different points in their life. Some younger than others. Some older. The only time it is "tragic" to my mnid is when someone does it before they are ready. Just because someone was 12 when they did it - does not by definition mean this. Some are more ready at 12 than some are at 30.

I prefer to take a case-by-case basis on viewing these things rarther than just seeing the whole thing as tragic. The mileage of people with a more negative view of sex and sexuality as a whole however does tend to vary from mine.

Originally Posted by lovesMountains

Study says, "Data are limited on sexual behaviors of middle school students. Based on an average of reports from 10 states and 6 large local school districts, 19.8 percent of middle schoolers have ever had sexual intercourse."

And in your mind - when reading statistics to us that you always seem to leave the link out of - what % does one have to transcencd in order to become "normal" or "common"? 25? 40? Because 1 in 5 sounds very normal and common to me. Perhaps your error lies in you clearly -

Originally Posted by lovesMountains

20% of something does not put it even close to a majority, so hardly "the norm".

- but erroneously thinking that "normal" and "majority" are interchangeable. They are not. Even a little bit. And the shift from "normal" to "majority" is just a moving of the goal posts by you.

Originally Posted by 14Bricks

No, I don't know any women would who admit to being with 100 dudes, nor would I want to know a women like that.

We each have differing standards on who we would want to "know" in our life I guess. YOu do not want to "know" women who have had 100 partners. I would not want to "know" someone who would judge another persons value or worth on that. I certainly do not pick and choose who I am friends with based on sticking my nose into their sexual history. Their sexual history has nothing to do with their worth to be as a friend.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Absolutely agree. Four to five sexual partners per year just for a few years is questionable. But twenty?

Different people chose to live their life in different ways. I am not seeing the issue. It might not be for me. It might not be for you. But I am not about to make judgements on someone who it is for.

Originally Posted by nj21

I'd rather have a sane guy who has slept with 2 or 3 than a crazy guy who has slept with 300 and supposedly more "experienced".

And I would rather a sane person who has slept with 300 than an insane person who has slept with 3.

Perhaps this is because it has nothing to do with the number of sexual partners and everything to do with having a preference for sanity.

Or were you attempting to simply make the link between multiple partners and "santiy"? Very droll false dichotomy if so.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

So now saying any number is too many is automatically Puritanical?

It is certainly unhelpful at best. There is no number that is automatically "too" many really. Just like with any engagement with anything in this life it only becomes "too" much when it has some negative impact on your life.

For example how many hours of computer gaming is "too" much? For me there is no fixed answer to this. It only becomes "too much" if the person engaging in it does it to the detriment of some other aspect of their life which suffers as a result.

If a person has a new sex partner every DAY for 365 days of the year for two DECADES - I still would not call this "too many" unless this choice has some detrimental effect on some other part of their life.

For many people - there would not be. For many others - there would.

So I reject any attempt to call any number "Too many" because it entirely depends on the context - not on the number you pluck from the air. Depending on the context there are some people for whom even ONE partner could be "too many".

Alas where it gets judgemental is people pluck a number out of the air - usually based on what they think would be _too many for them personally_ and act like this is some kind of moral or ethical standard we all need to abide and live by.

But alas we are a species with a fetish for attempting to put context devoid rules on context ruled scenarios.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

the person is taking certain risks with every sexual encounter

Even that does not justify the "too many" judgement either really. Context is also important here. If I was shown two women and told I had to have unprotected sex with one of them - I would choose the woman who had 50 encounters of protected sex with total strangers over the woman who had 3 unprotected with total strangers. For example. Again context is everything.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Yes. IMO, since 1 per lifetime is ideal

"Ideal" by what measure and standard exactly? Yours? Or one that you can actually establish and defend in some way? Again context is everything and for many people 1 is far from the "ideal". There is even a completely nonsense idea out there held by someone that there is one "true love" in the world for everyone - or some kind of predestined soul mate or lover or partner out there.

The only "ideal" I see worth talking about is living a life you are happy with and makes you happy. And in this the number of partners you have is a variable - not a fixed success target - much like there is no "ideal" setting for any knob on an audio equaliser.

[jillabean]

Originally Posted by Hivemind31

I'm willing to bet that that guy (first underlined) is even better now. Would you disagree? (if you would, I can't imagine continuing this conversation). As for the second underlined, that's where the benefit of experience (both in LTR and multiple partners) helps. You guys keep saying "listen to your partner", but unless you're giving verbatim instructions, there's some level of intuition, body language, audible signals, etc. that you have to key in on. Unless you're implying that those signals are the same with every woman, then the guy has to learn somehow.

It's not about "referencing past lovers". It's not like a mental rolodex of techniques. Being exposed to new things and new people "cultures" you in a way to be able to recognize things in different partners that could be limited by only sticking with one.

Some people are showing up late to the conversation and interpreting all the wrong things about what some of us are saying. Nobody is saying that multiple partners is the only way to learn, or the best way. But it's definitely supplementary.

He could be, I don't know. All I know is the so called "experienced" men weren't as good until my last lover (who really was the best. But I don't even know his "number." Never asked. All I know is he had not had a girlfriend or date for the past 8 years and before that girlfriend 10 years. I suppose he could have had a lot of experience in his teens and 20s though).

My point is, you can't equate human contact and interaction with numbers. The more you interact with doesn't make you better. If that were true, "Octomom" would be a better parent than someone with just one child because, after all, Octomom has more experience with different people and is able to recognize more things. A Walmart greeter would be "better" with people than a social worker because the Greeter runs into more people in a day.

Or to put it back into terms of sex, a woman who would just lie there on her back and "think of England" and has had 100 lovers is somehow "better" than a woman with just 2 lovers in her life (but really "got into it). Of a man who has quickies with 100 women is somehow better than a man who only has had 2 lovers (but took time and made it an all night affair). A hooker who goes though dozens of men a night would be "better" than a girlfriend who knew you well and wanted more than anything to please you.

I am saying number of lovers has nothing to do with how "good" a person is. It's about communication and human interaction and most of all empathy--not numbers. Sure a person with 100 lovers can be really good... but not because of the numbers, because that person has "sexual empathy" for others. Maybe his or her experience makes that sexual empathy more keen, I can see that. But if a person doesn't have that empathy, forget it. The raw number is irrelevant. If you've had sex with 100 people and never made an effort to please them or lack the empathy to do so, you aren't better than the virgin who is willing to please.

One last take away, if it were true that the more experienced the better why do so many need to know if there is "sexual compatibility" before commitment? Wouldn't the person with the high number just be great? Just ask for the resume. No, it doesn't work that way and we all know it because sexual pleasure is individual and that person's past experience means little to how well you and that person will mesh sexually.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by jillabean

Or to put it back into terms of sex, a woman who would just lie there on her back and "think of England" and has had 100 lovers is somehow "better" than a woman with just 2 lovers in her life (but really "got into it). Of a man who has quickies with 100 women is somehow better than a man who only has had 2 lovers (but took time and made it an all night affair). A hooker who goes though dozens of men a night would be "better" than a girlfriend who knew you well and wanted more than anything to please you.

Once again, no one has ever stated (other than Cubs person) that having more numbers automatically makes one a better lover. No one ever argued for that at all. It is has only been argued against as a strawman argument.

For people that read the earlier comments about ONS and interpreted it as above, please re-read the comments as they did not state, nor imply, any such thing.

Originally Posted by jillabean

One last take away, if it were true that the more experienced the better why do so many need to know if there is "sexual compatibility" before commitment? Wouldn't the person with the high number just be great? Just ask for the resume. No, it doesn't work that way and we all know it because sexual pleasure is individual and that person's past experience means little to how well you and that person will mesh sexually.

Because there is no resume and it isn't acceptable to ask for one if there is. You do tend to get a feel for it generally though and that is why as you get older, generally there is less bad sex. You've weeded out the non compatible people before sleeping with them. And while people can quickly adapt, when they have a greater tool box, to different people and different styles/approaches to sex and make for excellent ONS or short term flings, for commitment one needs to look to the longer term compatibility which requires more symmetry in mindsets to sex and a similar aggressiveness levels in approach. So to enter into a LTR one needs to ascertain that beforehand, with a summer/vacation fling, or a ONS, that LT approach is less important compared to the ability to immediately adapt and the toolbox possessed which one can draw from.

[Vic 2.0]

Hey timberline! You quoted me saying something I didn't in your last post.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Different people chose to live their life in different ways. I am not seeing the issue. It might not be for me. It might not be for you. But I am not about to make judgements on someone who it is for.

Not on this subject you won't. And that's fine.

Originally Posted by monumentus

It is certainly unhelpful at best. There is no number that is automatically "too" many really. Just like with any engagement with anything in this life it only becomes "too" much when it has some negative impact on your life. For example how many hours of computer gaming is "too" much? For me there is no fixed answer to this. It only becomes "too much" if the person engaging in it does it to the detriment of some other aspect of their life which suffers as a result.

But we don't always know the tradeoff either. If you only count obvious consequences, sure. Not all consequences are obvious and/or immediate.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Even that does not justify the "too many" judgement either really. Context is also important here. If I was shown two women and told I had to have unprotected sex with one of them - I would choose the woman who had 50 encounters of protected sex with total strangers over the woman who had 3 unprotected with total strangers. For example. Again context is everything.

And I might as well! Even though "protection" isn't really protection. But then, we would probably both choose the one who had "protected" sex with only 3 over the one who had "protected" sex with 50, yes? And certainly if we had to choose between women who had unprotected sex, 3 would be our choice?

Originally Posted by monumentus

"Ideal" by what measure and standard exactly? Yours? Or one that you can actually establish and defend in some way? Again context is everything and for many people 1 is far from the "ideal". There is even a completely nonsense idea out there held by someone that there is one "true love" in the world for everyone - or some kind of predestined soul mate or lover or partner out there.

"Ideal" because since we all want to be sexually satisfied, and I contend that can happen for every person by just being with one sexual partner, and we all want to be safe from disease, unwanted pregnancy, complications to do with one or the other partner "catching feelings", etc. The fewer the partners, the better, so long as you learn how to please each other. This is perfectly rational. I'm not trying to make it a law or even say it is wrong not to try for this ideal. But, based on this reasoning, yes, I think anything over 1 is technically too many to be ideal.

Originally Posted by monumentus

The only "ideal" I see worth talking about is living a life you are happy with and makes you happy. And in this the number of partners you have is a variable - not a fixed success target -

All other things being equal, however? Just like in the hypothetical I replied to earlier in this post, if you give the experimental and control group the same treatment regarding all but one factor, you can see what preferred in terms of that one factor you changed. Even you would probably choose the woman who had sex with fewer men.

Originally Posted by monumentus

much like there is no "ideal" setting for any knob on an audio equaliser.

But just enough to hear it well would be that ideal, in my view. If we controlled for all other factors (brand of stereo, proximity to the speakers, song, other noises, etc.), we could run experiments to find exactly how much exposure at what volumes would hurt our hearing, stuff like that.

[Hivemind31]

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

When I said "listen" I was referring to "unspoken body language" - not about some verbal directions. I believe many guys (even those who have had very few partners) are able to intuitively pick up on these things based on chemistry, physical attentiveness, raw animalistic magnetism, millions of years of natural evolutionary response, etc.... I think they often "just know" because their bodies are naturally in tune with the right partner, and even if they go through the crash course of many - 100's - of other women, they may not become any better in tune with a particular partner.

"May not" or "will not"? You seem to believe that picking up on subtleties can't be learned at all.