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

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

If you are going to retrench your failing argument while pointing the finger at me, at least have the courtesy to quote my posts you are disputing.

Originally Posted by GoCUBS

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

If you are going to retrench your failing argument while pointing the finger at me, at least have the courtesy to quote my posts you are disputing. But you can't because I have never said I have a problem with someone's #'s (large or small) - just that it doesn't correlate to improved performance....

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

I simply stated that having more lovers does not necessarily mean more skills.

You wanted quotes. If you can't see how the middle quote differs from the last quote, AND how that differs from what was originally stated, then I'm not sure what to tell you. You're arguing (at least) two different things, and neither argue against anything anyone on here claimed!

[GoCUBS1]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Hivemind, me, no one has ever said, nor implied, in this thread that having higher numbers automatically makes you a better lover.

Yet this is what you are railing against. That is why it is a strawman. You're arguing against a point that was never made.

Now, the statement above, you're changing your position. Do you not see it?

First you said, having more lovers doesn't automatically make you a better lover (when no one claimed it did), now you're saying it doesn't correlate. That is a completely different argument.

Of course, that argument wasn't exactly what was made either.

Can you not see the difference between the points your making (and the discrepancies between them) and the points that were actually made in this thread?

Have you not argued that additional experience with additional women's bodies improves technique?.

This implies higher numbers makes you a better lover.

I have specifically used the term 'correlate' throughout this entire discussion, in multiple posts.

You are now grasping by nitpicking semantics.

Can you not see you are now changing your position while hiding behind semantics and finger-pointing? When Jillabean restated my argument, you seemed to agree with it. She probably stated it better than me - I can admit that.

It is ok to change positions when getting additional viewpoints, but why not admit it?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

Have you not argued that additional experience with additional women's bodies improves technique?.

Necessarily? No, I have not. I've not seen anyone make that argument.

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

You are now grasping by nitpicking semantics.

Semantics? The definitions of words? The things we used to communicate? Semantics matter. A lot.

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

Can you not see you are now changing your position while hiding behind semantics and finger-pointing? When Jillabean restated my argument, you seemed to agree with it. She probably stated it better than me - I can admit that.

It is ok to change positions when getting additional viewpoints, but why not admit it?

I haven't changed my position once. Not once. If you're going to make that claim, you should also have the courtesy of providing quotes. If you don't understand it (my position), or, worse, purposely misrepresent it, that is a different issue.

You also didn't seem to understand my response to Jillabean as I did not agree with it at all.

These three things are all VERY VERY different:

Having more lovers correlates with being a better lover.
Having more lovers necessarily means you'll be a better lover.
Having more lovers can expose you to different bodies and techniques that can result in your becoming a better lover.

Those three things, are in no way, shape, or form, the same statement.

[GoCUBS1]

Originally Posted by timberline742

You wanted quotes. If you can't see how the middle quote differs from the last quote, AND how that differs from what was originally stated, then I'm not sure what to tell you. You're arguing (at least) two different things, and neither argue against anything anyone on here claimed!

Is this a comprehension issue? How can you say these points are so vastly different?

I'm pretty sure most readers understand my point.... We have hit a comprehension brick wall and I have a meeting - so I'm out...

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

Is this a comprehension issue? How can you say these points are so vastly different?

Very easily. Because they are!

Stats 101, correlation is not causation.

[Metaphysique]

Originally Posted by jillabean

My apologies then. It seemed to me that was the argument and that's what I didn't agree with.

On another note (and maybe this is a topic for another discussion) I wonder what ends up being better... personal experience or reading up on sex. I wondered this because of my last lover. Like I said, he was really good and sex (for me) was never more enjoyable than with him. I also spend a lot of time at his house, alone and bored when he was at work and read some of the books on his bookself. He had a a few dog eared books on sex and "how to please a woman." I never asked him, but I wonder if he learned more from the books or from women. I recognized some of what he did was as being in the books. Like I said, I know he's only been with three women in the last 20 years (and I was one of them), but I have no idea what his teens and early 20s were like.

I've wondered this as well. It could be a multitude of things. I've had a few partners that were good at the mechanics of sex, but not necessarily great lovers overall. It lacked in intimacy and closeness. One encounter/experience ended up being a ONS (he was a great guy, but we wanted different things/were at different places in the dating journey) was, hands down, the best ONS, and the third best sexual experience I ever had. He was a fantastic lover and very passionate and intimate.

He hadn't been with many women, actually. He had been married for 15 years, and had a couple partners before his wife, and a girlfriend for about 2-3 years. So, maybe a handful of partners?

The other two... mind-blowing lovers. I hadn't experienced intimacy like that, passion, chemistry, magnetism, until the first lover. He, too, had only 4-5 partners, and he was with his wife for, gosh, 18 years? (but they didn't have much of a sex life, and she wasn't really into the things he was into -- non-vanilla)

The other lover had been with his wife, poly marriage, for 15 years. We dated briefly, but yeah, pretty damn fantastic. He could count his partners on two hands.

I hadn't experienced the level of intimacy, passion and intensity with previous partners. They were older as well. The youngest being 35 and oldest 42. And they were all into non-vanilla. Two were doms/tops and one was a switch.

Sex with younger men... no thanks. They may get the mechanics down, but there's so much more to being a great lover than mimicking porn, which a good many do. A lot of them don't know what intimacy is, the different levels, passion, erotic kissing, touch... all that good stuff.

[GoCUBS1]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Very easily. Because they are!

Stats 101, correlation is not causation.

Good lord... I do have a meeting... It is obvious from my posts that I believe both these things....

- #'s don't correlate to improved performance

- having more lovers does not necessarily mean more skills

You see, I am allowed to present similar points in my posts. Is it that your data driven brain can only handle one point at a time? So which one of the above do you disagree with?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

Good lord... I do have a meeting... It is obvious from my posts that I believe both these things....

- #'s don't correlate to improved performance

- having more lovers does not necessarily mean more skills

You see, I am allowed to present similar points in my posts. Is it that your data driven brain can only handle one point at a time? So which one of the above do you disagree with?

Neither. I never stated anything in opposition to either. No one here did.

You argued these points with no one opposing them or making any statement to the contrary.

A classic straw man logical fallacy argument.

[Hivemind31]

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

Nope.... I have consistently said what Jillabean is saying (though she is doing a better job at explaining it!), which is: Numbers don't matter.... And you have consistently disputed this with the explanation that additional experience with additional women improves technique....

Jillabean was agreeing with a statement you made that had nothing to do with what we (timberline and I) were even talking about. Hell, we agree with that statement too (that communication, etc. are one of, if not the most important factor). But that's now what we're arguing about.

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

Please start that thread... I feel another disagreement coming on...

That was just my personal experience, not something I'm willing to debate. YMMV.

Originally Posted by timberline742

Hivemind, me, no one has ever said, nor implied, in this thread that having higher numbers automatically makes you a better lover.

Yet this is what you are railing against. That is why it is a strawman. You're arguing against a point that was never made.

Now, the statement above, you're changing your position. Do you not see it?

First you said, having more lovers doesn't "necessarily" make you a better lover (when no one claimed it did), now you're saying it doesn't correlate. That is a completely different argument.

Of course, that argument wasn't exactly what was made either.

Can you not see the difference between the points your making (and the discrepancies between them) and the points that were actually made in this thread?

Exactly this. For the underlined, she can't, and I'm not intelligent enough to explain any more simply than I already have.

Originally Posted by timberline742

You wanted quotes. If you can't see how the middle quote differs from the last quote, AND how that differs from what was originally stated, then I'm not sure what to tell you. You're arguing (at least) two different things, and neither argue against anything anyone on here claimed!

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

When Jillabean restated my argument, you seemed to agree with it. She probably stated it better than me - I can admit that.

See my first response above, the statement that Jillabean was agreeing with is not an argument. The statement you made wasn't an argument against what we were saying...so it could be true, but still not contend what we're saying. I hate using the term, but I really think you should look up what a "strawman " argument is, and consider how it might apply. It's not meant to be an insult, but it's 100% what's going on here.

[GoCUBS1]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Neither. I never stated anything in opposition to either. No one here did.

You argued these points with no one opposing them or making any statement to the contrary.

A classic straw man logical fallacy argument.

Nope, it was argued that having more women would provide more experience with different types of responses, which would lead to greater skills. Therefore, it was argued, the larger the # or partners, the better skills.

You are now grasping for any one word, any minute argument inconsistency (from my many posts here) that you think might trip up my argument, and you will place a quote, out-of-context, here (pages later) to try to prove your point. That is a classic C-D defensive strategy from the drowning.