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

[Memphis1979]

I personally don't know anyone who has slept with 100 people. Men or Women. I think I've been with about 20 or 30 people myself, but thats it. Most women I know they can count their partners on one hand or two.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I'm not saying they're incorrect, just that I'm not convinced they are correct. And no, I don't have to take anyone's word for it, when there are objective ways of determining what the human body needs and none of it suggests polyamory as of yet.

Ok. Changing the goal posts once again. From what a person requires for satisfaction, to what a person needs, to what a body needs. If all you care about is what the "body" "needs", well then we don't "need" anything sexually except for reproduction as a species (not for individuals).

This is why this is a fruitless discussion. You just keep changing the argument.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Here is what I said in the first post that mentioned either term ("orgasm" or "sexual tension")


We already had this discussion. I think it should be considered synonymous, as it is the only (dare I say) measurable factor. Obviously, if we define it as "getting whatever you want", then doing whatever you want is necessary for getting whatever you want, sure. But that has nothing to do with what we need, now does it?

It isn't and shouldn't be synonymous, since they have different meanings. The different terms mean different things.

If you're going to cut and past to misrepresent your past arguments, there is nothing to discuss. We started along these lines with the mention of sexual satisfaction:

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Well again, I don't believe that. I think everyone can be sexually satisfied with one sexual partner (who will of course be willing and able to satisfy their sexual appetite) whether they will pursue that goal or not.

And yet people stated that they can't be sexual satisfied with one partner in their life. Yet you go onto talk about sexual relief, or what a body needs, or how orgasms provide relief from sexual tension... and other dribble... which have little to do with sexual satisfaction. Yet you don't believe them. They try to explain it, and then you tell others what they don't need because it isn't about orgasms or other crud you want to measure "objectively".

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Ok. Changing the goal posts once again.

Haven't done that once. Your last two allegations of me saying something different than what I am saying now were refuted with quotes, and now you're taking another shot in the dark...

Originally Posted by timberline742

From what a person requires for satisfaction, to what a person needs, to what a body needs.

What the body needs to relieve sexual tension (as through orgasm), which is how I propose we define "sexual satisfaction" as it is the only measurable way to do so. But sure, I can acknowledge that a lack of agreement in how we define our terms makes ssssome difference. Still, I don't think my opinion nor reasoning for that opinion could be any clearer...

Originally Posted by timberline742

This is why this is a fruitless discussion. You just keep changing the argument.

Well you're right about one thing: it is a fruitless discussion. But I didn't seek to even make a fruitful discussion out of my opinion, I just gave it. I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything, so I'm not particularly bothered by the way the conversation has gone. It would seem there's opposition to that sentiment, however, which is why I'll shortly be leaving this thread to the predominant (but every bit as unsupported) opinion this thread can be more accepting of. I really shouldn't have let it go on this long. It's silly to be asked for support of an opinion, while those offering factual statements offer none - just reasoning which apparently isn't good enough for an opinion at any rate.

ETA: I haven't misrepresented my original "argument" one iota. And I believe I've addressed your other points/arguments in previous posts (primarily the one right before this one).

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

What the body needs to relieve sexual tension (as through orgasm), which is how I propose we define "sexual satisfaction" as it is the only measurable way to do so. But sure, I can acknowledge that a lack of agreement in how we define our terms makes ssssome difference. Still, I don't think my opinion nor reasoning for that opinion could be any clearer...

Relief of sexual tension and orgasming are two different things for many people. Relief of sexual tension for a person and for the body aren't the same, either. These things are not synonymous. They might be the same for you, that is fine.

Neither are the same as sexual satisfaction, so there is no reason to try to make these different things the same. They don't mean the same. They aren't intended to mean the same. That is why the terms are different. There is good reason to have different terms for different things.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Relief of sexual tension and orgasming are two different things for many people. Relief of sexual tension for a person and for the body aren't the same, either. These things are not synonymous. They might be the same for you, that is fine.

Neither are the same as sexual satisfaction, so there is no reason to try to make these different things the same. They don't mean the same. They aren't intended to mean the same. That is why the terms are different. There is good reason to have different terms for different things.

Ok, so I'll re-word my "argument" to "I don't think anyone needs polyamory to relieve sexual tension or orgasm, and if 'sexual satisfaction' is to be defined as getting everything you want, no one needs that either." Doesn't change anything, timberline. I still say polyamory is not ideal for the same exact reasons, and I still acknowledge that this is all my opinion.

I'll hold out for one more post from monumentus and give my reply, in the (perhaps vain) hope he won't accuse me of "running away"

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Ok, so I'll re-word my "argument" to "I don't think anyone needs polyamory to relieve sexual tension or orgasm, and if 'sexual satisfaction' is to be defined as getting everything you want, no one needs that either." Doesn't change anything, timberline. I still say monogamy is ideal for the same exact reasons, and I still acknowledge that this is all my opinion.

I'll hold out for one more post from monumentus and give my reply, in the (perhaps vain) hope he won't accuse me of "running away"

Most people I know that are poly aren't poly for sexual reasons. It isn't the sexual satisfaction that is the issue. If it were, they could be in committed relationship with one person and have it be open to playing with others, but the people that are poly don't.

And no, "getting everything you want" isn't synonymous with "satisfaction".

I guess I just don't understand why words that have definitions already just seem to trip you up. There is nothing wrong with the definitions they have.

[Saritaschihuahua]

Originally Posted by timberline742

So no matter what you're told by people about what they need to be sexually satisfied, your opinion won't change. Yes, people who know themselves, their lives, what they want and need... what they think and say about their own lives will not convince you that your opinion about them is incorrect. That is an inflexible opinion, and rather rude as well (telling people what they think about themselves is wrong).

If that is the case. Why bother discuss it. You're not willing to have a dialogue and find a middle ground. You're not willing to listen to other people and what works for them. You just want your opinion about others to remain. Rather dogmatic of you. Much like a religious belief in many people: I believe what I believe about myself and others, and it works for everyone no matter what they think. I am right.

Yes, people do know themselves, and they certainly do know what they would prefer. However, if people were allowed to do anything they would prefer, they would be engaging in a lot of things that are simply wacko, outrageous, and even dangerous.

My belief is that poly-anything (polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, polyeverything) is not only unnecessary for human satisfaction, but that these are more akin to fetishes than anything else. Fetishes in the same regard as someone wrapping a belt around his neck to experiment how it feels to be choking while having an orgasm, or browsing through photos of children to have a different form of climax.

I believe that all the polysexualwhatevers are sought after by people who suffer some forms of emotional/psychological issues.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua

Yes, people do know themselves, and they certainly do know what they would prefer. However, if people were allowed to do anything they would prefer, they would be engaging in a lot of things that are simply wacko, outrageous, and even dangerous.

My belief is that poly-anything (polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, polyeverything) is not only unnecessary for human satisfaction, but that these are more akin to fetishes than anything else. Fetishes in the same regard as someone wrapping a belt around his neck to experiment how it feels to be choking while having an orgasm, or browsing through photos of children to have a different form of climax.

I believe that all the polysexualwhatevers are sought after by people who suffer some forms of emotional/psychological issues.

If they're doing things that are "wacky" or whatever with mutually consenting adults, that is their business and no one elses. No one has the right to tell me and my partner what we can or should do or not do. The end.

[STT Resident]

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 knew this thread would segue into a morality thing so skipped the majority of posts as it quickly did exactly that, but I was out on my own in those infamous swinging 60s in London when I was just shy of 17. I was probably in my late 30s - early 40s when something prompted me to try and count just for the heck of it and I recall that even then I was well over 100 and knew I'd totally forgotten a bunch. I can hazard a wild guess that at now 68 the number is probably close to 200 and likely even more. No bragging involved - simply an admission which you asked for and with which I'm happy to oblige, for whatever worth it is to you!.