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

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua

I'm not sure I believe this.

And yet it remains true despite your belief status. Sometimes orgasms can be more-ish. You get more - you want more. Sometimes ONE is enough to lay you out incapable of any more for some time. People differ from person to person - and even those people themselves can differ from encounter to encounter.

As I said there are times when orgasm - or multiple orgasms - have been attained yet the person is not satiated and is looking for more. While there are times when people have not attained one at all - but are statiated.

Human sexual satisfaction is a contiuum - and a varied one - regardless of what you believe or not.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

monumentus, you conveniently clipped off the context of what I said about bisexuality.

This is a bit rich coming from the one who convieniently clips off the majority of my replies and responds to one tiny bit of it or none of it at all. You have no basis for throwing around false acusations of this type when the only dodge-merchant around here is you.

And the accusation IS false. I responded to the subject of bisexuality multiple times now.

The fact is you claim that everyone should be able to attain this satisfaction with just one person. And the fact is that your assertion is not true. There are many who can not. So your whole basis for your "ideal" has crumbled beneath you.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

1. You are convinced that you absolutely need more than one sexual partner to be sexually satisfied.

Am I? I remember suggesting no such thing anywhere. Can someone give me a virtual tooth pick please so I can pick Vics words out of my mouth please? He appears to be going off on his usual tactic of responding to points no one actually made.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Nor did I claim you were. You offered a contention to the thread and I am merely showing why it is a fail.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I am still personally convinced that any human being can (and that's not to say they "should" or they're "wrong") have all their needs met by one sexual partner.

That you are convinced of it is A) Obvious and B) of no interest to me. Of interest to me is whether there is any basis for it - and thus far the only support you have offered for this assertion is - repetition of the assertion.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I believe one is ideal because I see adding sexual partners as adding risks (of STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and/or a host of emotional/relationship troubles)

Which is totally nonsense.

Firstly you are focusing in one one kind of risk and suggesting - based on very little - that it has increased. You do not notice that OVERALL there are a multitude of risks in relationships and such relationships reduce some and increase others. So you are dodging the "full picture" by focusing in on a few pixels.

Secondly simply adding numbers of people does not automatically increase risks of things like emotional troubles per se. Because there are aspects of such relationships that serve to reduce this probability too. In some ways it goes up - in some ways it goes down. Your assertion clearly is that there is an overall increase of risk. By all means evidence this assertion for us. Show us your workings and figures and estimates.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

3. I am 100% aware (that is to say, you cannot possibly make me more aware) that I could be wrong. But, I haven't seen an argument yet that convinces me of this, and that should be expected of any thinking person.

As one of these "thinking people" I normally think that if something I think is right lacks even the remotest amount of evidence or argument to support it - that I am likely wrong. Clearly you do not operate under similar ideals.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

(and are now apparently worked up worse than Lawrence Krauss trapped at a church sit-in

So now not only do you insist on putting words in my mouth I never said - you wish to ascribe emotional states to me I have neither passed through nor expressed?

You really do like erecting your little strawmen and misrepresentations dont you.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

if the peppering of words such as "dodging", "running away", etc. are any indication)

I feel no more emotion at using those phrases than I do when calling a spade a spade to be honest. And right here we have a spade - and I am calling it like it is. Deal.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

1. You are convinced that you absolutely need more than one sexual partner to be sexually satisfied. Even though, biologically speaking, one partner is sufficient to relieve sexual tension, you feel more than one is still needed.

So we've gone from sexual satisfaction, to orgasm, to relief of sexual tension... let the slide continue.

[Hivemind31]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I know I cannot. It is not an opinion. There is no way, shape, or form one person could have fulfilled all the things I have needed to be satisfied sexually in my life. Physically and biologically impossible.

Put me in this category as well. One person simply could not have provided me everything I needed to be satisfied sexually.

[Saritaschihuahua]

Originally Posted by monumentus

And yet it remains true despite your belief status. Sometimes orgasms can be more-ish. You get more - you want more. Sometimes ONE is enough to lay you out incapable of any more for some time. People differ from person to person - and even those people themselves can differ from encounter to encounter.

So now not only do you insist on putting words in my mouth I never said - you wish to ascribe emotional states to me I have neither passed through nor expressed?

You really do like erecting your little strawmen and misrepresentations dont you.

I merely said I don't believe it, and I still don't. I think you're pulling these out of your hat.

[1orlando]

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.

Ask a hooker

[Saritaschihuahua]

Originally Posted by 1orlando

Ask a hooker

That's a quick and easy way to find someone who's slept with over 100.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by monumentus

This is a bit rich coming from the one who convieniently clips off the majority of my replies and responds to one tiny bit of it or none of it at all.

When you present something I haven't already addressed, I will be more than happy to respond to it. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, sorry.

Originally Posted by monumentus

And the accusation IS false. I responded to the subject of bisexuality multiple times now.

Of course you did, but in the process you shortened what I actually said about the question of bisexuality, making it necessary for me to point that out.

Originally Posted by monumentus

The fact is you claim that everyone should be able to attain this satisfaction with just one person.

Not only is this not a fact; the exact opposite is a fact. I've presented my opinion as opinion all along and spelled out for you that I'm not talking about "should"s and "should not"s here. You're making all this up to give readers the illusion that your little tirades are warranted (when we both know they aren't). I don't know if I just struck a nerve with you or what. But I don't find the refusal to accept differing opinions (that in no way hurt or try to hurt you) a particularly healthy characteristic.

Originally Posted by monumentus

and thus far the only support you have offered for this assertion is - repetition of the assertion.

More like, an opinion has been given and explained, and you're having trouble accepting that said opinion is different from your own.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Firstly you are focusing in one one kind of risk and suggesting - based on very little - that it has increased. You do not notice that OVERALL there are a multitude of risks in relationships and such relationships reduce some and increase others.

Well of course I'm focusing on just one of the aspects I think governs risks ("risks" plural; I gave mention to more than one). That one aspect is what the subject is all about - number of sexual partners! If we were talking about some other subject, I'd be "focusing in on" that instead.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Secondly simply adding numbers of people does not automatically increase risks of things like emotional troubles per se. Because there are aspects of such relationships that serve to reduce this probability too. In some ways it goes up - in some ways it goes down. Your assertion clearly is that there is an overall increase of risk.

Your consistent failure to distinguish between opinion and assertion notwithstanding, I still think that the more people involved, the more potential for issues, whether they be physical or emotional. I do not assume that all or even most people living this lifestyle are going to have to deal with these issues. I'm sure it's comparable to how most people not living that way are also going to be just fine. But I do still believe there is more of a chance of having to deal with these issues the more sexual partners you include.

You're not going to change my mind on that by speaking of vague "ways" in which this lifestyle might reduce the probability of these issues. Now, as I said, I am just fine with not being able to change your mind. But, if you are trying to change mine (which it certainly seems that you are), you will have to try a little harder.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by timberline742

So we've gone from sexual satisfaction, to orgasm, to relief of sexual tension... let the slide continue.

No "slide" at all. I mentioned relief of sexual tension as a way to define sexual satisfaction from the very beginning. You should know this, as you and others quickly disagreed...

[1w0n]

Did you ever stop and think that it isn't only about orgasm, or relief of sexual tension, and that a person could possibly enjoy the variety and a difference of technique. Maybe instead of a traditional relationship, which takes a lot of your time, they wanted to have multiple partners to cover maybe 5 days of the week? The relationships last as long as the honeymoon period is present. So you want to have an athletic charged evening, so you see one girl, the next day you are a little worn out, so you get in touch with the other, and so on. Sure one woman is able to do almost everything that all those women can do, except one. She can't be that Marathon runner with the slim athletic body, or the pre med 30 year old who has a athletically curvy body, or what the petite accountant, or the Korean chick that works for the county...or the teacher who has a real dirty mind. Each and every woman has a unique style, no two are alike. It really opens your eyes to the varying needs of women. It has nothing to do with orgasm, it has everything to do with the overall experience.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua

I merely said I don't believe it, and I still don't. I think you're pulling these out of your hat.

Not sure why you are including - and bolding - replies to another user in your reply to me. As I said - it does nto require you to believe it for it to be true.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

When you present something I haven't already addressed, I will be more than happy to respond to it. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, sorry.

Well given your premise has failed - as for the foundation you placed it on - you do not need to repeat yourself at all. Your options now appear to be either to retract your failed contention (which is not repeating yourself) or offer new support for it (which is also not repeating yourself.

Repeating your failed premise and its foundation is - I agree - pointless.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Of course you did, but in the process you shortened what I actually said about the question of bisexuality, making it necessary for me to point that out.

I responded to your position on it. Just because I do not quote it all does not mean I did not respond to it all. Learn the difference.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Not only is this not a fact; the exact opposite is a fact. I've presented my opinion as opinion all along

I know it is not a fact. It is just a contention you trotted out on the thread and have since failed to support in any way. Fine - you have an option. I just point out that the opinion is baseless nonsense with no valid grounding that you have presented to us.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

give readers the illusion that your little tirades are warranted

So disagreement is a "tirade" now is it. Propoganda nonsense. The fact remains that you offered us a contention about this sexual "ideal" that you imagined and your attempts to support the claims have simply failed. If pointing that out is a "tirade" in your fantasy world then you have my sympathy - but it changes nothing I have said - nor even addresses it.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I don't find the refusal to accept differing opinions (that in no way hurt or try to hurt you) a particularly healthy characteristic.

But refusing to accept baseless and nonsense opionions IS a healthy characteristic and one I have in spades.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

More like, an opinion has been given and explained, and you're having trouble accepting that said opinion is different from your own.

Nope. Again I have no problem with opinion - but I also have no problem in pointing out opinions that are nonsense or baseless. Yours on this thread is both.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Well of course I'm focusing on just one of the aspects I think governs risks ("risks" plural; I gave mention to more than one). That one aspect is what the subject is all about - number of sexual partners! If we were talking about some other subject, I'd be "focusing in on" that instead.

But you are doing it poorly. You can focus on risks over all and attempt to show that overall they increase. But you do not do that. You simply attempt (poorly) to focus on the ones that increase only - and dismiss and ignore the ones that go down - or the factors that actually mediate the risks you think (falsely) go up.

You are just cherry picking the data set - and not just that - an imagined data set at that.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Your consistent failure to distinguish between opinion and assertion notwithstanding

There is no such failure. The contention you have offered is baseless nonsense. This remains true regardless of whether it is mere opinion - or a phd thesis. Either way it remains baseless - and it remains nonsense. For the reasons I have laid out many times now.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I still think that the more people involved, the more potential for issues, whether they be physical or emotional.

And you thinking it does not make it true. It is just a result of an over simplifcation of the process coupled with a cherry picking of an imagined data group.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

No "slide" at all. I mentioned relief of sexual tension as a way to define sexual satisfaction from the very beginning. You should know this, as you and others quickly disagreed...

And with good reason. It is a useless and meaningless measure to use on that.