Comments on: Should I Disclose the Number of Sexual Partners I’ve Had In the Past?

By: NonExist

NonExist — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:07:11 +0000

I agree with Evan totally on this one.
Unless you are comfrotable sharing and can deal with it.
Personally all I care about is whether or not she can be monogamous with me if we agree to do so.
And I believe in giving everyone a fair chance so I could not care less about how many partners she has had.
It does increase the chance of infection but I and she should be responsible enough about those matters.

And if she wants to share her number, nothing she says will faze me.
I myself cannot give a number or even a round figure because I did not keep count. Now I can remeber the number of women who asked me out, or who beat me at bowling or something like that, but sex to me is not about measurement. It is about enjoying it with who I am with at the time and trying my best to make sure she enjoys it as well.

By: Mary T

Mary T — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:10:40 +0000

I agree with Evan -the relevant question is whether you’re an exclusive couple, and whether they’ve had an STI check and had the all-clear. From general chit chat you can get an idea of a persons views on promiscuity. no need to know the details!

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:14:50 +0000

I absolutely think that you should disclose this information to your partner in a long term relationship. I wouldn't bring it up in any casual one month fling, but if you willfully had sex with many partners, or you haven't had sex with anybody, then you should not be ashamed of it. The number of partners that you have had does have some reflection on your character, as Ileana kindly pointed out, so having this sort of straight discussion gives you a chance to explain yourself, whether you have a high number or a low number. I think any candidate for a life-long relationship has the right to know, so they can take this information and make their own judgements.

By: Nige

Nige — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:26:01 +0000

My wife and I told each other our previous “conquests” after a boozy night of loving and, to be honest, we both found it funny and sexy. It’s nice to know my wife is attractive to other men. I don’t care how many previous lovers she had. She’s with me and that’s all that matters. We still tease each other about our pasts but we both have fun with it. Why should it matter? What happened before can’t be changed and I believe women should have had some experience before settling down. There’s nothing worse as you move towards old age thinking “What if?”

Someone mentioned “researching” their partners? I understand that some people are jealous (been there) but let’s all grow up a little. Sexual relations within a loving relationship are just that – loving. Sex is, however, a need. It has been reduced to a battleground between religious zealots who fail to realise the fundamental thing here – we are all created to reproduce. Without the NEED there would be no population to argue overt here things. A recent study showed that the monogamous woman will lead to the loss of men all together due to a genetic trait which can be carried and wipes out the Y chromosome. The article in the Scotsman made me think. Why are we all uptight about the number of partners we have? Clean and safe fun is just that – FUN. It doesn’t mean anything and shouldn’t. It is different from loving sexual relationships. Please, please chill out. Let people be free to be themselves and just get on with living your own. Good luck!

By: The_Soothsayer

The_Soothsayer — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:42:26 +0000

Listen Guys, sex is just two pieces of meat rubbing together, which results in a pleasant sensation. I remember a film called, ‘Search for fire’, that depicted the life of cave men and women. In one scene a cave man came across three women bending over on the water’s edge. He didn’t worry about attraction etc. He lifted his nose in the air and selected the one by smell. Dogs do it, cats do it and every other kind of animal does it. They don’t give a hoot as to what the relationship ties may result, nature compels them to do it, and they don’t question it. Only human beings have attached more relevance to it. My point is, sex has nothing to do with relationships, they are created on a far higher plane than the animal instinct. Young males have no control over their sexual behavior because of the high levels of testosterone in their systems. Be comforted by the fact that I believe most people past 70 do not have the problem and live a happy and contented life without the demands of sex.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:03:01 +0000

stephan@135

It is disingenuine for anyone here to claim they don’t draw the line somewhere when it comes to ‘values’. What I’m arguing is that it isn’t as simple as ‘numbers’.

Me… for instance… I’d be more concerned about a man’s insistance on watching porn and their belief in it’s intangible benefits to a relationship than the number of women he slept with.

Even if his numbers were ‘low’, I’d be skeptical about the quality of the sex I’d have with a man who insisted on watching porn or going to strip clubs. I’d be concerned about how he viewed women.. The hypocrisy of men who claim it is ok for them to be promiscuous (and expect that a woman will overlook that) while not extending the same to a woman is not an attractive quality.

It isn’t the guy’s numbers I’m concerned with. I’m concerned about how a man I”m interested in views women and if we can forge a partnership… one where we can discover what really matters and what doesn’t matter. One where we can learn from our past embarrassements, mistakes, and bad choices and make a better future together… or not.

I have no interest in men who need to feel ‘one up’ so that they can feel in control in a relationship… and have dirt to hang over a woman’s head. That is my impression of men who need to know numbers and who hold double standards. It’s all about power and control and meanness. Or at least, that is how it feels to me… and what I’ve observed from men who feel the need to ask those questions.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 05:48:22 +0000

Personally, I feel that the number of people that you have had sex with is a direct link to your responsibility as a partner. If you’ve had sex with a ton of people, then your relationship with any new person is far less special. This feeling is personal to me, however, because in my own views (not religious), I don’t think that sex should ever be had casually. I consider a “one night stand” to be an absolutely abhorrent activity, because sex is THE MOST intimate thing you can do with another human being. I don’t want anything to do with anybody who just has casual sex with a bunch of partners since sex means a hell of a lot less to them than it does to me.

By: DMC

DMC — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:41:47 +0000

Thanks for clarifying Katrina…I never realized I was so wrong in so many areas……

Lleana makes some very good, non-judgemental points. obviously a person’s sexual history DOES say something about them. It just seems somepeople here, including Evan have issue if it’s interpreted negatively. It’s kind of like if someone says “all women are (fill in a negative trait)”. You will get lots of women up in arms with “all women are not the same!” or “don’t generalize a whole gender!”. Yet if you said something nice like “all women are (fill in a positive trait)” you will get a lot of “yeah, we really are…” type agreement.

By: Ileana

Ileana — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 23:52:19 +0000

@Evan: This part of your reply to SS caught my eye: ”You can say that you don’t want a woman who’s been with 20 men (as some sort of arbitrary guidepost that you’ve set), but such a number has NOTHING to do with her character”
With all due respect, don’t you think that a woman’s number actually HAS something to do with her character? I don’t mean to say that in a bad way, or that women with high numbers are not worthy of a LTR. Far from that.

But when you have a 40dudes/20 years ratio, people might ask themselves questions like:
a) were all those encounters within relationships, or ONS?
b) if relationships, then it ideally means about 2 six month long relationships per year. if so, then did she not feel complete without a relationship, so that she had to be ‘busy’ the whole time? OR does she have problems settling down with one guy?
c) in the probable case that some of her relationships lasted less than six months, what was wrong with all of these? OR considering that 20 years is a LARGE period of time, did she not learn from her mistakes/bad patterns from the past, if her relationships truly were faulty (ie. she could do way better)?
d) does this mean she hops in bed too fast (widely subjective terms here, i know, but i hope you understand what i mean…). This could be connected with the view that maybe sex is not soo valuable and has little emotional value to her?
e) does she have a sky-high libido? (which is, not at all bad!). OR Is she ‘addicted’ to sex? What might happen in case she gets involved with a guy who’s in the navy/ army, and who is away MONTHS at a time? Is she inclined to seek her satisfaction with someone else?
f) is physical connection a more determinant factor for her in starting a relationship than emotional, so she had to ‘test drive’ the guys sexually, BEFORE she even considered opening herself up to them?

These examples here aren’t even close to being a decisive factor if a person is good/bad.

Let’s view the other side of the spectrum. Number of sexual partners = 0. Possible alternatives: ‘religious fanatic, rigid morals’, ‘not laid back, not capable of relaxing, not adventurous/spontaneous’, ‘unreal expectations of men and relationships in general, looking for the perfect person and the perfect Hollywood moment’, ‘too busy to actually commit/find someone, OR possibly viewed as not good enough’, ‘frigid’ and the list can go on.

These are all VERY subjective terms here and can be relevant to some extent. Only our decisions are reflections of who we really are. So do you still think that The Number has nothing to do with character? I think it does, at least to some extent.
But in the end, the fact that you were a virgin up to your wedding night says nothing about you being capable of truly loving a man. The same as having 20,30,40, X sexual partners is irrelevant to your capacity of actually being a good lay.

By: Katarina Phang

Katarina Phang — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:43:45 +0000

DMC,
1) Well, then we agree to disagree.
2) Sorry but you guys don’t stop at “we don’t want to date sluts” you (maybe not you personally but your ilk has) went on to elaborate why with lots of very inaccurate personal judgment and prejudice about us. You can’t make a bold inaccurate blanket statement about a group of people without those people trying to correct you on that, dude. At least you can’t expect that. Do you understand now?

Now you can go back dating your conservative non-slut women. No skin off my nose. I don’t care one bit.

#. Patronizing also means condescending. Which one do you prefer? Be my guest, pick your adjective. I won’t split hair with you on this.

And maybe you need a new dictionary. Which edition did you use?

4) It is stupid because there are other equally or even more valid perspectives you can employ and consider. I have given you the link that provides that perspective, that if you have an open mind. But obviously in this case, you don’t. Like a religious believer you can’t defend your belief because it’s just a belief.