The Sex Risk For Women That No One Likes To Talk About
Recently a 29 year-old guy wrote into the Love Letters section of the Boston Globe looking for guidance. Usually Meredith Goldstein, who writes the column, gives excellent advice. In which case there’s no point in my saying anything further. In this case, however, I think she really missed the boat.
Here’s the letter:
About a year ago, a friend introduced me to his wife’s friend, and we hit it off. I’m 29 now, and she’s 26. We dated, things went extremely well, and things have progressed to the point where we are both extremely happy and have been considering moving in together this summer when our leases end. All in all, a very normal, healthy, mutually respectful relationship that makes us both very happy.
A few weeks ago, however, she dropped a bomb on me. She told me that when she was in college she was pretty casual about relationships. When I asked what that meant, she told me that she had probably been with about 35 guys. I was floored. I had always assumed she had a typical dating past, and that she was a nice girl. She assured me that she had completely changed after college, but I still have no idea how to process this information. I’m pretty sure that if I knew this from the start, I never would have given her a chance. Needless to say, I’m really weirded out.
This is a woman who, until two weeks ago, I could easily have seen myself marrying. She’s been so incredibly great to me, but now I don’t know who I’m dating. I would love to get past this and go back to feeling the way I used to, but I don’t know if that’s possible. I’m also afraid that if I end it over this, it’ll be the biggest regret of my life. She makes me so happy and it’s probably the best relationship of my life, but I’m now seeing her as damaged goods. I try to rationalize why her number isn’t that crazy or out of whack, but then I snap back into it and remember that I don’t know a single woman who did anything remotely like that in college. This is just foreign to me.
CONFLICTED
And Meredith’s answer:
Your words: “I’m pretty sure that if I knew this from the start, I never would have given her a chance.’’
Aren’t you glad you didn’t know? Had you vetoed her based on a number, you wouldn’t be in an amazing, happy relationship.
How many partners would have been OK? Five? Twenty? Thirty-four? What’s your cutoff for damaged goods?
Your girlfriend knows herself well. She had a good time in college, grew up, and now wants a real partner. She chose you, trusted you enough to disclose her past, and now she’s being called damaged goods. Might I suggest that a woman who slept with only three people but didn’t understand her own motives might be more damaged – less capable of an adult relationship?
My point is, if she doesn’t feel damaged, she’s not. Please don’t label her that way. Nothing has changed about her. She’s the same woman you fell for. If anything, you should be flattered. She has experienced a variety of men and you’re the guy she wants to cohabitate with. Her experiences turned her into the woman you chose. For that reason, be thankful that she lived the life she did. Don’t ruin this – for her or yourself.
MEREDITH
What Questions Does Conflicted’s Letter Raise?
1. Why would Conflicted care about his girlfriend’s lovers prior to knowing him?
This man’s concern about the number of sexual partners his future wife may have had is neither surprising nor illogical. David Buss, one of the pioneers of Evo Psych, writes in the Evolution of Desire about why men originally might have chosen to marry at all, considering their innate preference for sexual variety:
With concealed ovulation in humans, men who married would benefit by having greater reassurance of paternity. Before marrying, a man would seek reassurance that his wife would remain sexually faithful. One trait in a mate that could predict her faithfulness was premarital chastity.
As David Buss says, the modern conditions for mating may have changed significantly, but humans still employ the same sexual strategies. Of the 67 traits men seek in a committed partner, faithfulness and sexual loyalty rank as the most important in every culture ever studied.
2. Is Conflicted applying a sexual double standard? If so, is that unethical?
If Conflicted was a total man whore, having spent his youth banging women exactly like the one he is in love with now, I wouldn’t have much sympathy for him. If he was a cad, why should he not wind up with a woman who spent her youth having sex with men just like him? In that case, both would share a similar history and decision to switch to monogamy. However, I don’t believe this is the case here. He states clearly that he doesn’t know “a single woman who did anything remotely like that in college.”
If I had to guess, I’d feel pretty safe assuming that Conflicted was a nice Beta college guy, an earnest student who got lucky a few times, maybe even had a long-term girlfriend in his college days. Meanwhile, the object of his love and affection was either hooking up with frat stars or athletes. This bomb that she’s dropped on him is a reminder of how different their past experiences are, and how she inhabited an entirely different world from him just five years ago.
In her book Sexual Strategies, Mary Batten says:
As long as the risks were low, selection favored the basic male tendency to be aroused sexually by the sight of females.
But a woman could incur an enormous cost of energy and time if easy visual arousal resulted in pregnancy.
Selection has thus favored females who were discriminating and slow to arouse sexually, since reflex-like sexual arousal on the basis of visual stimuli would have tended to undermine female choice.
She notes that females are usually aroused not by the sight of males but by the touch of a favored male. Again, this speaks to sexual selection over many millenia. Buss says none of this is absolute; environment matters:
Every strand of DNA unfolds within a particular environmental and cultural context. All behavioral patterns can in principle be altered by environmental intervention.
The Sexual Revolution, the availability of the Pill, and women’s increased earning power have all been profound environmental interventions. Still, fifty years is a nanosecond in evolutionary terms. While men seek women with promiscuity, sexual experience and high sex drive when selecting for short-term mating, they still retain the preference for a sexually inexperienced wife, or at least one who is less experienced than they are.
In the era of hooking up, this concern is exacerbated as the number of inexperienced woman has dropped dramatically. One of the things I hear most from men like Conflicted is that they have no interest in stepping in to pick up the pieces after women have been “used up” by other men. It’s insulting to their pride for obvious reasons, and many will refuse to marry if they cannot find a woman who meets their requirements.
What Questions Does Meredith’s Answer Raise?
1. Is ignorance bliss in the matter of sexual history?
What you know can’t hurt you, until it does. The movie Best in Show comes to mind, where Eugene Levy and Catherine O’Hara play a married couple not unlike Conflicted and his girl in terms of sexual history. Everywhere they go, they seem to run into her old boyfriends, who want to relive their sexual adventures, reminiscing about sex “that time on the roller coaster” and asking her whether she “can still do that thing with her legs.” Of course Eugene Levy plays the pitiful chump who squirms with discomfort but sucks it up for his Alpha female, and we all laugh wholeheartedly. As far as I can tell, Conflicted doesn’t want to go through life risking those kind of doubts.
2. Is Conflicted required to state a cutoff for damaged goods?
Conflicted has every right to seek a partner whose values mirror his own. That’s what this is really about – he is questioning her values based on her past decisions. He states that “I don’t know who I’m dating.” Everything he thought he knew about her has been called into question. He doesn’t know if he can love this person he has just discovered.
3. Is a woman who sleeps with a few people without knowing her own motives less capable of a real relationship than a woman who sleeps with 35 while knowing exactly what she wants from each encounter?
Frankly, this strikes me as pure nonsense, straight from the sex-positive branch of feminism. A woman who understands her own motives is probably going to be more successful in relationships than a woman who doesn’t. However, we have no evidence whatsoever that Conflicted’s girlfriend understood her motives for hooking up during college. With an average of 9 sexual partners per year, I can only assume that she threw all reason and caution to the winds. This hardly sounds like the carefully considered behavior of a woman who knows her own mind. Since women orgasm during hookup sex less than half the time, she would have been better off with a man who knew her body and was sober during sex. She gained a short-term reward for hooking up randomly, presumably in the form of sexual validation from attractive men.
4. Should Conflicted feel flattered that she waited for him before deciding to live with someone? If her experiences turned her into the woman she is today, does it follow that if Conflicted loves her, he must love her experiences?
Doubt it, but nice try. If I were Conflicted I too would be weirded out, primarily by the fear that she was “settling” for me after spending her youth and beauty with douchebags.
This question of whether the nice guy can get past the startling revelation of his love’s promiscuous past is nothing new. Sweet Charity, the Neil Simon musical based on Fellini’s Night of Cabiria, is the story of a prostitute who falls for a shy tax accountant she meets on an elevator. When she finally tells him what she does for a living, he says he doesn’t care and wants to marry her anyway. But when the time comes for the wedding, he tells her that he cannot stop thinking about the “other men,” and he leaves her.
A more recent and hopeful ending to a similar story is Julia Robert’s rescue by Richard Gere in Pretty Woman, probably the most unrealistic chick flick ever made.
Men like Conflicted are the norm. They heed the call of nature and instinct. To be honest, I’m not sure why his girlfriend shared that information with him, “dropping a bomb” in that way. It strikes me as odd that they got that far without discussing their sexual histories, from the standpoint of both physical and emotional well-being, and they’re both responsible for that failure.
You are in charge of your own body, and what you choose to do with it. But keep your eyes wide open. I suspect that Conflicted is going to end his relationship, no matter what Meredith says is “correct.” Not every man will share Conflicted’s view or his values. If you choose promiscuity, though, you’re rolling the dice in the mating game.
Related posts:
[...] Read the original post: The Sex Risk For Women That No One Likes To Talk About | Hooking … [...]
[...] View original post here: The Sex Risk For Women That No One Likes To Talk About | Hooking … [...]
[...] The Sex Risk For Women That No One Likes To Talk About | Hooking … [...]
I think you are correct that it's wired into us to be bothered by it. It doesn't make it right, or even rational in today's world, but it's there. There's no reason to go out of your way to volunteer this info – it's just rubbing it in and fanning the flames. If he asks, you should tell the truth, but if he's smart enough not to play to his own fears and doesn't ask, I see no reason to raise it.
That said, if I am going to expect women to try get a grip on irrational things that are wired into them, men ought to try to do the same. The only rational reason to care in today's world would be the concern that she is settling after not getting the commitment she wanted from the cads. Absent that concern, a guy should avoid obsessing over it. You're sort of shooting yourself in the foot if you do, because with today's sexual permissiveness, if you find a woman who was very chaste, you stand a good chance of ending up in a sexless marriage with a woman with a very low sex drive. Sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess.
Perhaps the sad lesson for a guy is that he should get good with women early so that he can get his notch count up, so as to avoid running the risk of deep resentment when it turns out that the woman he ends up with in the long run got around a lot more than he did.
Well to be fair, I suspect that if her number was half that, it might have been less of an issue. Sexual permissiveness and equality aside, 9 hookup partners a year is a pretty big number, even for men. And who knows how many of those were multiple hookups, concurrent hookups, etc. I am surprised she would volunteer that info – she must have had a sense he wasn't a player. Also, she said “about 35.” Since it's usually assumed that women exaggerate their number downward, for obvious reasons, I do think he has every reason to be “weirded out.” That said, if they are a great match in every other way, and she can explain how she's changed and why, perhaps they can work through it. If I were her I'd suggest they see a counselor, assuming he'd be willing to do it.
[...] Here is the original post: The Sex Risk For Women That No One Likes To Talk About | Hooking … [...]
To be honest, I feel a little uncomfortable with both responses to Conflicted's letter here. I agree his concern should be treated respectfully, but not because of the way men vs. women are 'wired', but because there may be important value differences. I think it's just as valid for a woman who has few sexual encounters to feel similarly in a situation when she's with a guy who has been around the block several times.
However, I feel both responses here are jumping to judgments about this woman based on fairly little information. For example, when Conflicted says “dropped a bomb” on him, we have no idea exactly how this conversation was approached. If the rest of their relationship has been mature and healthy (a piece of information I think should be given as much weight as her “number” from the past), I can't see why we should assume she did this in a callous way. It is possible that, upon seeing the relationship become serious, she decided she needed to tell him about this so that they could move forward with a clean slate. She might have known it would be difficult for him and that he might judge her for it, but felt that she needed to be honest with him about it to build a foundation of a trusting relationship. Obviously I don't know, but I'm just saying there's no way to tell on the basis of this letter what her motivations are.
It sounds like this woman is very important to him and he wants something more serious from the relationship. If he really is thinking along the lines of marriage, it's a bad start to a marriage to have boilerplate responses to anything. I think, if he wants to find a way through this challenge, what he should do is just talk to her. Ask her what her frame of mind was in college, what it was she learned, and what her values are now and see if they can come to some sort of understanding and acceptance. People change throughout their lives (college being one of those times of major transformation and growth) and we can't expect our partners to be the same people they were ten years ago…and we also should understand that our partners are likely to change over the next ten years as well. Marriage requires flexibility and constant communication so that as changes come, each partner is still clear about who each other is and how things are going between them, not only to fix problems but to prevent or minimize them as well.
Probably the biggest concern that is underlying his feelings is that she might be unfaithful if she has not demonstrated loyalty in past relationships. However, that would be a question of how she conducted herself in those past relationships. If there are patterns of infidelity, then they probably should address that. If they were all flings where both parties were clear and no trust was broken, then I think while she might not have proven patterns of loyalty, there's nothing to suggest she is disloyal. In that case, then building trust is just something they have to work on together and just will come over time. He might be concerned that she doesn't value sex as much as he does. Maybe she didn't in the past, but does now. Maybe she didn't when it was casual, but finds it imminently more so in a loving relationship. There's no right or wrong answer here; this is something that can only be resolved through communication, which you seem to advise in your follow-up comment, though your tone everywhere else tends to cast aspersions on her moral character and cast doubt on her ability to do.
There are more possible reasons for her sexual activity in the past than either loose morals/throwing caution to the wind or some kind of sexual liberation. It may be that there was something deep from her childhood or elsewhere that is yet unresolved – in which case, counseling is probably advisable. Or maybe that “something deep” has already been addressed through counseling and she is trying to build a healthy new relationship – in which case, they just need to talk it through. The only way Conflicted can really know what the situation is, is through open and honest communication with her.
Hi, Jade! Nice to see you. First, I totally agree about men who have had a large number of sexual partners, and I've written before about “man whores.” Increasingly, women are rejecting guys like this because they feel a certain shame in being the latest in a long string of conquests. Not to mention the STD-type worries. So, yes, I do think it cuts both ways.
It is also true that his letter does not really describe how the conversation took place. He implies she dropped it as a matter of small talk, but it may be that he sat down and asked her one day. It's impossible to know. I do state that I think it's strange that a couple would be dealing with this question a year in, once they're in love and contemplating a life together. If he had qualms, I wonder why he didn't address them sooner. It sounds like he just assumed she had had a certain kind of experience, which is a lot to assume nowadays.
I agree with your points about communication. And I personally don't have an issue with her sexual choices. However, it is important for women to understand that this is something men do care deeply about. It is very, very difficult for a man to envision his partner having sex with another man. Studies consistently bear this out, and it is believed that jealousy evolved as an emotion so that men could cope with the fear that a woman might cuckold them. Men acting jealous actually serves to make it less likely that women will be unfaithful.
In addition, it's pretty well understood that only about 20% of the young male population is having sex on a regular basis, while 80% of women are. Virtually all of those women are gunning for that top 20%, which drives down the value of relationships considerably. A woman who doesn't engage in casual sex will have few men investing the time and effort to court her. Meanwhile, that majority of men who are involuntarily celibate are building resentment. It is not surprising to me that they would feel threatened by women who spend their college years having random hookups, while they have been in the sexual desert. This exacerbates the problem considerably. It's just not a level playing field for the sexes, the way it was in the days when people dated others quite similar to themselves in terms of education, resources and even physical attractiveness. All of that has gone out the window.
I don't aim to cast aspersions on this woman's character. I'm more interested in exploring the long-term consequences of the strategy she employed.
I also resent Meredith Goldstein's tone here. She gives this guy a feminist “talking to,” rather than try to understand where he's coming from. Because he's coming from 10,000 years of sexual selection.
That all makes sense, especially given your target audience, and I think helps clarify your intent – because at first, as a regular reader I was a little surprised by what I perceived your tone to be. I was thinking in terms of advising him on how to proceed and thinking that neither telling him to get over it (as per Goldstein) nor suggesting this is a serious cause for the demise of their relationship (as he calls their entire relationship into question because of it) is a good way to learn about marriage and commitment.
But reading your response, it makes sense now that your ultimate point is not marriage advice per se but to highlight the ramifications of having a lot of partners. Double standard or not, it's an important point to consider.
Thanks for the clarification! Hope you have a lovely weekend.
The interesting part of Meredith's response is that she is effectively telling Conflicted that he should “settle” for a woman who had 35 hookups. I wonder if it had been a woman asking if she should “settle” for a guy who didn't have a job, would she have responded the same way?
And the question is, why should the guy settle? I mean, if it's something that really bothers him, better to resolve it now, rather than letting it stew for some future blowup. She's not entitled to a relationship, the same way a he isn't. And if it's something he cannot live with, it's his right to end it.
This is not at a all to say anything about the morality or the right of the woman in question to do what she wanted. However, actions do have consequences, and there will be a lot of guys who cannot deal with her past actions. Whatever the motivations of how she came to have 35 hookups, it's ultimately his decision to accept it or not. She is also within her rights to end it on her side, if she believes he won't be able to accept her past.
Now, if he really is into this person, he can go back and do the whole communication thing to figure out if it was just a phase, or if she has learned and matured and all that. But that's a lot of work, which requires the other party to be extraordinarily honest, not just with him but with herself as well, and if marriage is the goal, then that's a lot of factors working against this.
No, I think you made a very valid point. My tone was perhaps a bit harsh toward the woman. I think that was a bit of personal backlash against MG's tone admonishing him.
There's no question that the double standard still exists. This is problematic, because her having had a certain kind of college experience does not necessarily reflect her view on relationships and commitment now, as you pointed out. To be honest, I have had my own periods of promiscuity, and it did give my husband pause, though fortunately he was able to get past it.
Sometimes my advice is more along the lines of “do as I say, not as I did.”
Lovely weekend to you too!
We are in perfect agreement here. If I had to bet, I'd guess they won't make it. He just seems too freaked out. I can't imagine he was very pleased to pick up the Boston Globe and read this, by the way. It really reads like a scolding, which he certainly doesn't deserve. Perhaps the phrase “damaged goods” was unfortunate, but honestly, he does seem quite upset, and is just revealing his disillusionment. I would imagine he is thinking about their sex life and wondering just what she learned where. As you say, it seems like an uphill climb from here.
3. Is a woman who sleeps with a few people without knowing her own motives less capable of a real relationship than a woman who sleeps with 35 while knowing exactly what she wants from each encounter?
I totally agree with what you said with regard to this question. I've had more relationships when I was single than my husband did, ergo, I had more sexual experience than he had. But he was able to overlook it because he was able to see the context of my sexual experiences, that is–they all (bar one bout of experimentation wherein I quickly realized I was never going to be the sort of woman who could have sex without strings) happened within long term monogamous relationships. (He was my 7th, and final boyfriend, and I didn't sleep with all of the men I was with)
With 35 sexual partners (and let's face it, maybe more) it's obvious a lot of these were random hookups, so Conflicted is right to be wary. I'd actually think the woman who sleeps with far fewer men is MORE capable of a real relationship if these happened within exclusive monogamous set-ups, than one who's had a lot more. If all your life you've had nothing but random hookups, or it shows you preferred them for instant gratification (coming from validation that men found you attractive) rather than waiting for a long term set-up, what can you bring to the table vis-a-vis long term relationships?
I think you may be over analyzing the situation. If you meet someone who is truly sincere then their past is just that – the past (sans STD's). People change throughout their lives and if you meet someone who demonstrates character values you value then accept their past as the past. Some gals go from stripper's to Sunday school teachers over the course of their lives [personal experience with this, and I'm an atheist to boot]. Just as some guys go from drifter/biker types to career oriented dad's [personal experience with this one too].
I know that there are those who will argue that people 'never change', but the reality is some do and some don't. You've just got to be able to discern which is which . . . After all are you looking at someone for 'who they are' or 'who they were' (the latter being entirely subjective). If you find yourself more concerned with 'who they were' then maybe your real concern is with 'who you are.'
I don't think it's an issue of “people never change”, but rather that people stay in their routines unless some significant event changes their habits. Heck, it took a vision from heaven to get Saul to become St. Paul, so large scale character changes, like a stripper to Sunday school, can happen. But then again, I could win the lottery tomorrow night…yet that doesn't mean I can buy the Bentley tomorrow morning, before the lottery drawing.
It's an issue of odds. With some situations (like the stripper to sunday school), the odds are against you, and yes, I can hit blackjack. But it's better to go with the odds in your favor. That sounds cold and calculating, but guys are results oriented, and “who they were” is a pretty good indication of “who they are” and “who they will be”. Past is prologue, after all…
[...] The Sex Risk For Women That No One Likes To Talk About | Hooking … [...]
Conflicted's relationship was perfectly fine until his girlfriend told him about her sexual history. It is only the knowledge of the 35 partners that bothers him; there is nothing to indicate that there was any problem at all before she told him. Anything else we can say about this relationship is speculation. We don't know if he has different values or if he is just being a hypocrite. We don't know what her motivations were and whether or not she has really changed.
They both could have issues that would hurt the relationship, but the simple knowledge of those partners should not prevent two rational people from proceeding with a relationship. The idea that you would refuse to trust someone based on their sexual history is insulting, especially after establishing enough trust to want to move in together. Telling him everything about her sexual history should have been a path towards strengthening that trust and being completely open. I think it's pretty funny that people think that she would voluntarily bring up the subject and then lie by giving a smaller number.
I am offended by this article's implication that a promiscuous woman really does become “damaged goods” and that she is gambling with her hope for a stable relationship in the future. If she really has changed her ways and Conflicted can't get past that then he has is own problems to work out. Suggesting that he is somehow justified is just perpetuating that prejudice.
AT, this is perhaps the heaviest toll that hooking up will exact from the current generation. Doing the fertility math, it seems inevitable that many couples will marry with little relationship experience. Perhaps it won't make much of a difference – certainly couples who married at 21 a generation ago didn't have much of a track record. But when you leap pretty quickly from a decade of random hookups to a monogamous relationship and then marriage, one has to wonder about the relationship skills around communication that have never been fully developed. It will be interesting to see what happens to the marriage and divorce rates in the next 20 years.
3dshooter, I do think you're onto something there re Conflicted's concern being rooted in who he is. He pretty much says he wishes he wasn't so burdened by his own response. He is really having trouble processing this revelation, but is worried that if he ends their relationship, he'll regret it for the rest of his life. His reaction to this news IS a reflection of the sum total of all of his experiences, upbringing, past relationships, etc. He expresses a desire to stay with her and get over it, but he's struggling to do that.
Conflicted has felt extremely compatible with this woman from the start. Now he says that if he had really known the truth from the beginning, he would not have perceived that level of compatibility. This happens all the time. Single people meet others that they don't give a shot to, because they honestly don't perceive the relationship has potential to be special. It's unfortunate that he loves her, yet acknowledges he bought into something without full disclosure.
The real lesson here is that men and women should clear the air on any issue that might be a potential dealbreaker. His assumption that she had limited sexual experience was clearly a fantasy on his part. I'm sure he won't make that mistake again.
Hi bobb, thanks for weighing in here. First, I'll be the first to agree that we have limited information here. Nearly all city newspapers have columns for love and dating advice, and there's never really enough information provided to make a confident recommendation, IMO. This is no exception. We don't even know if she volunteered this information in a crisis of conscience, or if he finally got up the nerve to ask her and “had a bomb dropped” on him. There is no evidence that she is guilty of deceit in any way. She didn't sell someone a false bill of goods, and I don't think anyone has implied that. This is clearly a case of caveat emptor.
Re disclosing one's “number,” it is well known that people fudge this data on nearly every self-reported sex survey, even when the submission is anonymous. Some has gone so far as to say women halve the number, men double it. Of course, this reflects the old sexual double standard, which is still very much with us today, for the reasons I outline in the post. If she raised the issue, I agree, she probably was being honest. If however, he grilled her one night out of the blue, then “around 35″ might not be a number he can take to the bank.
I agree that Conflicted does have some stuff to work out if he wants to stay with her. That's why if I were her, I would volunteer to go to couples counseling and try to figure it out with a dispassionate expert. It sounds like she is fine with her past, and obviously is surprised by his reaction – I doubt she knew she was jeopardizing their relationship when she shared that information.
Look, I'll be 100% honest here, as I alluded to above. I was in my mid-20s in the 80s, the era of rampant one-night stands, a la Looking For Mr. Goodbar. My husband and I began as a one-night stand. I liked him a lot, and wanted to take it further. He demurred, in fact he gave me an explicit NO. Five months later we became a monogamous couple and it's been 25 years. Now, he never expressed what Conflicted is feeling here, and my number was nowhere near 35. However, we had some stuff to work out in the beginning, and part of it was his accurate perception that I was having some casual sex (this was in grad school, so everyone knew everyone else's business). He expressed his concern in terms of my having every appearance of wishing to avoid commitment — and that made me a risky relationship prospect. He had his own sexual past, and was not judgmental on that score. Still, it's foolishness to pretend that our sexual choices affect no one but ourselves. We have every right to them, but others have every right to their own responses to that information.
Oh, boy.
There's SOOO much going on here. First off, it's hitting the nail square on the head to say that Conflicted is not so much concerned with the number itself, but the values the number represents. Is a woman who voluntarily had sex with 35 people even able to commit to one for the rest of her life? That's one of the questions he's asking himself. It's a fair question to ask. She's only 26, and clearly, she hasn't had time between hookups to keep a steady boyfriend for very long. (Unless 20 of those guys were in one of those college gang bangs you always hear about…)
I suspect that I know why Girlfriend dropped the bomb. She was warning him of how the relationship will end. I think she really likes him, and that she doesn't want to hurt him. If he breaks it off with her now, she's the bad guy, and he can leave with his purity and lovable Beta innocence still intact. She thinks she's going to hurt him, and whether consciously or not, she's warning him away. She thinks she's doomed to repeat the mistakes of her past.
She's probably right, too.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything *inherently* wrong with having 35 sexual partners. When you get to be 40 years old, it's not that uncommon. That's a couple of long relationships and a few years of sowing wild oats. (If you start at 18, that's 22 years of having sex. If you have 4 hookups a year for eight years, that's 32 partners. That leaves 14 years for committed relationships.) But 35 in four years speaks to a reckless way of selecting partners.
Conflicted probably isn't going to do it, but what he really needs to ask is *WHY* she was so promiscuous in college. That's a much harder question to answer than it might seem at first. A cognitive therapist would spend time with Girlfriend trying to find a core belief that drives her to seek so many short term partners. The most likely candidates are:
* She believes herself unworthy of love and seeks constant reassurance that she's desirable
* She was raised in a very religious environment, and has a warped sense of her own sexual identity. (There are several possibilities within this one category)
Of course, it could be both of these things, and there could be more issues beyond these. But here's the thing. It's very rare to find a woman who has high self esteem and places so little value on her own vagina. Conflicted is probably dealing with a woman suffering from rather severe self-esteem issues.
Then again…
I'd be remiss if I didn't add that it's not impossible to have lots of sexual partners and high self esteem. But for women, it's not the norm. And as you say, there are good biological reasons for it. Regardless of societal values, women are instinctively programmed to know their own value. We don't teach women to be the selectors. They just are. And it's simple economics. Women who put a low price on their vagina are doing so because that's what they think it's worth — at least more often than not.
Then again, we can't say that women shouldn't have sex with whomever they choose, or that they should impose some sort of artificial celibacy on themselves just because they haven't found a “life partner.” I certainly applaud women who, after an unacceptable period of celibacy, decide to take their sexual frustration out on either a friend or someone at a bar that they like the look of. (I'd like to personally thank several of them.) I've known several women with *very* high self esteem who simply couldn't find a man of high enough value, but they weren't about to deny themselves sex when there were plenty of men who would do just fine for that purpose. But I don't think that's Girlfriend.
So, I guess what I'm saying in a nutshell is this: It's not the number. It's the meaning of the number, and Conflicted understands this subconsciously, even if he hasn't figured it out intellectually yet.
Wow, that's a VERY interesting theory about Girlfriend's motives. You may be right, but it's definitely a leap. If the scenario was one where she sat him down to share this info, then yes, she must have seen there was a good chance he would totally freak. Perhaps she is even feeling restless and sees the writing on the wall. It goes to show how a little information can produce a lot of different interpretations.
Susan, I'm really surprised that you are being this judgemental and moralistic. this girl sounds like a great person and conflcted sounds like a judgemental fool if he lets her go. What a cad!
Oh, we definitely don't have enough to go on to say for sure what her motivation is, but I'm going on the (seldom used) theory that people's actions make sense, and on the surface, waiting a year and THEN telling doesn't make much sense. That means there's more information we don't have which will make it make sense. I've seen plenty of women do just what I described — self sabotage a relationship they were afraid to either commit to or end themselves. It definitely wouldn't be a stretch.
In reply to Kate, I don't know about Susan's reasoning, but I agree with her assessment of Girlfriend, and if you read my post, you'll see it's not moralistic or judgmental at all. It's just a realistic assessment of the KIND of person who sleeps with 35 people in 4 years. Unless Girlfriend is able to look Conflicted in the eye and say, “This is why I behaved the way I did, and now I know X, Y, Z about myself, and have worked out A, B, and C issues, so I know I don't need that kind of promiscuity anymore,” he's right to be very cautious. In any case, it doesn't matter, because from the tone of his letter, he's going to break up with her in any case.
I've been with women who have had lots of partners (more than Girlfriend) and it was fine because I knew WHY they had done it, and their reasons were healthy enough. Again, it's not the number, it's the meaning behind the number.
Kate, you've been with me long enough to know that I am a very straight shooter. I'm trying to give people real information about what's going on in the sociosexual marketplace. If you read through the comments, and also a bunch of my past posts, you know that I have had times in my life when I wanted nothing BUT casual sex. And I wouldn't change that (though most of it sucked, to be honest). That's fine. A woman can choose to be with anyone she chooses. And also, she doesn't need to share her number with anyone if she doesn't wish to. It's her personal business. This woman chose to tell Conflicted, although we don't know the circumstances leading up to the conversation.
Here's the bottom line: Men care about this issue. They do. There is a great deal of research on this subject. Men didn't usher in the Sexual Revolution, women did. Men reaped many of the benefits, but when it comes time to marry, men don't want the girl who had rampant and random sex with strangers. They don't. They feel exactly the way Conflicted feels. And in this post, I've tried to explain why that is.
You may say, “I don't want a guy like Conflicted. He's a cad and I would never settle down with a man who didn't celebrate my choices.” That's fine. Those men are out there. But it's in your best interest to know that that pool of men is relatively small. I blog about strategy to help people get the relationships they want. It's good strategy to maximize the number of potential partners, without sacrificing your own nature. For some women, that means a lot of hookups. They may not want a relationship. But when and if they do, they need to be aware that many men will view them as “damaged goods.” That's just the way it is, unfortunately. And they're not bad men, necessarily. I think Conflicted is trying hard to find a way – he doesn't sound like a bad guy to me. As I said in the post, he's facing many millenia of evo biology.
Well, I asked inspector climate what he would do if I suddenly told him that I'd slept with 35 guys and he wasn't all that bothered. He said that maybe if he was super insecure he'd be worried that i'd have *that* much more experience than he does. But his response was pretty much this, “This guy's upset? His girlfriend enjoys sex, that's so much better than the alternative, he should just stop being pussy!”
While I agree that if this guy is so bothered by this that just having a rational discussion with his girlfriend can't still his fears and doubts about her than yeah, perhaps he should get out of the relationship. But if he thought he was going to MARRY her, she's no different than she was the day before. What if she had told him after they got married would he divorce her? when you love someone, you love their whole self….or maybe I'm just naive…
Well, to be fair, I have had a few college women tell me their number is around 30 (and they're not done yet). And I wouldn't say they necessarily have self-esteem issues, but they do take pride in being a bit outrageous and having a good time.
By the way, what is this fascination with the number? I never kept track of this — notches on a bedpost. Women focus on this a lot, and I'm not really sure why. I've never been asked for my number, and I don't really know what it is. For better or worse, I think some of them went pretty much unnoticed, haha. Today's generation is, however, keenly aware of this and keeps track.
I think the real issue here is the question of promiscuity. Is it wrong? What does it mean when a woman is promiscuous, and may even consider it part of her identity? If men are instinctively repelled by a promiscuous sexual history, should that influence the behavioral decisions of women, when we know that's the patriarchal sexual standard rearing its ugly head?
This is complicated stuff.
D! I am so flattered that you would bring Inspector Climate into the equation! Yay! He sounds VERY secure, and that's something we haven't really touched on in this thread. The degree of sexual security in the male is going to dictate his response, to some extent. And he makes an excellent point – she's probably pretty good in bed, haha! Maybe he should be thanking his lucky stars.
I think that Conflicted and his gf could potentially work this out, and if they really were contemplating marriage, it's well worth considering. That would involve exploring a lot of stuff on both sides, laying oneself open to examination and revelation. This is difficult work. I'm a big believer in therapy, though, and I wish I could contact him to tell him so!
P.S. Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, that's easy for Inspector Climate to say, seeing as how your number is very, very looooooowwwwwwww.
Everyone brings up such good points here and the point that we don't know enough. It would be nice if we could find out what happened.
I agree with Susan I think he had one foot out the door when he was writing this and was just looking for someone to say it was ok to leave. I also don't think this is about the number, but more about the idea that Girlfriend use to like to sleep with lots of people. He has to come to terms with what type of person she use to be? I think he is probably more afraid that their values don't match up. Granted we don't know the situation, but really this is a talk they should have had at the beginning of the relationship. She had to know that this was going to be a big deal for him and withheld the information. The question is by doing this did she help or hurt herself? This is reading into the situation, but I would guess at some point they talked about the past and past relationships. Thus, it may come down to him thinking “If she is withholding this what else hasn't she told me.”( Agreeing with Hamby here she probably knew what she was doing and is self sabotaging herself.)
I have friends that are 26 who have more then this as their number. They are all now in happy relationships. I'm pretty sure only one of them has shared her number, but at the same time all of them have been up front about their past. We are all here saying it isn't important what the number is and it isn't. It is more a question of trust. Maybe if girlfriend had been more up front about her past in month three when this was getting serious he would not have had that reaction or if she wasn't comfortable in month six. We are all focused on this idea that it is this number that he is shocked at and part of it maybe, but I would be willing to bet that it isn't just the number but the idea that she withheld something that she obviously thought was important enough to share for a year. Everything he thought he knew about this girl he was falling in love with sort of changed.
It is unfortunate that this happened. I feel bad for both people, but I think it comes to trust issues on both sides and has less to do about experience in bed. She didn't trust him enough to trust him with her past and now he feels that he doesn't know and can't trust this girl. It sounds like they have a good relationship going and hopefully they can work through these problems.
Without necessarily touching questions of morality or values, one can easily frame the awkwardness in this story as a kind of culture, or class conflict.
If we take Susan's supposition to be true, that the young man has a history as a typical beta, then he and the GF are clearly in different leagues, from different worlds. Sexually speaking, she's royalty while he's peasantry; she had, presumably, a wide choice available for the asking, while he had to scrabble for crumbs. As long as this describes most of their backgrounds, ie before they have a lot of experience together in a different setting, then theirs is in effect a “mixed marriage,” and that's enough to imagine that there will be all sorts of sources of stress that are yet to be revealed.
To those who wrote “why should this change anything? she's still the same person as before she told him,” or the equivalent sentiment, I think you're off the beam. Yes, she didn't change in that ten minutes. But he doesn't really know that much about her, and necessarily he's not in love with her as much as he is with his mental _picture_ of her, as well as he knows her. And now he's learned a WHOLE LOT more that can and will _change_ his picture of her within those same ten minutes.
Try to imagine a parallel situation: Suppose you and your SO are getting along great, seem to have a lot in common, and you'd always supposed without thinking that your backgrounds were similar. Now suppose he or she reveals to you that he/she is really from a very wealthy background, while you've always been working-class. Even if the person doesn't seem to be showing any incompatibility with you — at least, as yet — due to your different backgrounds, wouldn't it still give you a bit of a tremor to learn this? Yes, people from widely different classes can get along fine; but it is also true that you can expect people from different classes to have very different experiences, assumptions, expectations — and, yes, values — in areas that they have yet to discover.
Note that this is all a worry _without_ attaching anything negative or judgmental to the young woman's past behavior. But it's unlikely that no judgements will be passed. Now that he knows the truth, how long will it be before the peasantry resents the royalty? I think the use of a loaded term like “damaged goods” is typically a desperate inversion, an attempt by the under-sexed man to insult the more-(or over-)sexed women as a way of taking out his resentment.
Resentment is always a possibility in a royalty-peasantry encounter; but before you object to that, you should answer the questions: why shouldn't it be? In the 80/20 arrangement that Susan describes as the result of hookup culture, a large majority of men are going through living hell, the waking death of forced near-celibacy. Why shouldn't they be resentful? That's certainly not what they thought they'd be signing up for! when they moved away from home. Any man who spent his most vital years in the “bottom 80%” and who has an ounce of self-regard would have to be crazy _not_ to be resentful coming out of that experience.
Speaking slightly off the topic of the Boston Globe story specifically, but more generally, this is a cautionary tale for all young women in the 20-27 age range who want to settle down. Just by numbers, many of you are going to be dealing with the formerly “bottom 80%” as a large part of your pool of potential partners. And the fact is, that a lot of those men are likely to be — justifiably, IMHO — bitter and resentful, with varying degrees of how well they hide it, or how well they get over it once things get better. And you, ladies, have to have an idea of how you're going to deal with that. Coming out of the 80/20 world, a lot of you will be in a similar situation (if somewhat less extreme), where you will have had a lot more partners than most of the men you're now meeting, and they will probably resent that fact once they know it. Further, these men are likely to be, necessarily, inexperienced and also at least somehow damaged — after all, they've effectively been through a kind of torture for years (and I don't think that's too strong a word), and torture damages people, no matter who they were before. And you, ladies, if you were typical for your cohort then you were a part of the system that de-valued all these men, and so don't be surprised if you find a certain amount of resentment directed, however unfairly and irrationally, right at you. Yes, this sucks! But it's an unavoidable fallout of the 80/20 system, and you will have to live with it somehow. And when things get dark, ladies, at least remember this: the unfairness and inconvenience you suffer in being surrounded with resentful and damaged men, however bad it might seem to you, is not as bad as the experience they had that made them that way.
Conflicted does sound pretty naive to me. “I don’t know a single woman who did anything remotely like that in college.” Um…unless he went to one of those fundamentalist Christian colleges, a lot of coeds were. They just weren't with him. And they certainly weren't telling him about it.
I get what Susan's point is. The “slut factor” exists. Is it fair? Nope. Neither is it fair that a lot of my attractiveness on the dating market is dependent on youth, which is almost entirely out of my control. Fact is, there are precious few men out there who would be happy about their girlfriend having a high number. Most of them just tolerate it.
In the long-term mating market, part of your value is having been selective in who you chose to be sexual with. If you haven't been all that selective, you've essentially reduced *his* value in his eyes.
Meg, you do a great job here of seeing both sides, and boiling it down to the issue of trust, which is very important. In fact, you seem like a natural at counseling….food for thought?
Ouch. I was with you 100% Dilithium, until this last bit, no matter how true it may be.
First things first, though. I have to say, it's so interesting how differently men and women respond. If this comment thread is not a perfect example of that, I don't know what is! The women, including me, tend to focus more on the emotion–the hurt he is feeling, the uncertainty and upset she is going through. The men are far more analytical, almost academic in their responses. Honestly, the way you've broken this down like a case study would have earned you high praise in business school, it's brilliant!
The question of why this should change anything is one that reflects how people feel about the tragedy here — two people who love each other madly are probably going to part ways. It's a shame, and we feel for them both; we'd like to see him find a generosity of spirit where love conquers all.
I disagree that he doesn't know much about her. He thought he knew her through and through, and now he finds out there's a huge chunk of info he was missing, and it's a game changer. Your metaphor of royalty/peasantry is apt here, sexually speaking. It's the haves vs. the have-nots, from the guy's perspective. And he's not just feeling like a have-not vis a vis her, he's reminded that he was a have not in his college scene while she cavorted with the haves. This revelation is bound to call up the resentment you describe on more than one level.
OK, now to the warning to women. I have no doubt that you accurately reflect here how some men are feeling. And it benefits women to understand what young men are experiencing, because I can assure you that the average girl in college is woefully ignorant of the 80/20 situation. No, it's not rocket science, but it's a construct that most young women have had no reason to consider. The average college woman sees a dearth of men who pursue relationships, and she is focused on the extreme level of intrasexual competition she is facing from her female peers for those few men.
So, Dilithium, there are many college girls who can have sex whenever they want, but who can't find a man who will treat them with respect, or even kindness. The women are getting what the men want, but they don't value it. And the men who could provide them with what they want appear to be MIA, if they exist at all. Women are also becoming bitter and resentful, though in the female, the emotional component kicks in, and hope springs eternal. We just pick up another chick lit novel with a happy ending, and trust that our time will come.
Both sexes are experiencing fallout, and there is great pain and suffering on both sides. In the emails I receive from men and women, the emotional tone is different, but I'd have to say that both sexes seem equally miserable about not getting what they want during the 18-25 years, for the most part.
Aldonza, as someone who's back out on the dating scene, you've provided a useful reality check re “conditions on the ground.” Men don't expect, or even want women to be virgins. But they do hope that the woman they fall for has been selective. Honestly, as a woman I would feel that way about a man's prior sexual experience, and that's without a double standard. When there is a very disparate level of sexual experience (royalty/peasantry, as Dilithium described above), there are numerous reasons for both parties to feel uncomfortable.
I will disagree a bit on the question of a typical number for women in college. I think there are three groups of women. The first group are virgins, and they represent 39% of female college students, and 31% of college seniors. So a whole lot of women are in the sexual desert in college, though I doubt they're as miserable about it as the men are. The second group is women like Conflicted's girlfriend, who have a good time, go out a lot, and probably hook up with 25+ men by the time they are 22. I'd guess that group represents about 20% of the students. The remaining 50% are women who are sort of serial monogamists, if they can be. They hook up with a guy, hope it will turn into something more. That sexual arrangement can last anywhere from weeks to months, whether or not commitment ever occurs. This group is much more likely to graduate with a number around 8-12. Women who did wind up in a committed relationship for all or part of college will be considerably lower. My guess is that Conflicted could live with his gf being in either of the other groups than the highly promiscuous group.
Caring about your girlfriend's number is a holdover from an older system of courtship. Should it be discarded in today's sexual market? Perhaps, but don't whine when other holdovers like engagement rings go the way of the dodo.
Well, in an older system of courtship, a woman's number had better be zero. No blood on the sheets has been grounds for annulment through most of history. There are other anachronisms, like dowries, that have also fallen by the wayside in most places.
The point, though, is that this question of men feeling threatened, jealous, or even just repulsed by a woman's abundance of sexual partners is hard-wired to some degree. All the trappings of courtship could go away, and I believe men would still retain this “bias.”
By the way, it is worth pointing out that it's about the number of partners, not sexual experience, per se. If she'd had a committed relationship for five years, with frequent and intimate sex, he would be unlikely to object, even if he had not experienced that bounty himself. It is this idea that she was not selective, and he wonders what that says about her, and now him, as others have noted above.
Susan — I know that historically you don't like categorical statements about sexes, like “X is the side that suffers more” or “X is the side at fault.” But statements of this kind are sometimes true, whether we like it or not.
If I may abbreviate for speed, what you seem to be saying here is that while a lot of young men are denied the sex they want, a lot of young women are at the same time denied the love that they want, and so things are sort of equal, ie it's tough all over. Implicit in this, though, is the idea that young men don't also value love, and so don't suffer when they don't get it. And here I think you're mistaken.
In the 80/20 system as you observe it, the “lucky,” sexy, upper 20% of men are basically all promiscuous man-whores, who sleep around freely and aren't much interested in love, since that would involve restricting their attention to one person. This much may be true, I absolutely wouldn't dispute it. But I think you make a mistake if you think these upper 20% men are seriously representative of all young men, that all young men would act this way if they were given the chance. I don't have any official survey results to hand, but from all my personal experience I would bet a great deal that a large fraction of the “bottom 80%” –maybe approaching half, which would be 40% of all young men — actually would like to have love, to be monogamous and treat girls with respect and kindness. But these men are not considered sexy, and so they never get the chance to show their good intentions.
Remember, in the “sex-first” hookup culture that you have chronicled, a man who isn't sexy gets no shot at love, either. So I'm sorry if you find this too analytical, but it seems plain to me that a young woman who can't get the love she wants, while regrettable, is _strictly_ better off than the young man who can't get either sex or love that he might want. And these men do exist, in large numbers, even if they're invisible to most girls (and to you?).
You will realize, necessarily, that I am disagreeing with your statement that “the men who could provide them [women] with what they want [to treat them with respect, or even kindness] appear to be MIA.” In my experience this is just plain silly and wrong. When I was younger I knew dozens of young men, decent chaps, who absolutely wanted to treat women with respect and kindness. And they weren't MIA, I assure you. They were out there every day, just like other men, trying to make eye contact, trying to start conversations, trying to get phone numbers, trying to catch an updraft of favor. The problem was, that these were typically not men that women saw as sexy, and so they never even got noticed. They're basically an invisible underclass, so much so that you don't even seem to know that they exist! Why this should be true is a different subject. But before getting into that, it's important to establish a basic truth: there _are_ a lot of kind and decent young men in the world, with good long-term potential (“dads,” as you call them), who _aren't_ MIA, who _are_ out there trying — but who are also being ignored to the point of being effectively invisible.
My comment was for those who were defending Conflicted's girl and her high number. “If your man is confident enough, he shouldn't care if you did a gangbang on film in your wilder days. He should marvel at the sexual supremacy that is woman.” I'm paraphrasing of course, but you get the picture. If you embrace the sexually liberated female aspect of the new system, you better get used to its other trends.
This is so true – he doesn't have to worry about this from me…but then again, he's slept with more people than I have (whose surprised?) and it doesn't bother me or freak me out.
And when Mr. Slurpee and I broke up he told me that he had slept with “A LOT of people, like a lot” and that didn't bother me until he followed it up with “and I want to sleep with a lot more girls, too” and that's when things got uncomfortable.
I guess I just feel like finding someone who you connect with is hard, and if this guy has found it and she's in love and totally with him, he should be wondering why he is even contemplating walking away. If her values have changed and he was wooed by them for a year…and now he's not, well, I think it's weird but it's his prerogative to change his mind.
I don't really understand the big deal about the number either. You've written about it before – but it doesn't really seem like anyone is happy with anyone else's number. If you're a virgin guys are three quarters horrified, they want to put in just a wee bit of effort to see if they'll be the one to do the deed (but not too much because you're obviously a prude and boring and don't know how to have fun). If you sleep around then you're a slut and well, that's clearly unacceptable. I think in general sex is made too big of a deal in relationships – was it here, Susan, that I read something along the lines of “If sex is the biggest conflict in your relationship, then something probably isn't right?”
First, I was not saying you are too analytical — that was not a facetious comment, more an observation of just one of the differences between men and women. I find your observations right on nearly all the time, perhaps because you are an articulate, analytical and still young man. You seem to know a lot about this issue, which is why I'm always saying I find your insight useful!
I totally get the point you are making, and I'm surprised that you think otherwise. OK, let me take this one piece at a time. First, wrt the 80/20 situation, I agree that there are probably a significant number of men in that 80% who are open or even desirous of a love relationship. That is, of course, why I'm always singing their praises as long-term partner material. I also agree that it is fair to assume the 20% wants sexual variety and nothing else, for the most part. Some of these guys will tolerate or even seeking relationships on occasion and for convenience, but it's not the norm. So we've got:
I. 20% of men getting sex with no relationships = Extremely satisfied. Mostly natural Alphas/cads.
II. 40% of men getting little sex w/ no relationships = Very dissatisfied. Mostly men who aspire to a cad lifestyle, and could theoretically achieve it with effective deployment of Game.
III. 40% of men wanting both, getting neither = Extremely dissatisfied. These men make excellent prospects for relationships, and will remain unfulfilled in the long-term by tactics that get them sex without emotional engagement.
Now the women, who are in the inverse 80/20 grouping:
I. 20% of women who are not having sex. Some number of these (maybe 20%?) are voluntarily so, the others lack the physical attractiveness that serves to attract male sexual attention = Very dissatisfied. Most of these women are more focused on acquiring love than sex.
II. 20% of women (and I believe this estimate is conservatively high) are happily having sex with cads = Very satisfied. These women receive considerable ego gratification and sexual validation when they are “chosen” for a hookup, even when it is just for one night. Some of them avoid relationships, others would prefer relationships, but all settle for a steady diet of casual sex.
III. 60% of women are actively looking for a relationship, and will have sex when they believe the hookup has the potential to develop into something more = Very dissatisfied. This group tends to be overly optimistic about the character of the men they are interacting with, and many suffer the pump and dump, or hit it and quit it fate.
You may not agree with my percentages here, but I don't think they're too far off. This means we have some good potential matches here, currently being unrealized.
The men in Group I and the women in Group II are compatible. Of course, the men in Group I wish to pursue as many women as possible, and will continually try to score with the women in Group III.
The men in Group II don't want relationships either, and would probably be happy to have sex with Groups II and III. Since Group II women are more likely to have low self-esteem, they are natural targets for this group of men, if the men can present as high-status. This is difficult to do, and many of these men will remain sexually frustrated in college.
The men in Group III are probably highly compatible with the women in Group III. The current college culture does not promote easy interaction between these groups, so this potential match goes largely unrealized.
This last group is the group that I write about the most on Hooking Up Smart, because it is the group that I feel has the most potential to meet up, in theory, and to dramatically increase their degree of satisfaction.
I'm sorry that I offended you by referring to these III Men as MIA. What I meant is that they are often flying under the radar on campus when it comes to coed interaction. I was referring to the same thing you said – they never even got noticed. My intent was not to blame the men. However, I don't believe that this group of men is making eye contact, approaching girls to start conversations and asking for phone numbers in the way that you suggest. Eye contact is a direct and confident indicator of attraction, and it is sexy. If men were doing it, they'd be perceived differently.
I've said before, and I maintain, that there is not a difference in the level of physical attractiveness between the 20 and the 80. Yes, the very pretty boys may be in the 20, as will the meathead types, from the sheer force of their testosterone-driven dominance. However, the 80% contains many, many attractive men, smart men, and men of good character. I know it's daunting to think of them having to step up their Game to meet women halfway. You've pointed out that they've been burned by prior experience with rejection.
Well, the women in Group III have also experienced a lot of rejection. I also ask them to take more initiative to signal physical attraction to these men. That is difficult for women to do – we're not really programmed for it, but perhaps we can learn to do it if the perceived payoff is there.
So you see, we have unrealized potential for relationships here. I don't know the answer, it's part of what I try to explore. I have coached women to trying pulling guys in a bit more, and I have heard mixed results, as you know. There's a whole Catch 22 element to the dilemma, and someone will have to break out of the mold. That's really why I came to embrace Game – it offers one such opportunity.
I do believe the III's of both sexes are trying, and willing to keep trying. It's a difficult task, and I believe it will take a long time to crack the code in society. However, I like to work on the margins, on small individual changes. A couple here and there, meeting each other's friends, opening things up a bit. I believe, and I hope, that it can make a small difference.
Yeah. Promiscuity is a complicated issue. I can't think of anything inherently wrong with a woman having lots of sexual partners. Of course, there are risks — pregnancy, STDs, etc — but there are risks to smoking, driving a car, and skydiving, and we accept that people can do these activities as long as they are willing to accept the consequences if bad things happen to them. Why would it be different for sex?
I take a fair amount of shit for this, but I think there will always be a bit of a double standard for men and women for biological reasons. Women will by nature tend to be choosier than men, and the number of women who “sport fuck” will always be lower than men.
I'm something of a maverick, but frankly, when I hear that a woman has been with a lot of men, I want to know two things: 1) Is she going to give me herpes? 2) If not, when does she want to go out with me? I *like* women who know what they're doing and enjoy sex. And I'm not really the marrying type, but I am the LTR type, and I'd absolutely settle down with a very experienced woman. (And no, it's not that I think she'll be easier to get in bed. That may be true, but I'm here to tell you, experienced women are generally better in bed than inexperienced women. Duh.)
The thing you've been talking about with regard to Girlfriend is that her behavior is NOT indicative of a girl who is A) comfortable with her number (she waited a YEAR to tell a guy she is presumably falling in love with) or B) believes that her promiscuity is healthy. Like I said, I've been with very experienced women who had good self esteem, and though they didn't tell me their “number,” they made it clear that they had been with a lot, and basically told me if I had a problem with it, it was my loss.
Incidentally, I also don't know my number. I stopped counting when it occurred to me that counting is giving legitimacy to the importance of “the number.” I've had a few girls ask my number, and I'll admit, there are some raised eyebrows when I say I don't know, but when I explain the reasoning, they're usually very cool with it.
Maybe I'll do some digging and write a blog post on the Madonna/Whore dichotomy with men. I'll let you know if I do.
Conflicted needs to ditch the slut right now. He has no future with the slut. Sure he might get to the point of marrying the slut, but the slut has destroyed her ability to see things from Conflicted's perspective (assuming that Conflicted has been one of the 80% of men totally ignored by women). If Conflicted marries this slut all that will happen is that she will see Conflicted as less of a man because of the fact that he was in the 80% and eventually divorce him. Better for Conflicted that he ditches the slut now before losing half his assets to her.
Very True. I would add that anyone defending the slut's high number is a total hypocrite. Why? Because any man who is a virgin at an “advanced” age is assumed to be either gay or a pedophile. Unlike the sluts, advanced age virgins such as myself have no defenders.
The real difference is that the sluts chose to be sluts. If they did not want to be sluts they could have changed their behavior at any time. The advanced age virgins like myself are this way because no one wants to have sex with us. IOW we are getting blamed for something out of our control, whereas the sluts are being defended for their choices.
Steveo, I haven't seen you in a while, and you are most welcome. But. You may not call any woman a slut on my blog. I'll let this comment stand, but consider yourself warned.
That doesn't ring a bell, but I'll agree that if sex is a problem in a relationship, it can be hard to fix.
You may recall a post called Why Are You Worried About Your Number? In it, I cited a survey that asked men how many previous sexual partners for your SO is too many? 74% said over 20 is unacceptable. The next jump was to 50, and 97% found that a dealbreaker. It's just the way people feel, it's a real issue. Despite all the casual sex and hooking up that goes on, I think people want sex to be an incredibly intimate act where you lay yourself bare in every respect. And it's hard to imagine, or visualize, someone we've done that with doing it with someone else. I think it produces a feeling of jealousy in many people, even though it's all in the past. The idea of sharing one's beloved is very, very difficult.
What Mr. Slurpee said is just gross, IMO. What kind of a goal is that? I wouldn't blame a woman who fell for him for being 100% turned off if she one day found out that's how he'd been living his life for years. Men may be more prone to these feelings of jealousy or being threatened, but women have them too.
I think Conflicted is just that. But I think it boils down to this. Is he bothered that her number is higher than his? Hello, ego! Is he really seeing her as damaged goods? In that case Meredith had a good point. What number is TOO high? I would like to know if he has disclosed his number to his girlfriend, and what she had to say.
Hamby might be on to something in the self sabotage department, however she could very well be thinking that her man would be understanding, and accept her past. Doesn't look like that is going to happen in this case though.
On the flip side, let me tell you that having a number that is low is also frowned upon. I'm 33 and I have had a grand total of 4, count em 4, sex partners. Now, in my estimation someone like Hamby (just based off what you said above, nothing personal) might think that I was highly inexperienced. However, 7 of those years I was married, another I was in a LTR with, and the third someone I dated for a length of time Number for is a FWB. So yes, my number is low, but I have never had ANY complaints in bed, and am quite skilled.
A number is a number. Motives and morals aside. People will either be comfortable with that number or they won't. No matter if it is low or high!
I do think you're right that not as many people are hooking up in the numbers that we might think from reading lay reports and blogs online. But I question that Conflicted didn't know *anyone* who did that. Perhaps he wasn't looking?
But another issue is that we are very colored by what we see everyday. In particular, PUAs lose their objectivity by carefully selecting for promiscuous women and then judging all women as sluts. You'll see this a lot with the very successful ones who start thinking about something more long-term.
I also found some interesting data on the topic: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf
Rebekah, first thing I've gotta say is Congrats! b/c last time you shared this info your number was 3, haha! I'm really glad you've got something going!
You also do make an excellent point about the number vs. the skill. I do think it's more about his wondering what her lack of selectiveness says about her back then, and what's changed to make her feel differently now. As Hamby said, they've both got to be willing to be 100% open and honest here, but even so, there is the remaining fact that a woman's number is often of some interest to a man if he is considering marriage or even a serious relationship.
As I said above, I was never asked this question. And I would have probably lied if I were her to be honest, because I think I would have had a sense that the truth wouldn't have gone over too well. There are some things it's just better not to share, and it's no one's business but hers unless she chooses to tell him. Of course, she good have said she didn't know, or didn't want to say, but that probably wouldn't have worked out either.
Other than the obvious points I made about the risks of promiscuity in relationships, the takeaway lesson here is clear the air on this stuff WAY earlier than a year in.
My guess is that Conflicted and his girlfriend would have never even crossed paths in college. She was probably in a sorority, with ready access to that many men all the time. (That's nothing against them, I was Pres. of my own in college.) He was probably just a normal guy in campus, hoping to get lucky here and there, but without access to the parade of girls that jocks or frat guys are used to.
Yes, the PUAs do tend to focus on “hired guns,” as they call them, or Girls Gone Wild, as I do. That's why I think Game is best when it's used to initiate an attraction that can grow into something real. For that, daytime and venues other than bars are best.
Rebekah, without knowing more than just the number, 4, I wouldn't be able to say if you were good in bed or not, and I wouldn't try. There's a difference between experience and being good in bed. However, if a girl's had a “healthy” number of partners, and a mix of LTR and casual relationships, there's a reasonable chance that she knows a trick or two. Frankly, the only women I really worry about are the ones who say things like, “I've been voluntarily celibate for five years.” That's either a really low sex drive (dealbreaker!) or some kind of serious issue like having been raped or abused (i feel genuine compassion, but sorry… dealbreaker.)
I guess what it really comes down to is more that I want to know that the woman I'm considering dating has had a lot of sex. You know why? 'Cause I want to have a lot of sex. Duh. Women who have made sex a priority in their life are likelier to have put in some work on being good at it. That could be with four partners or forty.
Wow, that's good stuff, though it's 8 years old. Here's what jumped out at me:
1. the median number of sexual partners for women aged 25-29 is 4.
2. Depending on race, 18-34% of women have more than 15 partners in a lifetime.
It's pretty clear that Girlfriend is more than two standard deviations from the mean here.
So we're all supposed to pretend that a woman making the rounds of the top 20% of men over and over again is sexually empowered and good for society? Really?
The men in Group III are probably highly compatible with the women in Group III.
Initially yes, but over time no. The men in Group III aren't having sex with anyone or hardly anyone while the women in Group III are having sex with lots of men. The women in Group III are intentionally separating themselves from the men in Group III and making it harder for them to relate to the men in Group III.
I know this all too well. I have noticed that as I have gotten older women have made it harder for them to relate to me. At this point, it's clear that only a female virgin would be willing to have a relationship with me. Finding a female virgin over the age of 20 is like looking for a unicorn so my only options are virgin women between 18 and 20 which I find problematic since I have moved on from being 18 to 20, and a girl that age wouldn't want to get together with an “old guy” like me.
Well, the women in Group III have also experienced a lot of rejection.
No they haven't compared to the bottom 80% of men. No woman alive has experienced as much rejection as a man who is still a virgin after college much less a male virgin at 30.
No, I have stated that I reject the idea that sex is empowering, unless it's with someone you love. You're talking about what I call the Girls Gone Wild, and no, they're certainly not good for society.
I just hate the word slut. Promiscuous, fine, go ahead and describe the behavior. I just don't want people getting too personal and vindictive, it's not conducive to conversation.
It is true that the women in Group III are having more sex, on average, than the men in Group III. However, they are pretty miserable doing so, since little of the sex has any real meaning for them, which is what most women want.
steveo, I don't think that women have made it harder to relate to you. I get it that you are pretty unhappy about being a virgin, I understand. However, there's no way that women are going to solve that problem for you. You have to get out there. I think I steered you to Omega Man's blog before – he has actually found Craigslist to be a source that works for him. I can't tell you exactly what to do, but I do know that you need to take action to make your life better. It's the only way.
On the flip side, let me tell you that having a number that is low is also frowned upon.
Not by most guys. Of course, most guys are in the bottom 80%.
As a 30 year old involuntary virgin, I have to say you are part of the problem.
With this being the attitude of most people, I am going to lead a life of forced celibacy and virginity.
What's the problem if we're talking about someone who isn't posting on this blog? Since we aren't talking about calling someone posting on this blog the “s word” (which should be verboten), then this just sounds like another form of female privilege.
It's your blog, and I will obey, but there really isn't a difference between the “s word” and promiscuous.
However, they are pretty miserable doing so, since little of the sex has any real meaning for them, which is what most women want.
If women are so miserable having sex with lots of guys, why don't they stop? It's not like a job where if you don't work you don't have an income. There's an easy way to stop the misery. Since women don't stop, they must want to have sex with lots of guys in the top 20% and not have sex with guys in the bottom 80%. If this is not true, then why don't they change their behavior?
However, there's no way that women are going to solve that problem for you
A woman is going to solve this problem for me by having sex with me/being my girlfriend. I can't have sex or being in a relationship by myself.
I do know that you need to take action to make your life better. It's the only way.
What do you think I have been doing since I was a teenager? I have been trying over and over again for what will be two decades in a few years with nothing to show for it. I have been to craigslist and match.com and eharmony (maybe not eharmony technically since I was rejected by them), etc. All I know is the problem is getting worse as I get older and the ability of women to have any idea what is going on with my life is hitting a big fat zero.
the median number of sexual partners for women aged 25-29 is 4.
Then it's really 12 since you're supposed to multiply a woman's number by 3. Especially in this case since women lie by giving lower numbers on these types of surveys (and men lie by giving higher numbers, I would).
I also have a problem with the concept of OmegaMan's blog. I'm not some “omega” despite what most people think. I'm a human being with dignity and rights, dammit.
You can be offended all you want, but she really has become “second rate” goods. In her instance, probably fourth rate.
Here's why.
Sex is more an than an act, it's a language. A physical act with meaning. Just ask any guy or girl who can't get laid, their perception of themselves is that they are unlovable and undesirable. In fact getting laid is proof that someone, somewhere finds you desirable in the most intimate way possible.
In a promiscuous world, virginity sucks because it is a mark of undesirability. It is the mark of ugliness when not freely chosen.
On the other hand, sexual attractiveness validates our self-worth because because it is an outward proof that someone finds us desirable. It reaffirms, so to speak our inherent goodness. Hell is unrequited love, joy in being loved by our hearts desire.
Now it may suprise you but not all men want to shag as many women as possible. The quick shag never appealed to me that much because it was only possession of a woman's body. I wanted to possess her soul.
Now from the male perspective I can get commitment from my mother(and probably better cooking), friendship from my sister but only sex from my lover. Therefore what makes a relationship with my partner different from other women is that it is a sexual relationship and it's the nature of this sexual relationship that determines the quality of it. So all this crap about commitment, friendship etc are qualities I can find in other women besides my lover.
Now a woman who has had sex with 35 men is a woman who has been a lover to 35 men, I'm just another one on the carousel. There is nothing “special” about our relationship. More importantly when she has sex with me, the implication as far as sexual attraction is concerned, I'm just as good as the 35 other men that have preceded me. Big Deal. More importantly it implies to me that this woman is not sexually discriminating, she gives away her sexual favours easily and that any particular quality found in me has been found in 35 other men. Basically when this woman has sex with me, it's no big deal. There is nothing special in her choosing to let me into her pants. What's there to get exited about in having a relationship with this woman? Nothing, lots of men have had sex with her there is no distinction in the act. I imagine there are plenty of men happy with sloppy seconds. I'm not and neither is conflicted.
What offends is not the number, but the lack of discrimination, especially to a guy who is discriminating. Quite simply a skank's “love” is cheap. Most guys can accept a girl who is discriminating but has been duped or had errors of judgement. 35 is cultivated stupidity, inherently promiscuous or psychologically damaged. A man with other choices will not commit to this type of woman.
On the other hand the hot chick who holds out for Mr Right and has sex with him, sends a message to him that there must be something special about him that no other man in the world has(even if she is sexually dysfunctional). Her relationship with him is unique and by its exclusivity is special. The man who gets into her pants knows that she loves him more than anyone else simply by the fact that she has not given herself to anyone else when she had the opportunity to. The male player or virgin knows that if nothing else, this woman thinks he's special. When he bangs the skank, he just one of the crowd. Nothing special.
Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. That's why sex is a language; Eros is not just about dropping your load, but about consummation with your heart's desire.
I disagree. The word slut is a pejorative term and very judgmental. The word promiscuous:
Etymology: Latin promiscuus, from pro- forth + miscēre to mix — more at pro-, mix
Date: 1601
1 : composed of all sorts of persons or things
2 : not restricted to one class, sort, or person : indiscriminate
3 : not restricted to one sexual partner
I prefer to keep terms neutral, as I do not judge this behavior morally, just strategically.
But exactly what is a “healthy” number of partners??
Again that is subjective to everyone. A healthy number to you might be 10 to 20. A healthy number to someone else might be 4 or 5.
But I also agree with what you have said, and apply the same principle to men. Just because a guy has slept with 20 or 30 women does not mean he knows how to do much more than grunt and thrust between the sheets. Sex is a learned skill, and it takes practice. I would take a man with a low number and SKILL anyday, or a guy with a high number and the mating skills of a rabbit!!
slumlord, thanks for leaving a comment. That is a VERY interesting piece of male psychology you just shared. And it makes sense. Conflicted feels like less of a man because of her past experience, even though she didn't know him yet. It devalues her attraction for him to zero.
By the way, that may not be the case at all. She may have changed her ways, and resolved to be more selective, then met Conflicted and fell hard for him. We can't assume that her feelings for him are not special, it's just that he will believe they aren't based on her past experiences.
Look. Women don't get to make the rules about what men are attracted to. Yes, you get to complain. You get to bitch. You get to moan. You even get to call us adherents to a sexist double standard, and rank misogynists, tools of the horrid patriarchy. But what you don't get to do is decide what we like. I, personally, would never commit to a woman who's had anywhere near as many sexual partners as I've had. Period. A woman who has had many cocks is less likely to be satisfied by any one of them. And I believe that a woman who has slept with 35 men has low impulse control and a whole host of other issues. No there is no official number decided upon at the Man Convention—the number is different for each guy. But that's the risk you take, ladies. Individual men make the rules for male attraction. End of story. For men, there is still a premium placed on some degree of chastity. There are a lot more men like this then you would like to believe—we're hard-wired to be this way. No it's not pretty.
But men don't get to make the rules about what women find acceptable or attractive either. Which is why so many guys are sexless for so long. But you don't find many guys complaining. Most guys either suck it up and drop out of the dating game, stay home and play video games—or learn Game. But there is no end of complaining about the “double-standard” from women. Women need to confront this truth about men, know it's not going to change, and just get with it or suck it up. Men do it all the time.
Women like what they like—and men just got used to it, or gave up. Well, us men like what we like. And if you sleep with 35 guys you have got to know that your long-term relationship potential is zero and that no amount bitching and complaining will change that—the same way no amount of bitching from betas is going to get women to sleep with them.
Sorry for the rant but I feel like this really, really needed to be said.
So is Omega Man. He has dignity, rights, and he spends a fair amount of time blogging to help men get better access to women. If I were a 30 year-old male virgin I would definitely check it out. You have nothing to lose.
Nah, I liked it Dragnet. It makes me feel like I got this one right. It may not be pretty, but having a good strategy is all about understanding market conditions. If you don't know your target market, you're not going to make a sale.
Women are free to make their own choices, which is a lot more than can be said of women in many other countries. They just need to understand all of the potential outcomes of their decisions, and the relative odds of each.
Conflicted has made it pretty clear where he stands, and I don't think there's a guy on this thread that feels very different.
Sorry Susan, you've totally missed the point.
Conflicted is manly enough; her previous experience is not threatening to him. This isn't an adequacy or self-esteem issue. He's wierded out because he is caught between two conflicting emotions; love and desire for his partner and the repulsion of her character as expressed through her actions.
His mind is in conflict between the girl that he thought she was and the girl that she has revealed herself to be. Her feelings really don't matter, because the issue here is one of male perception.
Let me illustrate this by way of a silly example. Many people prefer to buy a new car over a used one, even if the used is better “value”. The “used” car just doesn't give the same “feeling” as a new one. People place a premium on exclusivity of ownership. The problem with being 36th in line, is that that sense of exclusivity is gone. There is no “premium” with this girl. I don't know why this is so hard to fathom; I don't know any woman who is happy to let her husband sleep around with other women when she is in love with him. She want's 100% exclusivity. If he said to her, “Aw honey, it's only sex with them but I really love you, our relationship is special” she'd call his bullshit. It wouldn't matter what he said, what matters is what he did.
Now the “premium” attached to virginity should not be thought of the price paid to access unused goods, rather the premium is based on what access to the goods implies: Exclusivity, and exclusivity is the foundation of both erotic and romantic love.
Erotic love by its nature is exclusive. The happiness in love comes not from just loving the other, but in being loved back with the same intensity. The more people love each other, the more exclusive they want that love to be.
When Conflicted looks into his lovers eyes and thinks about the busload of men that have had their way with his beloved…….well….it just isn't the same is it. Promiscuity is not about about numbers it's about the nature of love. The love of a skank is cheap, it's no big deal.
For love to work it has to be reciprocal. If I promise exclusivity to you I want exclusivity back, but the problem is that Conflicted's girlfriend has shown by her previous actions that exclusivity does not matter that much to her. Claims that you have changed give no comfort as someone who has changed can change again. Stability of character is the preferred choice in mates.
Finally we express our love not just through words but through action. And it doesn't get any more intimate than sex. Sex is the language of love, it's how we express our desire of the other. When Conflicted's girlfriend is banging away at Conflicted, she telling him that she loves him. It's the same message she has given to 35 other guys before. She must be sincere, because this time it's different. Sure.
I can imagine that some of the beta resentment to the promiscuity might be: “I didn't get any when she was hooking up with everyone else”. It's a bitterness that a lot of guys in their early 20's probably experience, and many never forget.
But, at some level, a guy looking for a LTR wants a woman who hasn't been around the block 35 times. Now, the exact reason for this varies. I imagine some guys see a large number as an indication of lacking long term fidelity, or perhaps an indication of a thrill-seeking personality, or that she doesn't value herself. Maybe the guy believes that sex is important enough not to handed out on every corner, even though this day and age tries to make promiscuity into a moral imperative. Or it could just be generic jealousy (we don't like to share with other men). Some of these reasons are double standards…but that's the way it is. We men aren't obligated to “settle” for women we don't feel are worth it.
Now, in Conflicted's case, she indeed may have changed her ways. But we don't really know. And in addition, are there any other qualities that she possessed that would make her past irrelevant? Only Conflicted can answer that for himself. In this age of 50% divorce rates, it's really incumbent on a man to be damn well sure his wife to be is worth the “Faustian” bargain, and if he has doubts now, when the bloom of romance is still in the air, then it'll be worse later.
Furthermore, just because the person isn't posting here doesn't mean she won't see it. And even if she won't, or if she won't identify herself as the person in question — insulting a person behind his or her back is as bad as, if not worse than, doing it to his or her face.
If you think being promiscuous is immoral then it's not a neutral term.
We should be judgmental for a change. Being judgmental about behavior that causes widespread destruction is better than attacking people in situations that they have no control over.
Honestly, you're a hypocrite. There's an army of people ready to defend promiscuous women for their behavior that is destructive to the bottom 80% of men and to wider civilization. “Old” male virgins like myself who have no choice in the matter are constantly and viciously attacked. If we're lucky we get called gay. More likely we're accused of being pedophiles. Entire movies have been made to attack us. Everyone who paid to see that movie hates men like me. Does anyone defend us? No. And we didn't choose this life.
No one can see to answer this question. Why is it better to attack men in a situation they have no control over vs. women in a situation they are in complete control over? The answer is because its all about female privilege.
I am reading his blog. Maybe I will get something out of it or maybe not. Craigslist may work for omegaman but that's because he's well endowed and can answer ads from women looking for large dicks. I am not well endowed so that won't work for me.
I don't understand why he calls himself an “omega”. I refuse to bow down before a caste system that says everyone else is better than me. It's similar to being an untouchable in the Hindu caste system. I refuse to accept this alpha-beta-omega BS. I am not an “omega”. I am not an “untouchable”. I am a human being.
I think the entire concept needs reworking & new thinking. I also tend to think that the 35 number was probably made up for some reason, whether 'self sabotage' or not. If not? It's actually likely to be higher.
Me? I'd be a bit intrigued. “OK then, can you name any of them? Any initials perhaps if you're tying to protect them for some reason?” Suppose you get a reply back on the specifics if asked, 'Yes there was H. first in HS, then M, that Frosh year and he had some real close buds…' You'll likely know a bit more about what this all meant to her. 1.) She probably likes sex & is pretty serious about her own pleasure. [Full stop]. Now for some guys? That's still a yes, still an attractive quality to have in a younger mate. Is it dangerous or hazardous on several fronts? Sure, fine. Can You handle it? That's another question. 2.) She's likely pretty & attractive enough to acquire such attention (although this may not be wholly necessary). 3.) If she's NOT unduly psychologically 'damaged' in any discernible manner & was not 'merely' acting out to acquire such a yes, relatively high number of 'hookups', she's likely telling you this for a reason. Perhaps a 'sh*t test' to see if you'd run. Perhaps as a lead in for yet a larger more painful disclosure of some sort. (She's actually a single mom & her mom's been caring for her kid until now.) Or perhaps she's just too naive yet to know she should be actually lying about her prior experience. If it's the latter, and she's actually really trying to be honest w/ 'confused'? That's probably a 'good sign' that's she at least is serious about the relationship and considers him a 'good prospect' for a LTR or indeed a '(more) permanent mate'.
But guys? This fixation with 'the number' or 'prior experience' is pretty ancient, but also just as ultimately futile. Thomas Hardy made a late literary career of such tweaking the far more conservative sensibilities of the Victorians more than 100 years ago with such revelations.
So Yes, if you're IN a relationship, you'd likely want & need to know that your partner/spouse is indeed faithful. That she (and it's almost always more required of the females) is required to be 'chaste' before having honored you with her 'gifts' has ever been the dream & forlorn hopes & vain 'requirement' of more serious engagements in & for many 'formalized' pairings for sometime. But in actuality? This has almost never been the case in reality, almost anywhere, at any time. Not for non human primates, and not even for most of our ancestors. Any glancing familiarity with history or real field biology will tell you that. Ditto for 'The Royal Bastards'. Ditto for the actual rates of abortion/'still birth' & unwed pregnancies throughout history. It's been remarkably high and quite broadly similar to today for centuries actually. Even during the 'priest ridden' Middle ages. A goodly portion of the population never really 'lived' up to these lovely 'lilly white' ideals on female chastity, perhaps easily half at any given time, depending on circumstances. Depending on the definition of chaste.
[See 'Marriage a History': http://stephaniecoontz.com/books/marriage/ ]
So in other words perhaps hope for the best & prepare for the worst. Your lovely intended might have more experience than you do. At many things. Quite a bit more maybe. Mostly this 'traditionally' was the sole prerogative of the male, despite the inherent dangers of venereal diseases & death in prior ages. Still, if she's willing to tell you why, and regard such episodes as yes, deeply unfortunate 'youthful indiscretions' that should perhaps tell you something. That she's aware of this primary concern, and that she's willing to 'confess' it to you. And that she's concerned and cares about your reaction too. Now what you do with that knowledge is up to you. If she's not been infected by anything, is nor too embittered or 'damaged' by the experience, (it can happen) then what of it? What else does she 'bring to the table' besides more sexual experience? Is she likely to be perhaps the 'hottest babe' that some otherwise 'lowly beta/omega' might score? Can she learn & grow with you? Is she likely to have cast off the person she was and to have matured into someone who now knows what she wants & that 'a warm steady supply of strange dick' is not now or any longer one of these? Can you satisfy her needs in this regard?
Lots of questions suggest themselves. Plenty to give anyone pause perhaps, but then again also some tantalizing opportunity too. Let's face it, Catherine O’Hara is still hot & funny all these years later. Her oft played foil Eugene Levy, is well a reliable, hardworking deebish character actor. But he's also more talented than you are too. So he may get the gals, but unless you're very talented, or very rich? The cute young sexy gals that come along wanting to play house with you will be few and far between. And at 29? That might represent a universe of perhaps only one too. So never look a gift horse in the face too closely. Even if it once contained plenty of Trojans. That's reality sometimes. It's not the discernible quality you get to argue at great length over. It's simple 'presence or absence', and the likelihood that some 30 YO might be able to 'score' a sexy 26 yo in the near future. Or indeed ever again. Cheers, 'VJ'
I'd like to also add, parenthetically that I blame 'The Golden Girls' for much of this too:
http://christwire.org/2009/10/the-golden-girls-...
Cheers, 'VJ'
Thanks, dragnet. You're a super smart dude, so I feel like earning your respect is huge, and I appreciate it. Having been a strategy consultant for many years, I'm really all about explicitly determining your objective, taking a look at the environment, assessing the likelihood of various outcomes, and implementing the best plan.
You speak to the environment, or current marketplace, and I agree with your assessment. The way that hooking up smart can lead to a relationship, in my view, is pretty straightforward. We need to catch Girlfriend's attention while she's still in college, probably feeling pretty crappy about all the random hookups she's having: lots of mediocre sex, hangovers, walks of shame, and then the ultimate indignity of finding out she is now dead to the guy when she sees him on campus. If Girlfriend could learn from her experience, which is not unreasonable to assume (though I agree that many girls don't), then she might notice Conflicted on campus. Obviously, even at the age of 21 he has everything she could want in a man. And if Girlfriend wasn't blackout drunk four nights a week at a frat house, Conflicted might see her out and about.
Ultimately, the sociosexual marketplace today provides the most rewards for alpha males. Women are essentially acting against their own best interests. It is unlikely to change anytime soon, but as long as there are guys like Conflicted around, guys who women will indeed choose once they wise up, there's no reason some women can't wise up sooner.
Oh, VJ, welcome back, we've missed you! You say much that is sensible here. The question is, though, can men get past caring about the issue of prior sexual experience? It's true that premarital sex is nothing new, and you may recall the Thanksgiving post I wrote reveal that up to 50% (!!!!!!) of the Pilgrims had sex before marriage. What IS new is the number, the sheer magnitude of partners women have free access to for sex.
Fifty years ago, and back all the way to the beginning of time, a woman with this many partners would have had to have been a prostitute. Literature treats many of these women with some sympathy, as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooker_with_a_hear...
Sexual behavior has changed a lot more quickly than our ability to adapt to the new mores.
WTF? Oh boy, I wish this was satire. About the author:
Please protect us from motivational children's party entertainers!
OK, slumlord, some thoughts, I want to understand this better:
I totally get the perception that she has been frequently “used” by other men. The female is the gatekeeper to sex, and she has not been selective. She spent her college years with the gate wide open. You claim, and I agree, that Conflicted is repulsed by what this says about her character.
However, people make poor decisions, they learn, they change. She was honest with him, and sought to reassure him that her character has changed. If he knows her well, and loves her for who she is now, then why would he not be able to accept her as the woman he loves today? Yes, stability of character is reassuring and highly desirable. But there are few of us who have an unblemished past, and in the current sociosexual environment, there are few women who have remained chaste in hopes that Mr. Right would come along. Indeed, women who are determined to remain virgins until marriage will have a small pool of potential suitors, because they've priced themselves out of the market. Conflicted may not be a man whore, but men who value sex in a loving relationship and are willing to be celibate until they find that special woman are very rare.
In the analogy you provided, you talk about a woman not wanting a man to sleep around when she is in love with him. Of course not! But that's not the case here – when she made these choices, she didn't even know Conflicted existed. Perhaps if she had met him at Freshman Orientation, he life would have played out very differently, with a monogamous college relationship. Perhaps she spent her youth on a used car lot, and potential buyers would come in and take her for a test drive. Then a guy came in who had saved up for a car of his own, and thought she was the sweetest ride ever. It's all in the eye of the beholder, no?
This is the critical point. This says it all. Women can be offended, they can rant about the double standard, and they can make a stand on principle. But they cannot force a man to choose them.
If women want to find a life partner, they need to be aware of both the prerequisites and the dealbreakers from a male perspective. In the end, it's really a numbers game, all the way around.
Christwire is satire, although sometimes it's hard to tell because the Christian Right is so hyperbolic to begin with.
I agree that older virgins are unfairly attacked and made fun of all the time and I don't think that's acceptable either. Please don't make assumptions about my beliefs and use your assumptions to declare me a hypocrite. I don't think any frequent readers or posters on this blog have called (or would call) older virgins unnatural, or pedophiles, or gay, or anything of that nature.
To get back to your comments on promiscuity: I don't think that promiscuity in and of itself is necessarily destructive. I think that having lots of unprotected sex with strangers is destructive, and I think that employing any deception in the course of having sex is destructive, and I think that pursuing a sexual relationship with someone who wants more than that is destructive. But a person's “number” doesn't tell us *anything* about the nature of that sex. Even if the sex is frequent, that doesn't necessarily imply that anyone was hurt or deceived.
Whew, that's a relief, haha. It's pretty good as satire, because it's just a little bit more out there than some of these evangelical types.
They both could have issues that would hurt the relationship, but the simple knowledge of those partners should not prevent two rational people from proceeding with a relationship. The idea that you would refuse to trust someone based on their sexual history is insulting, especially after establishing enough trust to want to move in together. Telling him everything about her sexual history should have been a path towards strengthening that trust and being completely open.
I am offended by this article's implication that a promiscuous woman really does become “damaged goods” and that she is gambling with her hope for a stable relationship in the future. If she really has changed her ways and Conflicted can't get past that then he has is own problems to work out. Suggesting that he is somehow justified is just perpetuating that prejudice.
This is wishful thinking. Reality is reality and your value system isn't going to change reality. As others have pointed out in this thread, we are talking deep hardwired programming here into the male psyche from tens of thousands of years of evolution. 50 years of feminists successfully imposing a new value structure on society isn't gong to change thousands of years of evolution.
I'm less concerned about the girl's number then Meredith's answer, and perhaps Conflicted's willingness to accept her answer as to what he “should” feel rather then what the core of his being is telling him he is feeling.
In this regard, the Internet and the presence of Game and MRA on the Internet is having a powerful impact by educating men and providing another source of information and perspective beyond what the editorial pages and the cultural Marxism of academia says is the way one should think and believe if “enlightened”.
There are practicalities here as well. The more “slutty” a woman has been prior to marriage the more likely she is to cheat while married. Not every one, but the probability is shifted that way. Plus, sex as a bonding mechanism is much more powerful in women….except once they've had a huge number of sexual partners and their bonding hormones are essentially degraded. It is like building up a drug tolerance. When you are #3, #4, #5 sex creates and sustains an emotional bond to you. When you are #35 or #50 you are just another c**k and the same hormonal bonding simply isn't there.
I really don't care if a woman sleeps with 35 guys, 50 guys, 100 guys, but I do hope that in general the Conflicted's of the world do not give them the time of day from a long-term commitment perspective. Incentives drive behavior. I suspect the worm will turn here but probably not for another 10-20 years.
I think the real issue here is the question of promiscuity. Is it wrong? What does it mean when a woman is promiscuous, and may even consider it part of her identity? If men are instinctively repelled by a promiscuous sexual history, should that influence the behavioral decisions of women, when we know that's the patriarchal sexual standard rearing its ugly head?
This is complicated stuff.
Just my opinion, but it is always useful to view things through the prism of economics, supply/demand, and realizing it is always a marketplace.
Is it wrong? I don't know. Religion answers that question, but I'm not religious.
Given the underlying reality that men are in fact hardwired to be repelled by substantial promiscuity, should women consider that or modify their behavior. I guess it depends.
Look, you said it, 20% of guys are *ucking 80% of the women. Not sure if that is exactly right, but it is pretty close. So you've got the market for short-term hookups and casual sex, and the market for long-term committments and marriage. Obviously, the bottom 70%-80% of guys can't compete at all in the short-term hookup market. The top alpha guys will gladly bang anyone maybe 3-4 points below them. So a 9 guy will have sex with a 5-6, and in many cases the 5-6 girl will gladly have sex with the 9 guy under the naive assumption she may actually be able to land him as a boyfriend or LTR. LOL.
So where does that leave sluts in the long-term marketplace? Well, for the most part they won't be able to get long-term committment from the top guys in terms of looks, wealth, confidence, other alpha characteristics, but they can “settle” for that bottom 70-80% that have been in sexual poverty. That bottom 70-80% really has no other choice except remain single and celibate. So in aggregate women who are very promiscuous will most likely still be able to get long-term committment if that is what they want, but not from the elite guys who really have no reason to settle for them.
Susan,
I did want to commend you on exploring and addressing many of these men/women and sexuality issues in a very balanced way. I don't recall where I discovered your blog, maybe a link over on Spearhead but you've written alot of excellent stuff. I think your attempt to view some of this from the male perspective (and I mean how men really honest to goodness think in the core of their beings, and not what society is trying to inculcate as proper thinking) is particularly admirable.
Steveo
If you want to make progress here, really truly honest to goodness progress, then you need a plan of action. First how do you look. Everyone can take themselves up 2 to 3 points.
1. Join a gym and start a workout program. Putting on some muscle will make boost your self-confidence and self-esteem and make you more attractive.
2. If you wear glasses, lose them, and get contacts.
3. Find someone who knows style who can get you dressed right
You have to look the part.
Then you need to start practicing social skills. Start with super easy shit like simple eye contact, a smile, and a hi and that is it. Just keep walking. You have to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run.
I've been where you are. I graduated college as a virgin. I lost my virginity and had my first girlfriend at the age of 22. I am 36 now and went on to have a pretty successful 14 years although a good chunk was 2 long-term monogamous relationships. I have no doubt I could have racked up triple digits if I really wanted.
You can change. But you have to want it and be 100% dedicated. Regarding the working out, just do it. You will feel 1000% better if you get in shape and at the least have a somewhat muscular body. I guarantee it. And although women are not primarily looks oriented being muscular with broad shoulders certainly doesn't hurt.
And learn Game. I use game principles in my LTR all the time. It works.
Whenever the “s word” is used, there's an army ready to defend the promiscuous woman. When male virgins are attacked over something they have no control over there's complete silence from non-virgins. When it comes to defending virgins from attacks that are much more vicious than the “s word” (such as virgins are pedophiles) non-virgins aren't willing to stand and be counted. It all sounds hollow to me without proof of action.
But a person's “number” doesn't tell us *anything* about the nature of that sex.
Yes it does. A person with a high number has no self control and has a high probability of having an STD. A high number is a guarantee of having HPV for example. And other STDs, many of which won't kill you, but are very painful. More importantly, a person with a high number is unable think ahead for the next five minutes not to mention the longer term. A person with a high number is running a game that is highly destructive to wider society. A woman with a high number is effectively saying the bottom 80% of men should go away and die since she has no use for them.
But there are few of us who have an unblemished past, and in the current sociosexual environment, there are few women who have remained chaste in hopes that Mr. Right would come along.
It's not about being unblemished, rather it's about the type and degree. No one is perfect, but the young girl who has slept with 2-3 men before her partner is in a different category to one who has slept with 35. Girlfriend is not even statistically normal. This is literally statistically deviant behaviour.
If he knows her well, and loves her for who she is now, then why would he not be able to accept her as the woman he loves today?
a) He clearly didn't know her well because as he found out more about her he became repulsed.
b) Who she is now is a very unwise way to judge a persons character.
Character is a disposition, feelings are transient. Suppose a man has a high paying job and wants to take out a small loan. The credit officer assess risk by looking at his current capacity to pay and his credit history. Past performance is an indicator of future behaviour, its human nature. Protesting loudly and passionately that you promise to pay back all your debts because you've changed will not cut the mustard with a good credit officer.
But a more deeper level not paying off your debts is a sign of a bad character. There is something wrong with such a person, something flawed. Its a stain on a person's nature and it's very difficult to love a person for their faults, even past ones. A lot of women for instance, would find it very difficult to form a romantic attachment witha reformed paedophile, no matter how sincere he is, since his past behaviour still continues to offend. Some things are easier to overlook than others.
But that's not the case here – when she made these choices, she didn't even know Conflicted existed.
So the argument here is that she had to sleep around with 35 guys till she found the one she loved? Ummm…I don't buy that for one second. She slept around in college for who knows what reason, but she definitely wasn't looking for Mr Right at the time. Fucking 35 other men was a means to gain who knows what psychological benefit, but it wasn't an effort to find Mr Darcy. She's not normal.
What fucking 35 men means is that sex is a means to some other ends, be that the satisfaction of satiating desire with some random stranger, intellectual curiosity, self-validation, status etc. It's sexual behaviour taken outside of its appropriate context. i.e a relationship.
No what this woman has shown is she spreads her legs too easily given the right circumstances. Something which is a sign of bad character. Men want to commit to ladies and not whores. And one of the marks of a lady is discretion, and discretion implies self-control. Intrinsic to the idea of femininity is a sense of grace, elegance, discretion and good sense. A woman slutting around displays none of these. She is less feminine and therefore less desirable as an object of romantic love.
Remember what matters here is not how she feels about confused, it's how Confused perceives her. She may have the most pure and noble intentions towards him but if he perceives her a skank, then he will find her less desirable. It's wired into our natures.
Note this isn't absolute, some guys are quite prepared to look over a woman's past. Prostitutes have found husbands but these guys have never been at the top food chain. The best don't settle for second best.
OK, I am in full agreement here. I was actually playing a bit of devil's advocate above..
I say below that Girlfriend is more than two standard deviations from the mean here, since in the 25-29 age group the average number of partners is 4. Not every guy will feel as Conflicted does if here number is 6, or 10, or whatever. It does become a question of what's intolerable, and 35 is indeed a high number. That's the reality.
Your pedophile metaphor is an apt one, though somewhat extreme and repellent. It's a question of how one judges morality. If Conflicted feels that she has been immoral in the past, she is a very bad risk for any future, because she is likely to manifest that immorality in various ways, not just wrt sex.
Few people would equate her morality with that of someone who has harmed children, but again, the key point is how Conflicted feels, not how we believe he SHOULD feel. In this post I am alerting women than Conflicted is not unusual. She is the statistical anomaly, not him.
We agree, what is relevant is how men perceive women who are promiscuous. Women need to understand this before they “go along to get along” in college.
Re the studs vs sluts “double standard”.
Women and men are opposite evolutionary designs thereefore identical behaviors hold opposite value and opposite behaviors hold identical value.
Therefore, there is no double and unequal standard, but an opposite and equal standard. Sexual experience is valued in men while devalued in women, and sexual inexperience is devalued in men while valued in women. It has always been this way. Whores are the natural social equivalent of beta males, and madonnas are the natural social equivalent of alpha males.
Due to the sexual revolution (contraception, abortion, feminism) the values of whores have been artificially inflated way above that of beta males, who are actively degraded by feminists (little dick, can't get laid, lives in mommy's basement, etc). Women are no longer devalued for promiscuity but in fact celebrated. While virginal beta males who “can't get laid” are viewed as the lowest life form – nerdy, scary, unhealthy, etc. Alpha males are extremely valued, as well as madonnas who are always valued. IOW, beta males are by far the biggest losers of the sexual revolution, which is why they will (mark my words) be the driving force behind the next big cultural and sexual revolutions.
Darktruth:
1. Beta males are not degraded on my blog, ever, including those who have shared being virgins, or having lost their virginity very late. I welcome the perspective of men struggling to find a connection with women, just as I welcome the perspective of women looking for men of good character.
2. Promiscuous women may be getting cheered from the sidelines by grateful men, but this post illustrates that there may be a reckoning in due course. They may be at an extreme disadvantage for long-term mating.
3. Madonnas often feel that they struggle to maintain the respect of others in a culture that endorses rampant casual sex. Again, there are several female virgins who have spoken of their lives on this blog, and I can tell you the potential pool of suitors for these women is frustratingly small.
4. Beta males are indeed the biggest losers of the SR, followed by Alpha females. There will be a sea change, there has to be, at some point. Personally, I am more than ready for the pendulum to swing back. It won't be pretty for relationships, but I look forward to changes that bring more men and women together throughout society.
Hi Mike, welcome and thanks for commenting. I'm with you on Meredith's answer – I believe it reflects a feminist agenda that is unrealistic and ineffective. I personally doubt whether Conflicted is going to be directed by her response, which I found flippant and scolding in tone. She essentially questioned Conflicted's character based on his reponse, which I find pretty outrageous.
Re the degradation of bonding hormones, I have heard that from another reader recently, but I've never read that in any of the studies. Just as estrogen maintains is effectiveness in the female body over many years, so too does oxytocin (the bonding hormone) when orgasm occurs, or when nursing an infant, for that matter. I would agree that Girlfriend's past is fair game for concern, and he has every right to express his reservations and see what she has to say, but I don't think we can say that she is physically or biologically compromised in any way.
Re the pendulum swinging back, I'm inclined to agree. 10-20 years would be great, actually. My own kids are living through this very dysfunctional era, sexually speaking, and my hope is that the next generation will enjoy better opportunities.
Mike, haha, a fellow economist at heart! Bring it!
Your analysis of the current sociosexual marketplace is 100% correct. I have described it exactly this way myself.
Re the long-term prognosis for promiscuous women (don't say SLUT on my blog please, no value judgments), I hear from many guys in that 80% who are bound and determined not to accept women who turn to them once they are “used up” by Alphas. They would rather forego marriage. Time will tell, but women who literally embrace cads through their 20s may well find that men of good characters will take a pass even when they get the chance.
By the way, while the 9 guy is having sex with 5-6 women, 7-10 women are in the sexual/relationship desert. They're big losers as well in this climate.
Wow, I sincerely appreciate the compliment! I believe that there is no truth to be found in political correctness. The current generation of women in their 30s and 40s received some very bad advice along the way about their social and sexual lives. I believe that there is a large population of women who want sex in the context of relationships, and who want a good man, if they can find him! I know there is a large population of good men who are extremely frustrated socially and sexually. These groups are natural partners, we just need to find a way to connect them up. Let the Alphas cavort with Girls Gone Wild. The rest will be the backbone of society and family in this country if they can connect.
By saying that a woman who sleeps with many many men “is effectively saying the bottom 80% of men should go away and die since she has no use for them,” you are saying that if A chooses not to have sex with B, then that is a transgression against B. Now, B might have hurt feelings, and that is understandable, because being turned down for anything is unpleasant. But suggesting that A has done anything *wrong* would mean that B is *entitled* to sex from A, which is in no way true. There would be appalling consequences to this notion (rape would cease to be a crime, for example, because rapists could claim to be entitled to sex from their victims).
As far as STDs are concerned: you are assuming that someone who has had many sexual partners is having unprotected sex with them. It's true that it's never possible to be entirely safe — a pastor who has only ever had sex with his wife is at some risk — but it's not a “guarantee” of anything. 95% of the adult population has HPV, which obviously isn't a good thing, but it's obviously not confined to promiscuous people. Fortunately, now there are vaccines for the most harmful strains. But, again, while there are many women and men who have unprotected sex with many partners, it is inaccurate to extrapolate that ALL women (or men) who have had many partners have done so in a reckless manner, without regard for their/their partners' health or well-being.
And the assumptions that a person who has slept with many partners has an unhealthy lack of impulse control or an inability to plan for the future are a.) unsubstantiated and impossible to measure, and b.) frankly, irrelevant, since if a person, male or female, is having protected sex and is communicating respectfully with his or her partners, then as far as I'm concerned, no harm is being done. You may disagree, and state that harm is being done to the people that that person is *not* sleeping with, but in that case I'd revert to my point that no individual is entitled to sex from any other individual.
I agree entirely with your point that there is a lot of intolerance in our society for older virgins, but you seem to be extending that to people on *this* website, and I don't think people here hold that attitude at all. I just think it is equally as wrong to draw unsupported assumptions about one group of people as it is to draw them about another.
Re the degradation of bonding hormones, I have heard that from another reader recently, but I've never read that in any of the studies. Just as estrogen maintains is effectiveness in the female body over many years, so too does oxytocin (the bonding hormone) when orgasm occurs, or when nursing an infant, for that matter. I would agree that Girlfriend's past is fair game for concern, and he has every right to express his reservations and see what she has to say, but I don't think we can say that she is physically or biologically compromised in any way.
I can't find the link or study at the moment but I do recall reading an article that talked about a women's ability to form an emotional bond to her partner as degraded the more sexual partners she has, but I'm not sure I'd characterize it as compromised. If true, it just is what it is.
I'd note that super high promiscuity in males can have a negative effect as well in terms of forming a view of women that is certainly not applicable across the whole group. I started skimming through that book The Lie which I saw you referenced to. The character of Brett Keller is exactly what happens to many guys who start racking up numbers in the hundreds. A guy like that could meet the highest quality girl who is sexual but not loose and only be able to assume the worst.
LOL, I'm a fellow MBA as well
although I think your school outranks mine 
Talk about a shift in the marketplace. Golden ticket in the 80s and 90s. Got mine in 2001. Definitely not what it used to be but I digress
Regarding the S-word, your request is duly noted. Just used to other forums where that word gets thrown around pretty easily.
By the way, while the 9 guy is having sex with 5-6 women, 7-10 women are in the sexual/relationship desert. They're big losers as well in this climate.
Yup, and this is really a combination of laziness meeting self-delusion. Generally speaking, a 8-10 woman is going to be fairly aware of her worth in terms of attractiveness. The 8-10 guys is going to have to work at least a bit. The p**** isn't just going to be served up on a platter with no effort. So he goes after the easy prey, just like the lions in the jungle go after the weakest. I'm just not sure how the average girl convinces herself this guy really wants a LTR instead of just a convenient booty call. In this respect, I think you are doing an invaluable service in bringing a level of truth and reality to woman that they don't hear elsewhere.
You are fighting the good fight and I hope you succeed. I'm guessing you are already writing the book and getting the products ready (wink, wink)
The market for a new approach for women isn't saturated like the men's Game market so there is definitely a first mover advantage to had. Now, I have to just try someway to apply Porter's 5 forces here. 
LOL
Mike, you may well be right re the bonding thing – it makes sense intuitively that the more sexual partners you have, the less meaningful any one encounter might be. I'll have to check that out – the chemistry of sex is powerful and really just being researched fully. I personally find it helpful to understand the biological differences between men and women, as that describes behavorial and emotional differences as well.
Re guys who rack up numbers in the hundreds? What woman wants to touch these guys? I know men think that sexual attraction of the female is guaranteed for men who get lots of sex, i.e. social proof, but I think there's a tipping point here. I hear from many women who think “man whores” are just gross. There is a point at which a woman is humiliated to be the latest conquest of an indiscriminate player.
Mike, thx re the whole language issue. I know well how guys talk on lots of other sites. In fact, I visit some of those sites myself and am sometimes startled to see the language used by men who are such gentlemen here! I liken it to the difference in the way guys speak in mixed company vs. when they are with their buddies. HUS is definitely mixed company, which I love!
I really appreciate your frankness on the question of how guys approach women wrt effort. It is surprising that women continually convince themselves that a man cares about them when he expresses sexual attraction. Our culture feeds this fantasy, and women also tend to enable one another out of loyalty, even when it perpetrates the deception.
Re future marketing opportunities, I'm afraid I am sorely lacking the proper strategic vision, haha. It's the trap entrepreneur types fall into, I'm afraid – too much attention to the day-to-day, not enough to the long-term. Your first mover comment inspires me though! I do believe I may currently be the only woman in the world saying these things online!
Re Michael Porter: my son went to high school with his daughters. He never came to a single event for parents, as far as I know. I met his ex-wife numerous times, but he was always MIA. I wonder if he's happy with the choices he made?
you are saying that if A chooses not to have sex with B, then that is a transgression against B
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the wholesale rejection of 40% of the human race is evidence of deep sickness.
it is inaccurate to extrapolate that ALL women (or men) who have had many partners have done so in a reckless manner, without regard for their/their partners' health or well-being.
STD statistics disagree with you.
are a.) unsubstantiated and impossible to measure,
This is solipsism pure and simple. Face it. I'm right.
I just think it is equally as wrong to draw unsupported assumptions about one group of people as it is to draw them about another.
Non-virgins are nowhere to be found when virgins are attacked. When it counts, the silence from non-virgins is deafening.
“The wholesale rejection of 40% of the human race is evidence of deep sickness.” I think that virgins are, in general, treated abominably, and I think it's unfortunate that some people have a difficult time finding the relationships they want. But it is not the responsibility of any *individual* to not turn down any other *individual* as long as it's done respectfully. (I'm also not really sure what 40% you're discussing.)
With regard to your responses to both the STD issue and the issue that you assert that all promiscuous people embody certain character flaws: statistics are a tool to calculate likelihood. PLEASE show me a number that indicates that every promiscuous person has an STD, because — I crunch numbers for a living — whoever is producing statistics that demonstrate 100% certainty has revolutionized the field, since no one has been able to do that yet. Statistics are NOT a way to establish universality. You can say that a certain groups tends to behave in a certain manner, but you cannot unequivocally extrapolate that finding to EVERY member of a group. That is the essence of statistics. And those are exactly the same kinds of assumptions that make you upset when they are leveled against virgins.
And I don't know how many times I can say this, but I agree with you that older and especially male virgins are treated with contempt, but I still think that that is no excuse to attack other groups or individuals within them.
I just think it's important to remember that groups are made up of distinct individuals who may behave very differently. Those individuals are responsible only for their OWN actions, not for actions of other members of their group. And they have their OWN personalities, motives, and beliefs, which may not be the personalities, motives, or beliefs of other members of their group.
I think this is all I can productively say on the subject.
Bottomline: Ladies, NEVER tell your numbers!
Good advice, I think. She made a major error here. However, it should be noted that many of the guys who comment regularly swear up and down that they can always tell when a woman has had a lot of partners by her behavior – lots of "tells." That would make sense if you believe that many casual flings would affect your ability to relate emotionally, or even influence your sexual behavior.
So then people should get married as soon as they hit puberty?
Would that actually be better?
What the heck is a Madonna?
Anyway, going through these posts all I have to say is this: women have learnt not to mention a single thing of their number and if they must then usually it’s a conservative single digit figure. The fact is; no one can truly tell how many men a woman has slept with unless she’s truly and unashamedly honest beyond doubt OR her figure is given via a lie detector test.
Clearly both options are far fetched and the 80% of men will have no idea whatsoever if her number is 5 or 50. I also agree with an earlier post speaking of the double standard being inverse. So it seems to me that the promiscuous girls can have their cake and eat it too. They get lots of hookups and by age 30 settle down with the engineer or analyst and quite possibly can have more cake on the side.
This is why so many ethnics go back to their homeland and get young girls who are virgins. But even then a virgin can turn bad if she learns the ropes during marriage and realises what she’s been missing out on all these years and starts banging the gardener/s.
How are you meant to definitively know how much your girl has been around? You can’t! Me personally? I want a nice, simple girl with values shown in her early 20s and one has fallen under the radar so to speak from most guys. She doesn’t even have to be a glamour, just a decent self respecting girl who preferably has a number of 5 give or take. But that’s just me since my number is a massive 4. At nearly 28 that’s deplorable, I’d prefer 75-100 if I was brutally honest.
The other thing I must ask you Susan. When mentioning your number, which in black and white is # of vaginas your penis has penetrated and vice versa, does one include prostitutes as a sex partner? I mean you are having sex with a person, it could be a male escort too (very rare for most girls I know).
Considering many guys want their numbers to be higher than their future SO, well why not bang 50 different hookers? Or you think that’s just cheating? I mean aside from one night hookups, a man will probably fork out time and money to get the coveted “lay” with each woman, so why not just get the notches up with ease? Or is it simply not the same, a fools way out?
Should men include sex workers in their number?Also, with respect to older virgins like Steveo, why not just take the plunge and get an escort? I know many would cringe at the notion of spening their hard earned on paying a woman to fcuk him but at least they can experience sex for once. It may be the tonic they need.
FTR, one of my 4 was a sex worker and I didn’t like it at all. But it was probably on par with the quality of most drunken ONS people have so meh…
The only stumbling block is Std’s and lack of real intimacy that a hookup or casual FB can bring. In those cases you’d at least be kissing, getting oral without protection and if it’s a FB monogamous to you and on the pill, sex with no protection.
Monogamous sex with a LTR and possibly even a fb/fwb with sexual connection is always more satisfying, even though I’ve personally slept with my former ltr’s.
Thoughts?
I once had an intimate relationship with a 24 year old woman who I was crazy about. She admitted to 7 men when I first inquired but she had upped the admission to 12 (prior to myself) by the time the relationship ended. We are still friends. She has added several more to the known count since.
You couldn’t peg her based on the men she had been with – she told me about all of them – and they were all over the map in size, status, education, decency. From what I could tell, she slept with men for whom she developed a strong crush. She has a strong sex drive, obviously, but she is basically a decent person with very clean habits.
She also once admitted that she felt her conquests made her ‘popular’ whatever that means. I am assuming it means it made her feel attractive. So there is some sort of self esteem issue there – which is weird because she is very attractive.
Because they’re living a lie, that’s why. Everything they’ve been told is a lie. It’s Satanic is what it is. Like a drug addict, they love the euphoria of sex, but when they give themselves time to reflect on their past, they are miserable and wounded.
Who wants their best sex to be their first time? That means it’s all downhill from there. You have plenty of time to know and please your partner over the coming decades, if you commit to doing so.
Hi Peter Pumpkin, thanks for leaving a comment. I know several young women who have had sex with many men – by that I mean women just getting out of college who are well over 25 partners. I love them – they are smart and funny and a lot of fun to be around. Definitely decent people. But there’s something wrong there – as your friend said, there seems to be a deep need for validation. Ironically, women fail to understand that a man’s sexual attention does not mean that he likes or respects you necessarily, which is what popular means. I’m curious – did you feel that 7 was a high number? Now that it’s well over that, do you view her as someone with more sexual experience than you would accept in a partner? And finally, did the fact that the sex she engaged in was not in the context of a committed relationship bother you?
Hi Len,
Sorry to have missed this comment before now. It slipped under my radar. I agree that women will revise their number downward when asked. This even happens on anonymous sex surveys. Of course, a woman with a high number is most likely to lie. In my experience, young women with up to about 7 partners will tell the truth, but it depends a lot on who’s asking, and how much sexual experience the woman thinks the guy has.
It’s possible that some highly promiscuous women will settle down with an earnest, good man and cheat, but I don’t think it’s the norm. HIghly promiscuous women are drawn to alpha males for sexual validation, and I think most of them continue that pattern of behavior indefinitely – I think many of them will remain single or have failed marriages because they repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
I think 4 is a good number for a 28 year old guy. I certainly don’t think it’s deplorable! You may, but a nice woman with good character will not hold that against you. There are many women who don’t go through college and their 20s chasing alphas and having indiscriminate sex. I think that by getting to know a woman, by observing her with men, noticing the way she dresses and conducts herself, you can get a good sense of a woman’s sexual history.
Re who to include in your number, I have no idea what the rules are! I do see some guys mention this on blogs, and they tend to separate paid sex workers. Honestly, I have never even heard of a young woman paying for sex. I think you can rule that out. Why would she need to?
As for older male virgins, I don’t know why they wouldn’t get a sex therapist or sex worker. I have heard them say that it would not feel right. They’d rather make it happen naturally or not at all.
It sounds to me like you are a guy who would like a real LTR with intimacy, so that is what I think you should pursue. There are many women who would value that, and who don’t want a manwhore for a partner. You might like my new post comparing the PUA to the Lover.
One thing that research has proved is that men and women both tend to grossly overestimate how much sex everyone else is having. With four partners at age 28 I’d say you are smack in the middle of the pack, and many guys would envy you. If you find a woman with a modest sexual history, and the two of you are really into each other, you’ll get experience together. It’s not like you need to come into a relationship with any kind of special technique.
Hello Susan. The number of men was not the problem. It was my perception that she was unwilling or unable to share her life on a fairly equal basis with a partner. She is definitely ‘high maintenance’ though not outrageously so from my perspective. I also felt that, besides good sex and a comfortable life, she didn’t know what she wanted – and this was a high risk factor. We were together for just over two years. She has since been married and divorced and has two children, one of whom is my goddaughter.
She is now thirty-six years old. She has become very religious and I believe she has settled down, She doesn’t discuss her relationships with me anymore. I am married myself. We pray for each other.
Well, it sounds like she is very fortunate to have you as a friend.
So what do you think about men like conflicted just saying screw it (no pun intended) and try and get the 35 partners by any means necessary just to put his mind at ease? Men are very competitive like that. If I had been with 30 girls and my fiancee had been with 25-30 I’d be alright with it. Actually wait, I don’t know if I would hahaha. Because I’d be thinking of the women I slept with and comparing them to her in terms of value as a woman.
I think 4 is actually pretty shocking, let’s be honest here. The surveys are a total joke. If you go onto anonymous forums it’s far from that. One bulletin board where you could post anonymously on the British Channel 4 sexual health website had an average for 20 year old british girls of around 15-20 which I think is pretty much on the money. Heck some of them lost their V at 13-14 with many having 30 partners before 18. Hookup culture is rife even in high school!
A 28 yr old with above average looks should be up around 20-30 too. Do you think that’s too high or it isn’t all that much of an issue for men vs women?
You’re right, I would like a LTR with intimacy but I’d have preferred to have had more confidence and had 30-ish notches by now with most occuring from 18-24. But of course you’d be aware from the “Does Size Matter” topic that I’m a forced celibate ie; not by choice.
I will be practising the art of PUA game though. But just don’t want to feel like im not myself. I think it’s better to practise being a natural type alpha (by improving yourself) with the added touch of being able to approach confidently and create attraction and sexual desire with women. That way you can establish the lays but after a while one would be quite bored of it, I know I would!
WHAT???? 20 partners by the age of 20? That is insane. Honestly, I know some wild young women, and the one with the highest number is 22, she has been with 35 men. The next highest is 21 at age 22. They are by no means typical, at least in the U.S.
I sincerely doubt those numbers.
More importantly, I don’t know why you care so much about a number. The one I mentioned with 35 believes that if she goes back and has sex with a guy from her past, that’s a good deal because it doesn’t count in her number. What kind of logic is that?
If you’re just looking to rack up numbers, you’ll definitely be happier at the Game sites and attraction forums. I tend to focus on relationships. In my view, a relationship with good sex beats a string of one-night stands, but I’m aware that many men would not agree.
[...] Globe dating-advice columnist Meredith Goldstein, Susan Walsh’s Hooking Up Smart gives an insightful analysis of the dangers of the hook-up culture facing girls like my friend even if they are dating in a world of a dating service, [...]
Yes, men do not want to marry a ‘hoe. Men like a good nigth stand, and are grateful in the morning while they scratch their b*lls, but that’s it. Men want the ‘hoe to leave in a hurry when their done. One night stands usally never result in a meeting Momma at Sunday dinner (….not coincidentally, the reverse probability of the woman highly regretting the encounter). Nothing wrong with sex and relationships – it’s wonderful — but hooking up has very bad consequences, mainly for the woman. Women who say otherwise are either lying or don’t know men.