Acceptable Sexual Partner Count

>>17776523
>Would you consider dating someone with 10+ partners?
If she was way over my league maybe, just to fug. But won't date someone who has 10 times more partners than me.
>Where would you draw the line (40, 600. etc)?
Sex outside a relationship is were i would drew a line unless she was my age or a little older wich i could understand
>cumstances would you overlook a higher partner count?
Way to hot for me, won't be bf of someone who is a higher level than me + more partners
>How many partners do you have?
1
>You can add your gender if you want.
Helicopter

>>17776523

Partner count doesnt bother me. Wtf is wrong with you faggots.

>>17776560
Why is your partner count less that 5 yet you have no problem being with someone with a count 20 times that?

>>17776523
dont ask, dont tell
this is the only acceptable policy when it comes to the body count

>>17776571
because i learned sex is just sex from falling in love and losing my virginity to a 30 year old 2 years ago. now ive been with other women (who are also older than me). i also notice how promiscuous woman are. its just life m8. i almost fell for a girl because she took me home with her, only for her to ditch my ass and sleep with a bunch of other guys at a party, including a guy literally named Chad. sex isnt important. its just an act two individuals do.

>>17776581
This is what I assumed. The only person who wouldnt care about partner count but have a low partner count is someone who didnt have the chance to have sex.

>>17776579
>dont ask, dont tell
But only a person with a high partner count would feel this way.

If I liked a certain girl and she has a high count of sex mates, its a turn off
To think of how many guys went before you is just gross..

>>17776523
>For anyone who is not promiscuous (more than 5 partners)
Well, I am 22, only had 2 partners, I guess I qualify. Yay.

>Would you consider dating someone with 10+ partners?
Sure.

>Where would you draw the line (40, 600. etc)?
No fucks given. Could be 60000 if she somehow managed to develop into a great person in her free time.

>Under what circumstances would you overlook a higher partner count?
All of them. I don't care about that shit the least. Assuming she's disease free of course.

>How many partners do you have?
One right now. If you meant to ask how many I had, see above.

>You can add your gender if you want.
CIS male scum.

this thread is cuck central

>>17776598
Guess I could add that I don't care about sexual partners. When it comes to actual relationships, I'd be wary if they had more than 4-5 assuming they are in mid twenties.

>>17776598
Why have you only had 2 partners?

>>17776529
So you'd sleep with someone with 10+ but not date them? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

>>17776630
Because I am picky as fuck, so there are like 3 chicks out of 100 that MIGHT interest me and two of them wouldn't be interested in me or have a boyfriend already.

Also time. I do value relationships and don't instantly jump into them only to leave few months later. Hence first girlfriend was from 16 to 18 and second from 21 to ... who knows when.

how weird is it for a 19yo male to have no experience with relationships at all?
I've been living in a new country now and the loneliness is starting to affect me, I fee like I will die alone with about 10 pet snakes
(no I'm not that ugly or socially retarded, I've had my chances but I was only interested in girls that werent interested in me)

>>17776689
Mildly. Specially if you moved to a new country somewhat recently and don't have the language skills.

>>17776660
>I value relationships but not sex
kek

>>17776732
What's so confusing about the idea? You can have sex with tons of people easy, it's going to be great with some but in the end it's still just hormonal release. Relationships on the other hand are hard to find and pretty unique connections with the right people, that have a profound impact on every bit of your life. It's the difference between fucking some hot girl and fucking a hot girl after losing an argument about the miserable state of modern literature against her, cooking a (subpar) meal together and hearing how she got promoted to middle manager at Bosh.

>>17776774
relationships arent hard to get

I'll only date a virgin. I don't consider premarital sex acceptable.
10+ is frankly repulsive and shows you have no boundaries.

>>17776788
Are you a virgin. Only a virgin can have that as a requirement.

>>17776783
Good ones are. Being a decent sexual partner requires looks and not suffering from dead fish syndrome. Being a decent partner for a relationshit requires that and dozens over dozens over dozens of other traits, and not having another list of traits.

>>17776791
Well, I did say I don't approve of premarital sex, so yes.

>>17776644
Yes, it is

>>17776798
>Being a decent partner requires looks and not suffering from dead fish syndrome
Its funny how you dont see that they are the same. You can get good sex just as easy as you can get a good relationship. It just depends on what you are looking for in them. If all you want for sex is to ejaculate really youd be better off with an onahole.

>>17776803
Well as long as hes still under 10 it might not be.

>>17776807
>It just depends on what you are looking for in them.
In a way sure, but generally you'd expect all the traits necessary for good sex AND more from a relationship, no? So the number and hence the likelihood to find the right one sinks.

>>17776814
>generally you'd expect all the traits necessary for good sex AND more from a relationship
No. People who are really looking to settle down dont care about good sex. Thats mostly for people in their 20s. As long as it isnt terrible that is. It just depends on what you are looking for.

>>17776605
>Im fine with people having massive amounts of sex but not with people kissing others and pairing off.
whew lad

I was a before I met my gf and she's probably had at least 20 partners before me. I've never asked her for a number because I don't think there's any positive outcome to knowing the answer to that question.

>>17776523
depends

is she a 10/10? i could see 5-10 being the cutoff, otherwise i can only see 1-5 being acceptable

if you had sex with 600 guys i wont fucking touch you. You are probably the fucking Vessel for Nurgle the Chaos God of Pestlience and Disease

>Under what circumstances would you overlook a higher partner count?

looks, personality.

>How many partners do you have?

ive had 3 total thus far. Im 29 for reference.

>You can add your gender if you want.

Chaos United

>>17776898
Having tons of sex means enjoying sex with different people, not wanting to be tied down to one person AT THE MOMENT and possibly traveling or/and sexwork. Having tons of relationships means you can't hold one, or that nobody wants to stay with you for long for some reason.

I knew both types of people pretty well personally, the former tends to be really confident, cool, outgoing girls who know what they want. The latter insecure mental wreaks who NEED to be in a relationship because of abandonment issues and the likes, which lead to them not lasting in one.

Basically, since I'm a virgin, I'd only do a virgin.

Virgin sex is bad
Have sex with someone experienced

>>17776974
Same, although I would wait until marriage.

>>17776523
>twice every week

>>17776979
Sex isnt all about how good your dick feels. If I wanted experience Id look for a hooker.

>>17776915
>ignorance is bliss
that cuck mentality lol

>>17776944
>Having tons of relationships means enjoying sex with different people, not wanting to be tied down to one person FOREVER
Your statements are just bad.

>>17777013
Are you talking from personal experiences, some kind of statistic or just meme out of your ass?

>>17776979
It would take like one porn lurk for 1 or 2 weeks for a women to get an idea of what de want, then de get down to earthof course but she wont do the starfish.

All it takes for a Virgin or a women to know is porn, basic position, how to not get hurt in doggy style, blowjobs and handjobs and how to put condoms.

>>17776523
I'm a guy, zero partners in my life ever. I would date a girl no matter what their partner count. Pls respond.

>>17777028
The fact that your argument can be applied to either side just means its bad inherently. Statistics have nothing to do with it.

>>17777048
>Statistics have nothing to do with it.
That's a fascinating way to view the world.

>>17777071
Personal anecdotes arent statistics anon.
Your arguments are inherently bad.

Male, 25. Only one partner, wich i still am with.

10+ is in the no fucking way zone, max 2 or 3.
Maybe a couple more as long as we're not talking about random hookups and shit like that.

>>17777073
Well, I got both on my side, modern marriage stability studies indicate that it's pretty irrelevant (the shit redpill faggots love to quote is from 80-00s and even that is a lot more moody than they admit), and at best one can argue that DIFFERENT number of partners has some kind of effect, so basically a virgin and a neighborhood bike might have problems. (Though that study got a very limited number of participants too) AND of course the countless studies about the benefits of poly stuff, if you're into that.

So since statistics don't show any causation for your idea; it must be some kind of anecdotal experience from knowing tons of people, r-right? You wouldn't just assume shit while never leaving in your basement, would you?

My personal standards for a relationship are

>does the person have an STD
Automatic "no" regardless of how hot they are
>are they likely to cheat while in the relationship
If they're gonna fuck around behind my back, they can just step off
>are they good in bed
Negotiable, but well-hung and talented with a cock are both great pluses to me

The partner count of any prospective boyfriend, to me at least, isn't particularly relevant. Long as I'm not liable to get AIDS or the herp derp, and they aren't cheating scum or actively awful in bed, then I'm game! In fact, if the dude's willing to have threesomes and foursomes with me and other guys, then that makes it even hotter... which makes me lucky that I'm dating a dude exactly like that.

>>17777114
I dont take anecdotal evidence as fact and present it to others. Your arguments have to be sound before anything else like statistics come into play. Yours arent. That simple.
And those statistics shows that with even 1 partner the chances of a happy marriage is cut in half and your at like 10% if the person is at 20 or something. If you gave a solid argument that wasnt inherently flawed Id have mentioned the statistics to use as kind of a tie breaker. But you did. You gave inherently flawed arguments.

>>17777143
>And those statistics shows that with even 1 partner the chances of a happy marriage is cut in half and your at like 10% if the person is at 20 or something.
Yet there is not a single modern study that claims there is a causation between amount of partners and marriage stability. If you got anything new, feel free to link it.

>>17776523

>For anyone who is not promiscuous (more than 5 partners)
At what age? At age 15? 20? 22? 25? 30?
Are we talking casual partners, short term relationships, or strictly only long-term relationships? Are we talking vaginal/anal only, or does oral count?

Regardless, yes, I've had only 5 partners of any kind in my 30 years.

>Would you consider dating someone with 10+ partners?
Yes? What's the issue? She isn't going to love me any less, and at least she will (most likely) know what she's doing.

>Where would you draw the line (40, 600. etc)?
When it would seem that the number is her concern. I don't give a rats ass if she was the town bike for NYC. I like her? Cool, she's had some other guys before. But if she was treating ME like just another number, yeah, not gonna happen.

>Under what circumstances would you overlook a higher partner count?
All of them? The reverse question to this, under what circumstances could I NOT overlook a higher partner count, would be STDs, jealous exes, attachment to exes.

>How many partners do you have?
Broke up with her 3 weeks ago. Still kinda fresh. If you meant in life, 5 partners total.

Male.

>>17777153
Statistics only argue correlations. Hence why I didnt mention them. Your arguments are so bad it hurts. Pls stop.

>>17777159
>Statistics only argue correlations.
So you mean there are none proving your point and you arbitrary decide to use the number of sexual partners as the most relevant factor? Shocking.

>>17777141

>Long as I'm not liable to get the herp derp...
Statistically speaking....? You already have it. 90% chance at any rate...

>>17777153
>Yet there is not a single modern study that claims there is a causation between amount of partners and marriage stability.
Not the same guy but it doesn't sound like you a fucking clue what you're talking about. Causation is not necessary, correlation is all that's required for prediction. If a study shows a correlation between partner count and an inability to maintain relationships, then you don't have to prove a high partner count causes unstable relationships to predict that a person who has slept around is less likely to be able to maintain a relationship.

>>17776523
i don't care

if she's cool and we get along well, that's all that matters to me

>>17777166
Nope, never had a cold sore in my life or anything down below either. Considering I've only ever boinked either virgins or guys who tested clean, it's a case of so far so good. Plus I've kissed...four people, ever, and never share drinks or food with anyone other than my bf, not even my family. Gotta be careful, is my motto, and it helps (kind of) being a tremendous germaphobe

>>17777168
>correlation is all that's required for prediction.
For a very rough and incomplete one that ignores other relevant factors like the age when they married, economical factors, education and mental issues.

>>17777164
I didnt even make a positive statement yet other than your arguments are bad.
You cant even follow a conversation. Just pathetic man.

>>17777168
He doesnt understand how to structure an argument and use statistics to his advantage. As far as he's concerned his little anecdotal evidence of people with high partner counts being confident is all he needs.

>>17777175
>For a very rough and incomplete one that ignores other relevant factors like the age when they married, economical factors, education and mental issues.
All of those factors are neutralized when the pool is big enough.

>>17777175
>For a very rough and incomplete one that ignores other relevant factors like the age when they married, economical factors, education and mental issues.
No, you're still mixing things up and talking about causation. Correlation can be an extremely predictor even if it doesn't expose the underlying causative factors. That's literally the point of a correlation.

>>17777177
So basically "wah, I don't have anything to add but wanted to bitch about your point because I don't like how you make it" Well, that's a way to kill time. Whatever works for you, mate.

>>17777184
Only that it's not that simple.We don't know what causes their higher partner count, nor have any reason to assume that it stays stable between all demographics and variations.

Besides, there isn't even strong enough correlation if we go by partner count alone.

>>17777189
>Correlation can be an extremely predictor
Given that's there is no strong causation and that even the researcher admits to have no fucking idea, it's all a moot point. Unless of course you have a different study in mind.

http://family-studies.org/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/
This shit is usually the most quoted one by redpillfags.

>>17777205
You made a bad point and got called out for it. Just be a man and accept it instead of this pathetic display.

>>17777210
Then surely you can demonstrate that the point is actually wrong? I mean, that's all I asked for.

>>17777218
Obviously you simply pay Indians (or preferably Slavs) to look for them.

And when it comes to finding a suitable mate going by statistics, you also want to make sure that they are actually meaningful.

Guy with a partner count of two. For me I'm focused less on the number itself, but the behavior that got them there.

For instance let's say we have two gals at the age of 30, both with a partner count of ten. One reached that place because she had a handful of serious long term relationships (like a year+) and some more short term stuff that puttered out. I'm not really worried about that. Meanwhile if the other girl reached 10 partners just due of casual sex or because she tried to ignore her emotions with it I'm going to be a bit more concerned. I'm going to step back and think, how does she handle stress? Is she going to act like an idiot if we have a bump in the relationship? At the same time I can't really imagine any route that would get her to something like a 20+ partner count that I really approve.

On top of that any history of cheating supersedes her partner count. She could be a virgin but if I found out she emotionally cheated on an ex I'm going to nope out of there asap. I like to imagine my standards are fairly reasonable, anyways.

>>17776979
Virgin sex can be bad, but past experience is hardly a promise of good sex. There are lots of women that slept around but are nothing more than dead fish, or men that have had a lot of one night stands but still arent entirely sure what the clitoris is.

>>17776523
>Would you consider dating someone with 10+ partners?
Yes.
>Where would you draw the line (40, 600. etc)?
I don't.
>Under what circumstances would you overlook a higher partner count?
I don't have sex early in the relationship. I want the relationship to be somewhat serious before we start fucking. If someone stays with me and stays faithful for 6-8 months while he isn't getting any I don't especially care about his past.
In general I go for don't ask, don't tell policy about ex partners because I don't see what can you learn from this kind of discussion.
>How many partners do you have?
2
You can add your gender if you want
Female.

>>17777205
Your study clearly shows a positive relationship between partner count and marriabe instability, it just doesn't happen to be a nice linear correlation.
>Given that's there is no strong causation
We aren't talking about causation, Jesus fucking Christ.

>>17777214
Already did. Which is when you tried to argue for your anecdotal cases. You are currently moving the goal post in circles.

File: 1473419667922.png (111KB, 461x407px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 461x407px

How sex comes so easily to people is beyond me.

Like, the idea of having multiple sexual partners over the course of a year, or casually arranging for sex, is so far out of my experience that it hardly seems real to me.

>>17777240
Eh. I don't sleep around but I totally see how its possible.

Using an ex friend of a friend for reference, this gal would basically slut it up every time her self esteem was in the shitter. She thought that people wanting to sleep with her meant that she had some value I guess. I always hear about how NSA sex can go off without a hitch, but never actually seen it roll that way in the real world.

>>17777244
Granted, I'm not comfortable around people in general.

>>17777240
>Like, the idea of having multiple sexual partners over the course of a year, or casually arranging for sex, is so far out of my experience that it hardly seems real to me.
It totally boggles my mind too. I actually fucking hate people because of it - why were they lucky enough to figure this shit out while I never got the chance? Fuck them.

>>17777256
I only blame myself.

>>17777233
>Your study clearly shows a positive relationship between partner count and marriabe instability
If your ignore the researchers conclusion, and that the by far largest correlation came with beginning date of marriage.

>>17777238
The anecdotal case was an invitation for comparison of experiences (and usually the obvious lack of them by people who bitch about numbers), since the data about the subject is pretty clear, it'd normally kill any discussion so I didn't want to push it right away. Now whether you willingly tried to misunderstand that or whether I failed to make that clear ... I am not sure.

>>17776799
Wew lad

>>17776924
>ive had 3 total thus far. Im 29 for reference.

Holy shit are you all just ugly as fuck or something?

>>17777274
Some people don't want a shitty marriage.

>>17777280
Correlation with divorce is stronger for other things - marrying young, coming from a broken household, having low education.
If someone wanted a statistically good marriage he should focus on those things and not really on how many people your or your partner fucked with.

>>17777283
Or I can focus on all of them and go for a happy life.

>>17777280
A shitty marriage has nothing to do with sexual partners. I've probably had 20 or so, been with current partner for 9 years, one kid and another on the way.

>>17777291
>9 years
The divorce is still coming. Give it time.
>A shitty marriage has nothing to do with sexual partners
Statistically false.

>>17777292
>The divorce is still coming. Give it time
Kek, OK, thanks mate

>>17777292
>Statistically false.

Statistically you can blow me xD

>>17777293
Just remember when the divorce happens and your kids are crying I told you why.

>>17777296
Advice on marriage from a kissless virgin, never change, 4chains.

>>17777298
did I say I was a kissless virgin.
But Im glad you feel that you are the exception to the rule. Only makes the tears I know are coming later more enjoyable.

>>17777287
When it comes down to a single person or a single relationships statistic don't apply well. You could have a marriage that would work perfectly according to statistics but still divorce because you're in the 10% that gets divorced anyway.

>>17777300
A smooch on the cheek from a drunk girl on a party you didn't want to attend doesn't count.

>>17777302
Statistics work like a probability. Look up the law of large numbers. Basically any probability when taken out to extreme numbers when be represented statistically.

>>17777306
Desperately trying to guess facts to invalidate me only makes your tears more delicious.

>>17777311
Oh, you mean she almost touched your lips? Congrats.

>>17777315
Your tears are palpable.

>>17777309
Yes. I know.
But you don't marry a group of 100 people and stay married to 70 of them. You marry one person and have a 70% chance you stay married. You have no guarantee you are going to be in the group of people that stays married if she fits all criteria that make you statistically stay together longer.
There will be couples that stay together forever even if it is statistically unlikely and couples that split up after a few years even if they married virgins at 30 with a PhD in neuroscience.

>>17777320
The human mind is capable of contemplating probability to make educated and informed choices for their future. Only a fool would ignore a probability.
You think I want a high probability of divorce just because it MIGHT work out anyways.

>>17777326
No, I think that while it is reasonable to be more cautious when it comes to a person that shows some "red flags", it is absolutely stupid to avoid them all together. I think that if a relationship actually works, if you have chemistry, good communication, a great friendship, feel comfortable with the roles you have in your relationship it would be silly to not take things to the next level because "she has just an high school degree and people with a high school degree only are 15% more likely to get divorced".
I think that when it comes to your relationship with your partner and the decision of marrying them or not, what you should truly value is the quality of your relationship not if they fit some criteria.

>>17777335
Or you can find someone who will make you happy and have a lower chance of divorce later down the line. These correlations arent bullshit ones like kids dying and ice cream sales. People with high school degrees only have a hard time coping with financial problems and other issues which lead to divorce. No amount of chemistry is going to trump that.

>>17777338
Not *all* people with high school degrees are like that, maybe you are with one who isn't.
You do not know. You cannot know. Marrying someone who has a low chance of divorce isn't a guarantee that you won't get divorced.
You're being unreasonable.

>>17777342
No one said anything about guarantees. Its about aiming for a stable life to have for you and more importantly your kids later down the line. They dont deserve to have to be involved with a divorce. Betting on a higher probability is the logical option.

>>17777345
Are you really unable to see how flawed is your line of reasoning?
Marriages don't fail just because people belong to a certain statistical group (married young, divorced parents, troubled sexual history, low education, low income, etc). Marriages fail because people from certain statistical groups tend to show certain character flaws that eventually make the marriage fail.
You do not marry a person without knowing them. If you did, I'd say you were right and the wisest choice was marrying someone you statistically wouldn't get divorced to.
But you get to know a person, and it is possible that even if they belong to one or more of the groups they do not have the character flaws that lead the marriage to failure.
Instead of thinking *her parents are divorced, she'll make a bad partner* you should think *her parents are divorced, I should be aware that she might have various emotional issues*. It is not granted that if you belong to a certain group you show those characteristics.

For example both my parents don't have a college education and they'd supposedly be more likely to divorce, but on the other hand my mom is a successful entrepreneur and my dad has a pretty stable and good career. We never had financial problems.

>>17777274
>this guy doesnt whore around. Must be because hes ugly

you just revealed what type of person you are and where your moral compass lies

never lie later in life and say that you are a moral and just person; just admit to being a shitty person

>>17777392
>Marriages fail because people from certain statistical groups tend to show certain character flaws that eventually make the marriage fail.
Exactly. And the probability is given based on the statistic. You seem to have a hard time understanding probability doesnt mean a guarantee.

>>17777485
Again, you get to know a person before marrying them.
If you know what kind of flaws cause marriages to fail and you actually get to know the other person before marrying them, you should be able to tell if they're a good partner or not in a much more safe way than a mere statistical evidence.
If you didn't get to know them at all, it would be reasonable to go for the statistics, but it isn't the case.

>F, 23, one partner

Not going to lie, I would not be thrilled to hear a guy say he had had something like fifteen partners, but it would not be an instant dealbreaker either.

Hard dealbreakers for me are;
>having assaulted someone sexually or heavy manipulation (actively getting someone very drunk so she might not say no, stuff like that)
>having been to a prostitute in a place where it's a no-brainer that she's a victim of human trafficking

In comparison I care less about the amount of partners. That changes once the number gets so high (say, thirty+ for an average looking guy) that it shows that he went out of his way to chase one night stands and invest a lot in that part of his life... which is still a bigger incompatibility than merely being more casual about who you sleep with in itself.

Would I prefer a partner with <5 partners? Absolutely. But I care about many other things so I cannot afford to make this a priority. Luckily I was his third for my one partner.

>>17777496
You keep saying get to know the person, but flaws that cause divorce are very tiny and build up over time. These things are hard to spot and show up only in hindsight after a VERY long time.
How do you know how well a person can cope with financial difficulties without putting them in a financially difficult spot. You dont. You only have probability to go off of. You seem to be under the impression that you can know how someones mind responds to stimuli down to a science and its laughably idealistic. The probability is honestly the best bet.
Now obviously there are mitigating factors that could effect how much the probability applies to a given person. So things outside of their control Id be more willing to take a harder look at their past actions to see if they really have gotten over whatever issue they have causes failed marriage. But that only applies variables that were outside of their control like divorced parents. So past actions that define them like criminal past or in this case a large number of partners is the only thing I need to know to access whether or not the probability applies to them.

File: michael.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>M, 23, forever alone, kissless, handholdless virgin.

If I were ever to be so lucky to even have a relationship, I doubt it would be possible with a chick who has had sex before.
I cannot relate to people who have experienced that side of life. That shit is fucking alien to me.

I have already come to accept the fact that I'll die alone. It is a shame though, because I like children, and would have liked to have some of my own. Loneliness is also something that rots away your will to live utterly.

Oh well, life isn't fair, and one can always just kill oneself once it becomes unbearable.

>>17777642
reading this post feels like im reading something i wrote myself but dont remember writing

>>17777642
For the record, just because a girl has not had sex doesn't mean at all that she went through your experiences or has the same stance on it.
You will never find another person who has lived exactly through your perception of your experiences, that's unavoidable. That doesn't mean you cannot relate in many different ways nonetheless.. it just won't magically match up.

>>17776523

>10+

Depends on her age.

>Where would you draw the line?

Let's say 2 partners per year, starting from age 18. It's hard to call hard and fast rules on it, but if she's 22 and she's fucked 20+ guys, that's just too many.

>Circumstances to overlook high partner count

It's completely in her past, I really like her, and most importantly she is disease-free.

>Partners, gender

2, male.

File: ok.png (246KB, 347x461px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 347x461px

>>17777665
I was simply saying that I can't relate to people who have had sexual experiences (outside of masturbation), because again, that aspect of life, romance, intimacy, sexual closeness with another person, is completely alien and foreign to me.

If I am with a group of people, and the discussion turns to sexual matters, I suddenly feel like a complete outsider, a fish out of water, because I can't relate to the subject at all.

Because of the above, I doubt that I'd be able to have a relationship with a girl who has had sexual experiences. There would simply be far too big of a rift between us.

>>17777686
I got you, I'm just saying that it's easy but often false to think that because someone is superficially in the same category means they experienced things the way you do. I was a virgin myself until ~two years ago but I did not feel the way about it that you do. I was used to guys showing interest in me and shooting them down (because that just happens more often for girls) and while I was inexperienced I did not feel alien to intimacy (in the broad sense) with other people or with experiencing romance.

Whether or not other people look at things in a similar way is much more complicated than you can tell from their "stats". You'd also be surprised how many (young) people who have had sex feel like they suck at it and don't know how to make it work physically with someone else. And then there's plenty of people who suck at it and don't even realize it yet until they have more life experience.

This might sound discouraging but the bottom line I wanted to provide you with is that you aren't cut off from the (once) sexually active part of the world as much as you think you are.

>>17777516

So, your dealbreaker is that he can't be a rapist?

I'd say that one's kind of a given.

>>17777706
Not a rapist but also not the kind of guy who thinks it's fine to grope random women at parties because they wear skimpy clothes or because he's drunk or whatever other excuse. That eliminates entire frat houses (not a big loss there, but still).

>>17777154

>Does oral count?

Why does this meme persist?

I mean, really. What, you'd be okay if she sucked 37 dicks so long as she'd only had vaginal sex with two people? You wouldn't consider it adultery if your gf/wife blew a guy but didn't let him put his penis in her vagina?

YES, ORAL SEX COUNTS.

>>17777712

Yeah, that's still sexual assault.

>>17777716
>You wouldn't consider it adultery if your gf/wife blew a guy but didn't let him put his penis in her vagina?
That makes no sense as an argument here, most people would consider kissing cheating too but that doesn't mean kissing is sex.

For the record I don't think oral sex doesn't count but it's a weird situation. I mean, if a guy told you that he'd had sex with a woman and you later found out that he went down on her and that was all, would you sincerely not consider him a virgin anymore?

>>17777705
> I was used to guys showing interest in me and shooting them down (because that just happens more often for girls)

That happens nearly exclusively to girls. Most guys don't get that sort of attention, ever in their whole lives.

>is that you aren't cut off from the (once) sexually active part of the world as much as you think you are.

Yes I am. I got no understanding of that shit, I do not know how to approach that subject even on a theoretical, mental level. It weirds me out, and makes me uncomfortable.

Honestly, I don't quite even care about sex in itself. I can satisfy that sort of needs via masturbation. What I long for is companionship, because my loneliness is becoming fucking unbearable. Too bad companionship and sexual stuff go hand in hand, and because of my total inexperience and alienation of the sexual sphere of human existence, companionship too seems to be fated to elude me.

But again, I can always kill myself once I can't take this shit anymore.

>>17777716
Oral sex doesnt count as sex but it still counts for a lot in the area of foreplay.
So if I had to choose between a girl who sucked 20 dicks but only had sex twice or a girl whos sucked 10 dicks and slept with 10 guys, Id take girl 1.

>>17777723

Okay, fair point on that.

But we're not really discussing virginity or infidelity, we're discussing sexual history. I mean, hell, one could argue that anal doesn't count as virginity-breaking, or that oral sex does count. (My view on virginity, hymens notwithstanding, is that it's about someone committing to sex out of desire rather than just penetration, which is why I don't consider people that have only fucked prostitutes to have REALLY lost their virginity. But I would consider your example to be someone who had basically lost his virginity.)

When you're talking about the sexual history of a person, though, oral sex absolutely counts, because it is a sexual activity.

>>17777745
I'm not arguing that it happens (often) to guys. But even if you find a girl who's a virgin, chances are that she experienced this and you did not, which means there's already a significant part of what you went through that she won't be able to relate to.
Besides, I'm guessing that you would like a girl who remained a virgin by choice and not because no one found her attractive, then this is even more likely.

What you are saying is that you have no understanding of sexuality itself. But plenty of people who have sex are fumbling their way through it and feel like they don't do well and they feel small and weird being in a sexual situation, at least on occasion.

What I'm saying is, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because you have no experience with this whatsoever, the people who do must all be experts who are completely unable to relate to being nervous, not knowing what to do, being afraid to bare yourself for someone else etc. And vice versa, don't think that just because a girl didn't kiss yet and didn't have sex she must know exactly what you went through. She won't. The ways in which we relate or cannot relate to other people are so much more intricate than just "you fucked so you're in team B, I didn't so I'm in team A".

>>17777750

Why does it bother you more that she put penises in her vagina rather than her mouth?

>>17777777

>>17777762
I am under no illusion that a girl could ever really relate to the utter loneliness I have felt for most of my life.
It comes with the nature of our species, that females get attention and people actively seeking their company basically from puberty and up, whereas males compete for the attention and companionship.

>>17777754
I do agree with most of what you said here, but still it seems less clear cut to me... oral yes/no is a simple enough distinction, but what about making out for hours while dryhumping and touching each other's clothed bodies? Is that less extreme/intimate than every possible scenario of oral sex?

Personally I think losing your virginity is about whether you know what it's like to be physically intimate with someone. I absolutely think you can lose that without penetration (I'd fall in that category - I have been held naked while someone whispered to me that he loved me and looked into his eyes while he was having an orgasm and holding my face, would I be a pristine virgin because he didn't stick his dick inside of me?? makes no fucking sense) but I don't think an isolated sex act is very exemplary of that. If you merely ate a woman out then you know what pussy's like more or less, but if you haven't held her, haven't smelled her body, haven't felt mutually engaged sexual interest...
But that's just my personal definition. I feel for yours as well, I have heard that before and I certainly think that for example someone who was raped can be a virgin in the sense that they have zero experience with opening themselves up to someone, inviting someone into their physical intimacy, taking that psychological leap. Not to mention you are not normally afraid and being attacked etc so it's not like you experienced what sex is really like.

I have read the suggestion to change it from losing virginity to "sexual debut" which I think is sensible in many ways because it places the focus more on the psychology, which it's ultimately about I think.

>>17777769
sex is more intimate than a blowjob. Id prefer neither, its just if I had to pick one.

>>17777754
>I don't consider people that have only fucked prostitutes to have REALLY lost their virginity.
Opinion into the trash

>>17776523
>For anyone who is not promiscuous (more than 5 partners)
Well, I am 20, only had 1 partner

>Would you consider dating someone with 10+ partners?
Sure. I would be on the watch-out though. Sex might not be important to them but it is to me so there might be a disconnect.

>Where would you draw the line (40, 600. etc)?
If the count doesn't effect libido health etc I don't care.

>Under what circumstances would you overlook a higher partner count?
See above

>How many partners do you have?
One.

>You can add your gender if you want.
I'M A FUCKING CIS MALE.

>>17776523
I'm a 22 year old virgin and ideally the only people she's slept with are those she was in a serious committed relationship with and if she's my age then the number shouldn't be more than 3-5 dudes, tops. I feel that I shouldn't be with someone who is much more sexually active and much less relationship centric than I am as it's unlikely we'd be compatible.

>be me
>fantasizing about qt I've been trying to bone for a while
>suddenly I'm replaced by the last guy she's fucked in my mind
>and then the one before that
>she's coming over later today
>disgusted at her lack of purity but still extremely attracted
>feel like a fucking jap

Fucking. I knew this chick when she was a kissless virgin, and a lot of my initial attraction was built up around that. When she got fucked it was a huge bummer, and it didn't get better when she fucked the next three guys. She's still smokin, and I'm gonna screw her, but it's not as good as it could've been and I'm definitely mad