Hugo Schwyzer explains why guys are so preoccupied with getting women’s sex stats—and why they should just let it go.
Judging from what I read online and hear from my students, the question of the “number” is as compelling as ever. This month, Marie Claire ran an article, “What’s Your Number?” in which five women (whose numbers ranged from zero to 100) told their stories. The March issue of Cosmopolitan Australia features the same discussion, noting that 59 percent of readers surveyed thought knowing a partner’s exact number was important, and that 33 percent of those same readers had lied about their own pasts, claiming fewer sexual partners than they’d actually had.
(A quick note: most people use “the number” to refer to the count of people with whom they’ve had heterosexual intercourse. Any kind of sex that doesn’t involve a penis inside a vagina usually “doesn’t count.” A lot of us are like Bill Clinton in that regard, not seeing oral sex as real sex. This is a very limited—and limiting—understanding of what sex really is. But that’s a topic for another day.)
♦◊♦
It’s understandable to be curious about the sexual lives of our peers. It makes sense to want to know what the averages are. (According to the experts at the Kinsey Institute, the average number of lifetime sexual partners for men aged 30 to 44 is around seven, while for women in that same age group, it’s four—both lower than you might think).
But the number has different meanings for men and women. The old double standard is still alive and well: a man with more
sexual partners than his buddies may be teasingly called a “man whore,” but the epithet is a compliment, not an insult. Ask a woman who has dared reveal her number to someone who considers it too high, and she’ll surely tell you a story of being “slut-shamed.”
It’s quite common for a guy to worry about a girlfriend’s sexual past. Too many men are still raised to see sex as crude competition, in which bedding a woman who has already had a lot of lovers counts less than scoring with a woman who is “hard to get.” But I think the average guy’s worry is simpler than that. The more men his girlfriend has slept with, the greater number of lovers to which she can compare his skills. It’s easier to win a contest against two than against 20, he figures. And even easier to rank first when he’s the only one to have ever played the game. No wonder so many men—in this country and around the world—are obsessed with finding a virgin.
This is the real reason why so many men get so filled with rage at sexually experienced women. And of course, it’s the real reason so many women feel compelled to lie about their number.
♦◊♦
Too many women have told their boyfriends their real number, only to be nagged incessantly for explicit details. (One friend of mine recounted to me in horror how her current boyfriend stopped one day in the middle of giving her oral sex to ask how his technique compared.) Other women find that their boyfriends endlessly psychoanalyze the reasons for a number that they think is too high: “Did you sleep with so many men because your father left you when you were a child?” (If I had a dollar for every woman I know who’s been asked that question, I could buy everyone reading this a Slurpee. Seriously.)
At this point, some men are probably protesting: “But I don’t slut-shame or endlessly analyze. For me, it’s not all about competing with other guys. Isn’t the number an important thing to know about someone you might be serious about? Isn’t it something I have a right to know?”
That sounds reasonable. But again, why is it so important to know an exact number? What difference does it make? Knowing whether a potential girlfriend has ever been in love before is important; discovering (slowly and patiently) how her past experiences have impacted her view of men (for better or worse) is important. But really, what’s the difference whether she’s slept with four or 14 men? She isn’t defined by her number—and if there’s a chance you might change how you see her when you discover the truth (should she tell you), why ask?
This has nothing to do, by the way, with asking about sexual health. It’s a great idea to talk about sexually transmitted infections; it’s a great idea for a new couple to get tested before having unprotected sex. We have a right to know if a potential partner has herpes. But the exact number itself is altogether different.
♦◊♦
I lost my virginity at 17 to my high-school girlfriend. She was a year younger but much more sexually experienced. She was my first for anything that went below the waist; I was the fifth guy she’d had sex with. I’d asked her number, of course, and then fought hard not to obsess about the four boys who had “been there” before me. But I saw the pain my questions caused her. And I came to realize that it didn’t matter.
I don’t know my wife’s number. I’ve never asked her. She’s never asked for mine. I know enough from the stories she’s told to know that there was more than one guy before me; she knows enough about my past to figure out that she can’t count my lovers on her fingers. Beyond that, we—who have shared so much sexually and emotionally in our nine years as a couple, six years as spouses, and two years as parents together—don’t need to know more specifics.
When we’re in a monogamous relationship, what we have a right to insist on is that no names get added to the list after our own. It doesn’t matter if I’m number five or 55. I’ll be crushed if my wife adds a number six or a 56 behind my back.
But the right to ask to be last is not the same as the right to know how far we are from the first. And for me, part of being a good man is knowing what I don’t need to know.
♦◊♦
Other Stories From the Good Men Project Magazine:
Men and the Sexualization of Young Girls
♦◊♦
Husband Confronts Abortion Protesters [VIDEO]
♦◊♦
Why Don’t Men Initiate Divorce?
♦◊♦
Red-Hot Monogamy
♦◊♦
Marriage: Just Don’t
♦◊♦
The Prostitute Who Saved My Relationship
♦◊♦
Are Men Natural-Born Cheaters?
♦◊♦
What Your Marriage Needs to Survive
♦◊♦
—Photo by eflon/Flickr
About Hugo Schwyzer
It depends on your age and thus yur maturity level. I never asked a girl’s “number” until my first wife. That was a huge mistake. She was a musician and a musician groupie. Her number was large. I felt like Bobby Murcer replacing Mickey Mantle in the Yankees CF in 1969. I was 26 years old at the time, she was 23.
When I met my second wife, three years ago, I was determined to correct as many of my past mistakes. I was 37, she was 30. She asked for my past so I was honest. She was honest with hers. Our numbers were identical. Neither of us were ever diseased. Three years later, I never think about her number or anyone before me. I only see future.
Urgh…I just re-read my post, and I realize I come across as a rape hysterical person, and I’m actually not. My main point, Hugo, is that your statement is inflammatory and just so misinformed….I don’t believe that men are in a rage at sexually experienced women. I just don’t believe that men are these biologically angry sexually frustrated out-of-control people
You don’t come across as hysterical, and it didn’t sound ot me that rpae was what you were angry at. It sounded ot me like you were calling Hugo on a some biased and shaky assumptions, and he probably appreciates that.
Actually, yeah, you do come across as pretty hysterical. I mean, how the hell else did you get all this “sexually enraged” stuff form Hugo’s piece?
By which I mean the claim that Hugo describes *all* men as “sexually enraged”, when in fact he merely observes that a significant number of men are. (Yeah, I know, I screwed that up pretty badly.)
“Filled with rage?” That’s just ridiculous.
I asked for my wife’s number. Hell, I asked for the number of every girl I’ve ever been with. And if they asked for mine (my wife never has), I told them the honest truth. Maybe it’s the reporter in me but I want to know everything about the person I’m with if I’m going to get even remotely serious. And I’m not about to feel guilty for asking because there is nothing wrong with that.
The number isn’t going to tell you everything about the other person, but it is revealing on some fronts. And I’m someone who is an open book. I don’t get “filled with rage” about a woman’s high number, and I don’t lie about my own. I would think a full disclosure policy in any relationship is a good thing, but your assertion is it’s none of my business, it doesn’t matter and I’m a hypocritical and insecure jerk for even asking.
I don’t think so.
If not asking important questions about your dating prospects makes you a good man, well…that’s great for you I guess. But I don’t think asking/not asking that question has any bearing on our status as “good men.”
You think it’s ridiculous, but you haven’t walked in my shoes. At a time when I was actively dating, a remember a guy being really pushy and inquisitive about my number. When I revealed it, he then blurted out, “So you kinda a slut.” I just stood there in shock for a min. He then proceeded to try to get to me to come to his house ‘cus of course I have no standards and will sleep with anyone… WTF…
And when I told him to get lost he gets all butt hurt and proceeds to call me names and waive his arms around in a threatening manner in my face until a bouncer threw him out of the club.
If I had a dime for every time I encountered a version of these events I’d be a rich woman. In my experience, revealing the number *always* changes the dynamic and has never been positive.
Don’t let it bother you, they’re are lots of other guys in line waiting their turn.
Two answers aren’t there? The obvious is that if he’s so certain that ‘a slut’ will want it with him then he’s obvious the kind of man to want sluts – so what does it say about a man who thinks he’s only fit for women he regards as ‘sluts’?
The less obvious is that it can make a difference according to how people treat it just because women have made such an issue of being the sexless innocent making this sacrifice to please the man (and shouldn’t he be grateful!) instead of equal friends enjoy making love together just the same as anything else together. Nobody likes to feel used, so promiscuous just out for thrills re no different from promiscuous men – but women have built a stronger tradition of caution than men because men do not risk pregnancy, cannot be forced into painful sex for the woman’s relief and are generally more capable of forcing sex further than a woman enjoys or fighting her off if she tries to. So women follow most female mammals in being selective first, where males respond to any chance but select second (if at all).
A promiscuous woman is not bothered about getting sex wherever it’s available – so when one stays as a friend whether there’s sex or not, it is a ‘feather in the cap’ that she must be finding something more than she could get with any man anywhere anytime! Every woman has a vagina, every man a penis and everybody knows the different kinds of orgasm. So is somebody unconcerned about getting them anywhere keeps coming back to you, there must be something her others can’t offer that you are doing right!
I don’t see why this is slander. Maybe you could add a concrete conclusion and present a coherent, cohesive argument instead of quoting from various articles written by Hugo Schwyer on this site?
I totally agree with you Liz. All men are rapists and pedophiles… except around the females in their family. What could possibly be slanderous about stating such a self-evident truth?
Carlos, that is probably the best use of satire I have seen this year….excellent job
(yes Im serious, no that wasnt sarcasm)
At the risk of sounding old-fashioned, I believe your virginity is a gift to be given to your wife and wife alone. If this was the goal, none of this mental torment would ever plague you to begin with. That’s what sets the bar high- that’s where the true focus should lie.
American society at large doesn’t put a premium on male purity. You don’t see Mother-Son purity balls do you?
I’ve never heard of a father-son purity ball. It must some small town traditionalist thing because in most urban centers promiscuous women are highly valued. Virgins aren’t popular in Hollywood, it’s quite the opposite.
You can’t pin the blame on “American society” for some insignificant religious practice.
I don’t think there has ever been such a thing… which is why I was pointing it out. Even in religious spheres there is a sexual double standard.
Even? They are are where you would expect to find this kind of BS more than anywhere else. That worldview can’t survive without compartmentalization.
But you kinda make it sound like you think those freaks and deviants are mainstream.
Mother -Son Purity Balls focus on the son pledging to not take another man’s wife’s virginity. How’s that for twisted?
Isn’t it important to consider what acts are included in “the number?” I think most people only count PIV sex, when there is a much wider range of sexual activities people engage in. Asking “how many different dicks have been inside your vagina” won’t get you the whole story about a person’s sexual history, but it’s the only thing that seems to matter to people (which is not to say I think any of it should necessarily matter at all).
This reminds me of Clerks, in which Dante and Veronica ask each other’s numbers. Dante says he’s slept with 12 women. Veronica says she’s slept with (i.e., had PIV sex with) only 3 guys, which Dante is okay with until he finds out she’s gone down on 37 guys.
I heard of the calculation from a movie which escapes me- when a man says his number, one should divide it by half, when a woman says, times it by 2… or 3…
lol
That was American Pie, or possibly 2. It’s the “rule of three”. Whatever number a guy says,divide by 3 (round up). Whatever numbe a girl says, multiply by 3.
A.Y.Siu: I was about to post the link to the Clerks clip. It absolutely fits here!
“Try not to suck any dick on your way through the parking lot!”
Rage is certainly an unfair mischaracterization of male insecurity. Perhaps Hugo should learn to use a dictionary and re-evaluate if his motivations are to help men or to mischaracterize and insult men.
Numbers do matter to some extent. The small numbers discussed in this article seem quite normal to me, but if they were significantly higher then a man must consider that his potential GF has a history of short term unstable relationships and possibly one night stands.
Asking to be compared to previous partners is a huge mistake. Unconsciously, this is telling a women that he feels unworthy and that puts him at a disadvantage in maintaining his status. It must be quite annoying for someone to constantly be feeding another’s fragile ego. Women like confident men.
Virgins are at the opposite end of the spectrum, but they’re not very popular compared to more experienced women. A virgin will also have insecurity problems and will need constant guidance and reassurance. Insecure and inexperienced women are just plain boring.
Quantity matters only to the extent that it reveals past relationship patterns and sexual maturity. Quality is important. Revealing your insecurities is just bad game.
How does a high number mean immaturity? Would you say the same of men?
So a guy who was a playboy in his 20s can never been seen as mature? He can’t ‘grow up’ so to speak.
This is what you seem to be saying about women. That if they have had one nights stands they must be immature and incapable of eventually having a long term meaningful relationships.
I didn’t say a high number indicates immaturity, virginity indicates sexual immaturity.
You sure have an active imagination.
You could change the genders and my opinion would be exactly the same. I’m not a feminist, because I believe in equality.
Are you cyber-stalking me? Cute, but I’m not interested.
“The small numbers discussed in this article seem quite normal to me, but if they were significantly higher then a man must consider that his potential GF has a history of short term unstable relationships and possibly one night stands.”
So what if she has one night stands? This doesn’t mean jack shit if one day she decides she wants to have a relationship. Having one night stands doesn’t make one less capable of relationships.
This statement is a euphemistic way of saying “You can’t make a ho into a housewife.”
OH and BTW: Code Purple, White, Tan. How do you like them apples?
No, IMO one-night stands are a sign of low quality for men and women and sure indicator of infidelity.
Take your chances if you want, but I have high standards.
I just don’t see how having a high number of partners logically equates to being a risk factor for cheating. I just don’t buy it.
If anything, someone who say gets married early and ‘passes up’ on a lot of partners before settling down with one and experimentation might be more of a risk to seek some variety they didn’t partake in prior to the union.
You can choose to disagree and you can have all the one night stands you want.
I don’t do one night stands or associate with low quality types that do one stands. If somebody is willing to quickly jump in bed with a stranger for easy sex, I don’t see what would stop them from cheating if they had an easy opportunity.
It’s only my opinion about how I choose those that I associate with. My body, my choice.
So you’re saying… sexually experience = low quality person. Right. Of course it’s your body and your choice… so as a man should be respected… but when a woman makes a choice about her body… it’s your right to judge her.
Thanks for exposing yourself as the out and out misogynist you are. Stop all this Mens Rights bullshit and fess up.
“sexually experience = low quality person”
No, I didn’t say that at all. One-night stands=low quality person.
That’s my opinion for both men and women, so take your accusation and shove it.
Well spoken Denis
“I’m not a feminist, because I believe in equality.”
Funniest comment in this thread.
What about anarcha-feminists?
I agree with Denis that “Quantity matters only to the extent that it reveals past relationship patterns and sexual maturity.” (Not sure about sexual maturity, though.) If I were with someone who said “At the college I went to, we were in and out of each other’s beds all the time” (in fact I did read that on an Internet board) I wouldn’t be put off, but I’d want to know it. It’s a part of the partner’s past, something that’s made them who they are. But the exact number, I’ve never cared about that. I suppose if someone had lots of experience, we could ask “So, anything really good that you’d like to share?” Of course, the tactful answer would be “No need to tell you anything”! But if someone were just coming off a period of promiscuity, then I might be inclined to say they we could talk about our plans when they’ve settled down for a while.
If someone hasn’t had many sexual partners, then most likely each one is a phase in their life. Each one would have some importance, if you really know that person.
Once again, we’re being told that “the average number of lifetime sexual partners for men aged 30 to 44 is around seven, while for women in that same age group, it’s four”. Maybe the guys have had younger lovers, whose own numbers will soon show up–or someone’s fibbin’.
These numbers don’t make sense. How can they have higher numbers for men and lower… it takes TWO to tango. Someone is lying. Or under or overreporting. Unless there are a bunch of dudes engaged in a lot of gay sex we just don’t know about…
…or over 44 year old cougars are getting lots of action with young guys.
Actually, it turns out that everyone is lying. Strap everyone into a lie detector and men’ll come down a bit, and women’ll go up a fair bit (so 7 and 4 means about 6, across the board.)
The number make sense there are a few women that are so over the top promoiscous they drive the numbers way up. An example would be the drunk party girl that lets multiple men mount her every weekend for years.
No some women are just very promiscuous driving up the number and these are these are the women I want to avoid.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing that a man has a certain expectation concerning the number of bed mates he desires his female companion to have, with in logical reason. There is a big difference between being a man who wouldn’t want to be with a woman who had accrued many bed mates (personal preference) vs. putting women down for accruing bed mates by using shaming language (something that appears to be done with more regularity then any other name calling in our culture). And that’s my only real problem here. You can very much be a man that wants a partner that had less sexual partners then not. Especially if you are a man that hasn’t had that many sexual partners yourself, otherwise you’re a hypocrite. But when you start putting women down that have had more sexual partners, just because it doesn’t agree with what you personally want from a woman, that’s a problem.
I try to take my relationships on a case by case basis. But I’m not sure I would want to be with a man who had accrued many bed partners. For one, it signals that he might have an inability to control his more base impulses. For another, he might have a roving eye and not be able to feel fulfilled with one partner. For another, he just might objectify women. Then again, each circumstance are different and maybe at one time he had many bed partners but now has figured out what’s important. Who knows. All I’m saying is that I do sometimes evaluate men based on their bed partners. And I don’t blame men who do the same. I however take heart to the name calling and shaming language used to bring women down for enjoying their sexuality. And I think that’s breed out of male insecurity and fear of competition like Hugo said.
Can somebody explain to me what is really the problem here? The only problem I see is if women are criticised with regards to their sexual past. Whom we chose to invite to bed is a matter entirely left up to us. The dating market isn’t fair.
Also I have to ask the author. Would he even bat an eye at an analogous situation? Women saying things like the 25 year old virgin not being relationship material, since there has to be something wrong with him.
Schwyzer asks men to stop “slut shaming” women, and in the very next breath he slut shames mehn.
“… the average number of lifetime sexual partners for men aged 30 to 44 is around seven, while for women in that same age group, it’s four …”
He defines sex as heterosexual penetrative intercourse, and note that men have an average of 7 partners. Given his defeinition, every act experienced by a man is also experienced by some woman. It follows by simple math, and the equal number of women and men, that women also have an average of 7 partners.
Schwyzer establishes a double standard for both mathemtatics and morality in just one sentence. Quite a feat, even for a feminist.
I’m probably wasting my time here, but no, God, no, that’s not what slut-shaming is at all.
Also, there are lots of variables—one commenter mentioned older men/younger women, for example—that could’ve produced the Kinsey stat. It’s not at all illogical.
What’s really illogical is … eh, forget it.
It wouldn’t even have to be a matter of older men with younger women.
Antz, lets take a mathematical approach to this shall we?
Lets use a case study of 7 men and 7 women.
Lets call the men: Bob, Chris, Jack, Dean, Rich, Mark and Ken
Lets call the women: Betty, Jessica, Kristen, Tara, Amy, Erin and Carolyn
Lets say:
Bob sleeps with Betty, Jessica, Kristen, Tara and Amy.
Chris sleeps with Betty and Amy.
Jack sleeps with Kristen and Carolyn
Dean sleeps with Erin
Rich sleeps with Betty, Jessica and Tara
Mark sleeps with Tara, Amy and Carolyn
Ken sleeps with Amy and Carolyn.
Which means:
Betty slept with Bob, Chris and Rich
Jessica slept with Bob and Rich
Kristen slept with Bob and Jack
Tara slept with Bob and Mark
Erin slept with Dean
Amy slept with Bob, Chris, Mark and Ken
Carolyn slept with Mark and Ken
Which further means:
Bob had 5 sexual partners
Chris had 2 sexual partners
Jack had 2 sexual partners
Dean had 1 sexual partner
Rich had 3 sexual partners
Mark had 3 sexual partners
Ken had 2 sexual partners
Betty had 3 sexual partners
Jessica had 2 sexual partners
Kristen had 2 sexual partners
Tara had 2 sexual partners
Erin had 1 sexual partner
Amy had 4 sexual partners
Carolyn had 2 sexual partners
Which further means:
18 total sexual partners for the men
16 total sexual partners for the women.
So as you can see by my very logical math above, you would be wrong.
Futher, what the author said was that “most people” define sex as heterosexual penetrative intercourse. And that anything outside of that isn’t consider the complete sexual experience for “most people’; so people are more likely to leave out their numbers when it comes to people they might have only kissed, fondled, given oral to or any other number of acts that don’t concern heterosexual penetrative intercourse. It’s misrepresentitive of you to twist the author’s words and claim that*he* defines it as such when he is clearly explaining how must people preceive the importance and hiarchy of their own sexual experiences.
Lets say:
Bob sleeps with Betty, Jessica, Kristen, Tara and Amy.
Chris sleeps with Betty and Amy.
Jack sleeps with Kristen and Carolyn
Dean sleeps with Erin
Rich sleeps with Betty, Jessica and Tara
Mark sleeps with Tara, Amy and Carolyn
Ken sleeps with Amy and Carolyn.
Which means:
Betty slept with Bob, Chris and Rich
Jessica slept with Bob and Rich
Kristen slept with Bob and Jack
Tara slept with Bob and Mark ^^^ AND RICH ^^^
Erin slept with Dean
Amy slept with Bob, Chris, Mark and Ken
Carolyn slept with Mark and Ken ^^^ AND JACK ^^^
Why would you even try this? Did you think Iwould not catch you?!? I know twisting data is a big feminist pass time, but you should learn a better argument.
You COULD argue that men like to sleep with older women, who are over 44 years old, so that the young group up to 44 would be show more sex partners for men than women.
However, this is disingenious. For a 4 to 7 ratio, you would have to have a case where young men harvest half of their sex partners from the cougar pool, and young women never, ever, ever date older men. Not a very reasonable assumption.
The only reasonable conclusion is more feminist lies. As usual.
Alex, you are right. My own math was wrong! I should have thought it out better. I appreciate you pointing out my mistake. I however don’t appreciate you acting like I purposely lied. I made a mistake and you could have pointed out the flaw in my thinking without accusing me of something untrue. Thanks.
I did not act like you purposely fabricated your data. I plainly sated it in no uncertain terms. I stand by my statement.
Given that your two “omissions” involved the last two men on your first list, paired with the last and next to last possible women on your second list, I think the evidence speaks for itself. To identify your fraud, I would have to check every single entry. This suggests an attempt to conceal your fraud, which suggests intent.
Women may use their number to keep each other in check only insofar as it matters to men. Women self-police so that they can find a mate, not just for themselves. Feminists stop doing such things when they realize how destructive they are.
The number of men a woman has been with has absolutely nothing to do with her chances of being faithful, for those here who seem so sure it does. The almighty penis isn’t so irresistible that we can’t control ourselves when a fresh one comes along. There are many, many reasons why a woman might have higher numbers. Being too busy for a long term relationship, serial monogamy, liking sex but also liking her freedom, being EVEN MORE selective about who she’s going to settle down with, as opposed to sleep with, just off the top of my head. Many of us with high numbers want more out of life than the white picket fence and 2.5 kids, but we aren’t going to be nuns until we find Mr. Right. If anything, when we decide to settle down with a man he can be pretty sure that he checks all the right boxes because we know what’s out there.
A better question to ask is how many partners your partner (goes for men and women) has cheated on, but good luck getting anything other than “none” out of them.
No, nothing about what she said was irrational. And even if someone judges someone else by their past actions…. the only past action that would be relevant is if the person cheated on someone before.
Well you’ll be happy to know that I’m adamantly CF, so paternity fraud would never have entered the picture. And a number says very little about past behavior without context, which is why “the number” is irrational. I just so happen to be one of those women who likes sex but likes freedom as well. It’s the very rare man who can handle a long term relationship with a woman who A: is independent B: is intelligent and C: expects 50% representation in the relationship. Throw on top of that not wanting kids and you’ve got a recipe for single womanhood. (Not to mention mutual attraction)
In my 43 years I’ve met 2 men that qualified. The first I was married to for ten years and we parted as friends. As a matter of fact I still do freelance work for the company that he runs. The second is my current boyfriend who, BTW, isn’t the least bit threatened by my friendship with my ex nor my high number. He’s never even asked but he knows I’m sexually experienced. It just doesn’t matter. That’s where the viewing each other as equals comes in. Until you can do this you will be locked in an “arms race” with potential partners.
I’m not at all confused. Women with high numbers of sexual partners are a pretty new thing, as the risk/cost of pregnancy has only been reduced in recent history. What you’re referring to is the “cuckold”, which refers to a woman conceiving with a man other than her husband then fooling the man into raising and supporting the offspring. Lest we overlook it, women have been historically viewed as property, or chattel. It’s about ownership. The slut-shaming has nothing to do with the woman being a cheater. The implication is that she’s “dirty” or “used”. Men want “value for their money”, the “new car smell”, if you will.
By “womaniser” does she mean that you have had a certain number of partners? Or did she mean that you have a particular approach to dating? After all, “womaniser” suggests someone who has a casual, unemotional, hunt-and-dump approach to sexual relationships.
And of course “the number” means exactly what you want it to mean. If a man has three partners in one month, is that the same as having three in twenty years? Is five partners too many? How about ten? What if they were all meaningful relationships instead of one-night stands?
“The number of men a woman has been with has absolutely nothing to do with her chances of being faithful, for those here who seem so sure it does.”
I’d actually like to see this tested, to be honest, God knows how you’d get anything approaching accurate data though…
All of the above is probably true, but I’d like to add another perspective.. It is my impression that it may be instinctive for males to prefer to invest all their child rearing resources in the success of their own genetic offspring. This, of course. would be only one of many instinctive ‘force vectors’ that yield final behavioral preferences. Child adoption is a behavior to aid the larger gene pool when direct descendants are recognized to be a very low possibility. Even pet care aids the even wider gene pool. (pet owners prefer puppies over tarantulas.)
Antz: “I did not act like you purposely fabricated your data. I plainly sated it in no uncertain terms. I stand by my statement.
AntZ, you post under two different names then? AlexNY and AntZ?
At this point, you’re purposefully being belligerent and petty with your own personal ill intent.
Stand by your statement all you want despite it’s wrongness. I’ve said what I needed to say. I am smart enough ,and I think other posters are smart enough, to see the sincerity in my comments.
I’m glad you pointed out my incorrect math. And I happily admitted that I was the wrong one when I tried to mathematically figure it out. The only way I am going to grow as a person is if I can admit when I’m wrong and learn from it. But for you to sit there and maliciously act like I purposely lied, after I admitted my mistake, that’s just plain deceitful, petty and mean spirited. The big difference between yourself and me Antz, or AlexNY, is that I can admit when I was wrong and you can’t. I think you’re a person that is so deeply buried in their own anger, hurt and pain; that there isn’t much more room for graciousness or understanding.
Tying up the loose ends:
1) I think people inadvertently use the words average, mean and median as synonyms. They are not. It is distinctively possible for the men who are having a ton of sex to drag up the median number.
2) One of the biggest reasons behind the double standard of numerous sex partners is that it’s easier for women. A) An average-looking woman who just wanted a good roger-ing could go to a club (likely get in for free and have a certain % of her beverages paid for, if she so chose) and go home with a fellow. B) Even a good-looking guy has to put in some work (unless he lucks into meeting this jackpot). C) A gal, if she’s feeling a little freaky-deaky, can take on several dudes in a night and even Dave Navarro could probably only bust out a small handful in a 12-hour period.
3) Outside of the inevitable comparisons about sexual process (re: girth), one of the worries, for a fellow, about a lady with a lot of partners is that she may be incredibly hard to please or looking for something perfect. A lot of sex partners COULD mean a lot of boyfriends. And, if she’s cool enough for you to date, she could have dated a lot of other cool dudes and given them the old heave-high. The inadequacy could be global, not just between the sheet (or in the shower, if you’re lucky). Conversely, if she’s dated a bunch of douchers, it’s possible that she’s continuing that trend with us.
4) Having multiple one-night stands could mean personality problems (re: daddy went away issues). If done, compulsively, probably something is up. But you can likely say the same about any compulsion. And, frankly, I’ve never been able to get a firm grasp on what determines character. Is it genetic? Is it learned? Is it a function of willpower? Is willpower genetic or learned? If I’m nice to people, loyal to a fault, generally tell the truth, pay my taxes, give to charity, help people move but sort of enjoy sex with multiple partners, do I have a low character? I agree that it’s probably a good idea to wait to have sex with someone. The bio-chemical-emotional aspect of PintoV is not to be under-estimated. Biochemically, it likely hits women harder but that could just be anecdotal evidence. Plenty of ladies have had some killer sex with a guy who is swoll (slang for muscular) but regret developing feelings for him because that swoll is just a physical manifestation of his narcissism. And lots of dudes lament the nights of great sex they’ve had with “fun” chicks because they had to move or change a phone number because she’s batshit crazy.
5) There’s a theory somewhere that too many different wangs will wear out a lady’s business parts. Is it crazy? Yes. Do you want to take the chance that it’s true?
6) There’s a weird, reptilian part of us that assume that a woman with many partners will have had many babies that could take the resources necessary for your offspring.
7) Most of us are trying our best and our insecurities, prejudices and misconceptions blow certain things out of proportion. It’s seldom that someone is out to bamboozle or harm us (intentionally). To paraphrase Hugo, it would be colossal bummer if the love of your life’s number were to grow after you’re added to the tally.
No, Tom, “it” is not easier for women, if by “it” you mean, finding a sexual partner who you are attracted to and feel safe going home with, intending to have a good time. Any man who is just looking for something slippery can find that, too.
The thought processes you mention are probably pretty common, but there’s still all pretty stupid, and all based in the idea that sex is a) degrading to women and b) a competition between men – that is, between you and every other man she’s had sex with. Does that really sounds like a healthy attitude, or one you’d enjoy inflicting on your partner?
I agree with your comments mythago. I have to add that I found number 5 particularly humours. Trying to “scare” women into not having many sex partners for fear of wearing out her lady parts? That sounds like the old wives tales parents use to tell their son’s about masturbation to scare them into not playing with themselves.
I I would say the old wives tale regarding masturbation had to do with puritanical beliefs based on Bible passages and misunderstanding.
Comments telling women that they shouldn’t practice too much sex because it destroys their lady parts is oppression of women sexuality. Just as old wives tales of parents telling their sons not to masturbate for fear of it falling off was oppression of male sexuality. Lets be intellectually honest and admit that both gender’s play their games in trying to control the other’s sexuality. Sometimes these mechanisms are for the good of society. Sometimes it’s good that both men and women have to operate under certain rules to make themselves more desirable to the other gender because it makes us better partners when we have to compromise. But sometimes it’s unhealthy and purposely misleading to our personal sexuality. And if men really want us to believe that too much sex wears out our bits so why would we even risk it as Tom suggest? Then he just gave women another excuse not to have too much sex with their own husbands or boyfriends either. Tom and his suggestion is shooting himself in the foot with that one.
Old wives’ tales? it sounds more like the kind of things ignorant teenagers sit around and tell one another about sex to convince one another they’re more experience than they really are.
I couldn’t have said it better myself, Erin!
“No, Tom, “it” is not easier for women, if by “it” you mean, finding a sexual partner who you are attracted to and feel safe going home with, intending to have a good time. Any man who is just looking for something slippery can find that, too.”
I’d imagine it’s much easier, on average, for a woman, whereas an equivalent man would need several times as much effort for anything close to the same result.
This is another one of those things they really should test, actually…
“It” isn’t a lot easier for women, but many men don’t want to admit that for some reason. I guess they don’t talk to many women, or they’d have heard the frustration of the Plain Jane who gets treated like furniture.
Anyone who is simply looking for something warm and wobbly can get some. When you start imposing standards – like “someone I find attractive” or “somebody who appears to be interested in me other than as a kind of animated sex toy”, then the pool gets smaller.
I would like to take you up on this. Can you find my balding, 5″4 350 pound, unemployed male friend a lay?
I don’t think guys count their or their lovers activities.
I think only bad insecure lovers do.
I agree. Knowing how your partner behaved in the past matters, but the actual number? And how are you going to react if she says “I lost count”?
Great post. Can’t believe some of the commentary here from some of the clueless men.
Just so you know, I’m posting under a pseudonym. This is true, though:
One key thing is that a lot of people go through a brief stage of having a lot of partners. I’m 32, and I’ve had sex with 38 guys in my life. (Sex defined as heterosexual intercourse, the number is hgihter if you want to count other things.) But 33 of those were guys I slept with when I was a wild child in college. I had slept with two guys before coming to college and then have only slept with three guys (including my husband) in the ten years since I graduated.
My husband asked my number when we were dating, and I told him. His number is lower than mine (26), but he had spaced those out over much more time. The point is, that it’s possible to get a high number in a brief period because of a phase you’re going through. It says very little about who you will end up being.
We’ve been married five faithful years with our second child on the way.
You still don’t get it. Just examine the title “Why Does It Matter How Many Partners She’s Had?”
SHE.
Left unsaid is, it is perfectly OK for women to consider the number of partners HE has had.
I don’t care what my wife’s “number” is. I never asked. Mine is 4 — or 5 if you count non-consensual encounters. Many women consider that a problem — any man with such a “low” number must have something wrong with him.
Double standards, as usual.
AntZ,
“Many women consider that a problem — any man with such a “low” number must have something wrong with him.”
Some women…Not all women. You are married, so it does’t seem to apply to your wife and there are women who it would not matter too.
“Hey, has anyone else noticed that the OP on another post talks about mutilating his penis so he could give his wife “something new”?”
Is this on his website? I read there sporadically given time limitations, so if it is posted there, I’ve never seen it. I doubt I would understand the behavior behind it either, but I haven’t read the post either.
@Karen
I was not criticising women. I was criticising a one-sided article that addresses men who discriminate against women, while excusing women who discriminate against men in exactly the same way. Even the title is discriminatory.
In a world where the problems and suffering of women are endlessly hyped while the problems and suffering of men are invisible, this is just more of the same. Sexist, misandrist, anti-male propaganda, which has no place on “the good man project.”
When is “the good man project” going to address the problems of men? Men have a virtual monopoly on suffering and misery. Men are the vast majority of murder victims, suicide victims, prison inmates, drug addicts, homeless, insane, HS dropouts, assault victims — the list goes on forever, ending with the biggest item of all: men are 95% of the victims of biased family courts that presume that all women are fit parents and all men are unfit.
Where does the article say “But hey, guys, if she wants to judge you based on your number, that’s perfectly all right”?
I hope that my observations are skewed and that it is not a fact. But in my experience most women consider men with a low number problematic.
One reason is that they lack experience and thus do not know how to satisfy a woman.
Another is that since everyone gets laid from time to time the man with the low number must be defective. So I would say, ‘the number’ works both ways. All though it seems that this is only a problem when women are afflicted.
You’re right, AntZ – it’s totally unconscionable for Hugo to have omitted gay men like that.
See, perhaps I got lost on my way to the wiki here, but I was under the impression this was the Good Men Project: that the author was talking to, and about, men, and not addressing women. (Anecdotally, I’ve rarely heard of a woman caring about “the number”. I’m sure they exist, but part of the cultural double standard is that it’s not only considered normal, but expected, for men to sleep around.)
Regarding your last paragraph, I’m pretty sure the project takes submissions from anyone, and it would be great if you contributed to the discussion on those issues.
The author is male, so of course he’s speaking in “a male voice”. Confused now…
It would be fair to do as you propose: both men and women would evaluate the fitness of possible future partners based on their past behavior.
It would also be fair if neither men nor women did this.
Either way works for me. What is not fair is the author’s thesis: men who evaluate women based on their “number” are rage filled pigs, but women who do the same are just being prudent. Typical social double standard.
Yeah Rumspringa, because men that are mechanics, plumbers, landscapers, Red Lobster waiters or janitors never ever ever get married or have girlfriends. The only men in the world that ever have girlfriends or wives are doctors and CEOs. *insert sarcasm here*.
You have the right to desire any number of qualities in a partner, bed partners numbers or not. But no man has the right to demean or degrade women just because he doesn’t like her numbers. Men often use name calling to shame women into behaving in ways that best benefits a man.
Do you know there is a biological need for a woman to both find a mate with the best genes AND a mate that will be the best provider. Sometimes this isn’t the same man. So biologically it’s in her best interest to find both of these aspects even if they come from different men. But morally it’s pretty disgusting to have one man’s off spring while letting another man take on as provider. Argue “biology” all you want but many other factors are always at play. Just because it’s biologically sound for a woman to find both a mate with good genes AND a good provider, even if these aspects don’t come from the same man, doesn’t mean that the way she goes about to accomplish these biological goals are ultimately that healthy.
I don’t have anything against men that want a partner with low numbers. But I sure dislike arguments about “biology”. Usually because biology is SO much more complicated then the pop culture biology we are fed and use to justify our actions for.
Rumspringa, I understand that you were trying to make an “oh yeah? well bitches suck too” kind of comment, but….I don’t know how to tell you this, you’re actually saying something feminists agree with. In a sexist world, where women aren’t supposed to make more money than their husbands or have a more prestigious career (emasculating, ladies!), and a woman’s status emanates from her husband – of course a woman is going to judge a potential mate on his earning capacity and prestige, just as you would judge a potential employer on those criteria.
Mythago
Can you please explain Gloria Steinem?
She made quite the decent career on her own, even touted marriage as a patriarchal trap designed to enslave women. Seems, when she found the right billionaire she had no problem accepting that same institution. So I would say that feminists don’t seem to have that big a problem with women marrying up.
Hmmm, I’ve never questioned my wife or any prior partners about their “number” I guess I didn’t get that memo. Is someone now going to come and revoke my “guy card”?
I have, however, disclosed my own number to partners who asked. Why they desperately needed to know is beyond me, but ummm, okay. While SOME other men might think high numbers are some great accomplishment for men while treating women like sluts for also having many partners, there are also SOME women who will treat a man like garbage for the very same thing, without bothering to even care about the circumstances and motivations.
Forgive me for doing the same thing that SOME female rape survivors also do while trying to take back control – sexual grieving via promiscuity. After being raped, my own period of promiscuity was fortunately brief enough at 2 years. However, I took a great deal of dangerous risks, such as sleeping with married women (who initiated the encounters), etc. I’ve judged myself enough for this, but you’d be surprised how many women see fit to use the same as a reason to commit secondary wounding against rape survivors, not to mention knuckle-dragging alpha male wannabes.