She’s A Nice Place To Visit… Revisited

The male readers here should understand that there’s a difference between a woman who has had a lot of sex partners, and a woman who is unloyal.
Having had a lot of sex partners doesn’t mean she cheated on anyone she was in a relationship with. It’s possible that each partner was devoted a segment of her life that she was dedicated to trying to make it work with them, even if that segment of her life was only a few weeks long. And if the latter is true, look for signs that she’s making progress and effort towards longer and more engaging relationships with men.
If disloyalty is what you’re on the lookout for, evaluate that based on the attention and care she pays to you over time, not on the stripped-down number of men she’s had sex with. As a woman in her late 20s who’s slept with over 20 men and had only 1 one-night-stand in her life, I think it’s important to make this distinction.
Athol:  Imagine for a moment that instead of that being your sexual history, that was your employment history, and your potential future husband was in fact a potential employer looking for someone to fill an absolutely critical position on a permanent basis. Should you fail in that position, not only would you lose your job, but the company would probably come close to failing as well.
Would you take at all seriously any applicant for a permanent position that had a resume showing 20+ different employers over the prior decade? Or would you simply see that applicant as far too great of a risk?
Ending the employment metaphor and returning it back to sex… you’ve not displayed any ability whatsoever to get a relationship past the first rush of dopamine / infatuation and into anything more stable. Either you’ve dumped the guy or he’s dumped you within what appears to be an average six month period over twenty times. Why would a man be willing to stake half of everything he has on being the 21st guy, in the hope that you do things completely differently this time around?
There’s far more to loyalty than simply not having sex with other men behind your husbands back. There’s the loyalty of being able to work through the repeated dips in the relationship rather than bailing every time one happens.  The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and you appear to have a persistent pattern of relationship failure.
Jennifer and I have a great marriage, but we’ve also had dozens of bad days with each other. We’ve also had a tiny handful of mortifyingly awful days together. But we roll with the punches, work through those days and bounce back happier and stronger. Ask any long term couple if they’ve had really shitty days with each other and they will all say that it happened to them too. Unfortunately for you, you’re effectively telling us that when those shitty days happen to your relationships, the relationship ends.
So again… why should a guy stake half his stuff on you? Why should a guy stake his house on you?  Why should a guy stake access to his future children on you? Why should a guy stake a huge chunk of his future happiness on you?
Your fundamental flaw is thinking that what men look for in a short term relationship, is the same thing they look for in a wife. The Hookup Marketplace and the Marriage Marketplace have a few different rules. To be quite frank, as soon as you give it up to a guy without extracting any level of commitment, your Hookup Marketplace value rises, but your Marriage Marketplace level drops.
And not for nothing, once you figure the math out for even a few degrees of separation of sex partners, the total number of the sexual pool you’ve been swimming in is quite sizable if you’ve had 20+ partners. So obviously you’ve been exposed to STDs at some point, and it’s more a question of how perfect your protection against them was at the time. STDs can affect a woman’s fertility quite tragically, so it’s a common sense thing to be concerned about any STD history you have had and whether or not your fertility has been affected as a result.  As you can imagine, that would be need to know information before anyone should sign you up as their wife and future mother of their children. Getting you pregnant shouldn’t be as hard as shooting proton torpedos into a two meter wide thermal exhaust port on the Death Star.
And please don’t misunderstand me here, I’m not calling you a slut or immoral or anything similar. I do realize there are different relationship strategies you can choose in order to find happiness and what you do is up to you. There’s a very large advice industry encouraging women to pursue exactly the strategy you have chosen, so I assume they will be able to explain how to carry that strategy through to a happy ending better than I can.

Comments

  1. Ian Ironwood says:

    While I don't buy into the "Virgin until marriage" idea, because I've seen how awful the sex in those marriages often is, I also don't recommend a woman for marriage who hasn't been able to keep a stable relationship for more than a few months. That's a major red-flag. A woman with "a lot of sex partners" may have the erotic experience you desire in a wife, but she also likely has a LOT of baggage to contend with.

    Athol makes an excellent point: The Marriage Marketplace is very different from the Hookup Marketplace. You might be a winner in the latter but a loser in the former, and vice versa. But you should always know which one you are in, and act (and plan) accordingly.

  2. Athol Kay says:

    Seeing Ian bought it up…

    The Virgin Strategy works quite well for many couples and fails badly for others. I generally advise sex during the engagement to better ensure you don't have a terrible sexual connection together.

    I could tell some truly horrible stories of failed Virginity Stratery marriages that readers have sent me.

  3. I also don't buy into the virgin until marriage strategy because I've seen too many awful (and probably sexless) marriages coming out of strict, religious backgrounds where virginity is the holy grail. Even some cases of sexual orientation confusion; marriage does not "cure" homosexuality!

    For a woman in her late twenties, what IS an acceptable number of sexual partners? I've seen 1 or 2, which I think is unrealistically low. What is the cut-off point before a woman is cast-off into the "don't even think about marrying her" pile? It's really hard to get people to pin down this elusive, magic number and yet it would be helpful for your female readers to get your honest opinion.

    I think sexual health checkups for men are advisable as well if marriage is on the table. Sperm counts are declining in the male population.

  4. Demonspawn says:

    "For a woman in her late twenties, what IS an acceptable number of sexual partners?"

    Depends on how many fiancees she has had.

  5. The double-standard here is glaring. By this standard, any woman with a sexual past would not be marriage material. Yet reality seems to contradict that completely.

    There's far more to loyalty than simply not having sex with other men behind your husbands back. There's the loyalty of being able to work through the repeated dips in the relationship rather than bailing every time one happens.

    But making a one time mistake with another man isn't worth working through, in your opinion?

    As for men looking for different things in a girlfriend than a wife, that's true, of course, and women look for different things in a boyfriend than a husband, but there is a lot more fact-finding going on and issues that get weighed into the mix than how many sex partners someone had in the past.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Maybe the way Anonymous is thinking about it fits a modified version of your analogy…

    You need to hire someone for a very critical job, on which the future of your company may well depend, and due to the nature of the skills required, he/she will probably have to be pretty young. The candidate who looks best in terms of skills and attitude has never held a full-time job at all, but has held a succession of part-time and summer jobs, all with different employers and never for more than 6 months.

    That way it doesn't sound QUITE as scary as the original version of the analogy, since none of the jobs was INTENDED to be permanant…but it would still be worrisome since has not demonstrated sticking to an employment relationship.

    In both the analogy and the romantic situation, I'd want to know how she has been at sticking to OTHER things…friendships? hobbies? projects?

  7. Athol Kay says:

    Nope the stats are fairly plain that the more sexual partners a woman has before marriage the higher the divorce risk is.

    The Social Pathologist has a nice summary…

    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

    In anycase there's no double standard. I've suggested the same lower partner count approach for men too.

  8. Ponyboy says:

    Maybe she just likes to fuck and would have made a great partner for some of the guys complaining about their "frigid" wives yesterday.

  9. Anonymous says:

    It also depends on what the short term couple were doing during their 6 months together … living on a 20' sailboat crossing the Pacific is a lot different than 2 dinner dates and a sleep over a week.

    20 "committed" relationships in 10 years does seem like a lot — or a very different definition of committed.

    Z

  10. Anonymous says:

    Men and women are different.

  11. My wife and I had both had a large number of sexual partners before we married, but one of the things that attracted us to eachother was that we were both part of a social circle where casual sex was common and we were both seeking something more significant.

    We were also fairly young (early/mid 20's). I think that matters. Say a 30-year-old has had 20 sexual partners but 16 of them happened between the ages of 17 and 22. 4 partners over 8 years could be a sign that they are searching for a good person to marry but haven't found them yet.

    In terms of marriage, the main thing I see that matters is that once you reach a certain age, you only have sex with people you consider potential spouse material. There was one other girl I dated for a year and had serious thoughts about marrying, and she clearly had the same idea… but after months of sex that started out flat and got worse, I ended it. Everything else with her was right, but I'm glad I didn't find that out on our wedding night.

  12. Anonymous says:

    There are all kinds of things wrong with that study. I won't go into it, but they really haven't shown that a woman having more sexual partners increases her risk for divorce. I wish that more people really understood statistics.

    I personally believe that it is a good idea to keep your partner count low. I also think that it is a good idea to keep it to yourself. Women need to realize that men judge them harshly based on their partner count. (Too low =frigid, too high equals slut with everyone having different ideas about what's too low or too high.) Most women would be better off keeping their number private.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I think the only people who are concerned about the count are the ones with very little sexual experience. They're concerned how they're going to compare against previous lovers.

    A guy with plenty of experience won't feel threatened. Besides, he knows she's going to lie and say she's only had 4-5 lovers. So why bother asking?

    I'm not into insecure men, so these guys wouldn't be marriage material for me anyway.

    Jaz71

  14. Anonymous says:

    Uh-huh. And how many men from this study are writing to you about being in sexless marriages?

  15. Athol- I'm familiar with Dr. Teachman's study, but there are some results that you didn't mention and some methodological issues with the study that could impact the conclusions.

    First, the study is 17 years old. Even if agreed with the findings and the methodology were not somewhat flawed, I would hardly consider it descriptive of today's social environment.

    Second, the study didn't look at men nearly as much. and the women were not asked questions about their sexual partners. It did not address the nature and number of sexual experiences and partners that the men had,nor did it look at many of the characteristics of men in the relationships or take a look at whether or not the women were simply drawn to men who had the same characteristics. It's entirely possible, and more than a little bit likely, the characteristics of the men involved has just as much to do with marital success.

    And here's a result that you left out – when the overall population of the study is considered, the risk of divorce is higher for women who marry early, are black, have a premarital birth or conception, have fewer siblings, have less educated mothers, and have experience with other than a two parent family.

    While the study didn't look at men much, the full study model did find that women who marry men with less education, men who have been married before, men of a different race or religion, men who are at least two years younger, or men who believe that religion is important to very important are at a higher risk of divorce.

    My point is that it's irresponsible to tell your reader that she's not marriage material because of the number of partners she had using this study as the foundation for your comments.

    If you want to stand by it, then I could say that women should consider all men without a lot of education, men who have been married before, men who are from different ethnic backgrounds, men who are more than two years younger than them or very religious men to be unmarriageable because the likelihood of divorce is higher if you marry them.

  16. Yep, Jaz71. I agree. She isn't going to tell the real number.

    Men need to be good in bed, too. I know the advice is don't worry about her orgasm, but that only really applies when you are a LTR and have given her many, many mind blowing orgasms.

    Make sure they are real! Any woman can moan and groan, but clitoral and vaginal contractions/muscle spasms is a big signal that she truly came.

    Some women are uptight about sex or think if they haven't had an orgasm yet then something is wrong with them and feel ashamed. If you give a woman her first orgasm she will be very bonded to you, at the least she will never forget you.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Here, here….AGREED!

  18. Anonymous says:

    Absolutely, Lainey! I need orgasms from Mr. Marrige Candidate. Who cares about my previous men? Just worry about YOUR performance, Mr. M.C.

    About 10 years ago I met a guy that had the perfect dating resume. What hooked me was the fact that he could bring me to orgasm over 90% of the time. Married that.

    He never asked me how many boyfriends I'd had — why should he? Sometimes I would get out of bed and fall on the floor because my legs would give out.

    What other lovers…..?

    –Jaz71

  19. Anonymous says:

    In the same vein, I recently saw a post on another site about "why men are attracted to Damsels in Distress." My response was "No idea. Maybe that damsel's just having a one-time incident of bad luck, but the odds are that she has poor judgement and will need to be rescued over and over. I may be willing to fight a dragon for her once; but if she keeps wandering into dragon lairs, next time I'll sprinkle her with ketchup and go look for a more sensible damsel."
    –Knight of Swords

  20. Read "Cleaving" by Julie Powell (Author of Jule and Julia). An old flame sought her out after the first book, and she went back to being his fb (hard on her husband). And then she had the chutzpah to complain when he started cheating too.

  21. It seems like a lot of these reasons given for wanting women to have a low partner count (Teachman study, STDs/fertility, trustworthiness, commitment) are all covers for something that is really a very primal instinct. Not saying that they aren't valid reasons, but they don't tell the whole story.

    Why do people get so upset when the whole insecurity thing is brought up? I think it's totally fair to admit that you want to be the only one they know and not compared to anyone else. In today's SMP, a woman is able to have sex with men that have higher value, but the man that eventually marries her is going to be close to her SMV barring strange circumstances. Combine that with the fact that women get hot for men who have traits that don't lend themselves well to LTRs, and you have a scenario where wife loves husband and wouldn't leave him but still misses the hot alpha in bed. Clearly that can be fixed with Marriage Game and making an effort to learn each other's bodies, but I can see how that would be a barrier to men who don't want all the hassle plus the fear and/or knowledge that she's fantasizing about her alpha FWB from five years ago.

  22. Anonymous says:

    In your sex rank you should be factoring in your ability to give a woman an orgasm. Trust me; she is.

  23. Anonymous says:

    @Kat. So you are saying that the more sexual partners a woman has before marriage the LOWER the divorce risk is? If you are not saying that, quit arguing.

  24. Yes there is a double standard. Men often get judged on their masculinity if they haven't had any or too few sex partners by their late 20s or if they don't make enough money. Women generally don't have to worry about either of those things when it comes to being considered marriage material.

    You can't have your cake and fuck it too.

  25. The MacNut says:

    If I were single and dating, I might give the woman in the OP a chance if we hit it off. However, we'd have to be together for AT LEAST a year, and preferably two, before I'd even THINK about a possible engagement. Her dating history suggests her relationships collapse around the 6 month or so mark, so if we made it to a year and were still going strong I'd start thinking we might have a future together.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Kat,

    I haven't seen much from you impeaching the study, other than its conclusions. It's bad science, and bad logic, to make up your mind and then discount everything that doesn't support your pre-conceived beliefs.

  27. Anonymous says:

    A few part time jobs would be fine, for a 20 year-old. But 20+ part time jobs for someone in their late twenties is another story.

  28. Anonymous says:

    "I'm not into insecure men, so these guys wouldn't be marriage material for me anyway."

    Bzzt. An insecure man wouldn't sleep with a high-count woman at all. A smart man wouldn't marry one. The stakes are too high. Each additional partner diminishes the ability to strongly pair bond. If she's going to lie to you about that, then she isn't marriageable either.

    I'll go out on a limb and guess that 90% of men would prefer a 'count' in the single digits by the late 20's, but it seems that # is more often >= age nowadays than not. And beej's count, btw.

    The double standard is ironclad. Should men start rationalizing to women that being short, bald, fat and unemployed should be attractive?

    The OP sounds like a massive flake. She was either 'devoted' until she didn't feel like it anymore, or has such awful judgment in men that they pumped and dumped her each time. Both are probably true. Her hamster must be exhausted.

    The master key/shitty lock analogy is as apt here as any.

  29. Anon and Anon- I'm not necessarily saying that the opposite is true, but that it is wrong to tell a woman that her sexual history makes her bad marital choice because of this study.

    As for impeaching its conclusions, you missed my point. If you want to accept its conclusions about women with premarital sex partners, then you should also accept the other findings (re-read the last four paragraphs for the point).

    I won't quit pointing out the obvious logic as long as people are mid-directed due to poor or non-existent research. Athol had no cause other than his own opinion and "experience" to go on the "what man would choose you" reply to that woman. Frankly, by the same logic, there are quite a few guys here that I could say "what woman would ever want you?

  30. Anonymous says:

    The count: "If she's going to lie to you about that, then she isn't marriageable either."

    Reality check: ALL women lie about the count once it goes over 2.

    This sounds like the typical jealous response of a guy who WISHES he could get laid by 20 different women in 10 years. Work the MAP so that you don't have to date ugly women that have low counts because no one ever asks them out.

  31. Athol Kay says:

    If you want to stand by it, then I could say that women should consider all men without a lot of education, men who have been married before, men who are from different ethnic backgrounds, men who are more than two years younger than them or very religious men to be unmarriageable because the likelihood of divorce is higher if you marry them.

    These are certainly all risk factors to consider aren't they?

  32. Anonymous says:

    MacNut, but would you really wait 1-2 years to have sex with her? These days, men expect to knock boots on the third date.

    I can't imagine getting so emotionally invested in someone only to find out after buying an expensive ring that she's a dead fish lay.

  33. Ian Ironwood says:

    Athol had no cause other than his own opinion and "experience" to go on the "what man would choose you" reply to that woman. Frankly, by the same logic, there are quite a few guys here that I could say "what woman would ever want you?

    Actually, I'd say Athol's opinion is well-researched and highly informed. While the study alone may not convince you, the weight of anecdotal evidence in marriage counseling sessions suggests that he's correct.

    That's the painful thing about the Red Pill for a lot of women: they want to cling to the romantic idea that "double standards" are inherently wrong and unfair, even as they employ them themselves with frightening regularity.

    As far as a woman's N, I'd say that an acceptable marriageable parameter in this day and age is two partners per year between the ages of 20 and 25, plus 2. So a 19 yo might have 2 partners figuring them for furtive explorations that were over in moments and never happened again (prom night, Senior Skip Day) and be marriageable. A 22 yo could have as many as 6, and a 25 yo could have as many as 12.

    But after that, if the rate of increase doesn't slow down, there's a problem. A 30 yo with an N of over 20 is not a good risk. A 30 yo with a N of under 10 is a poor risk. But somewhere in between would be acceptable, IMO.

    But different dudes have different standards. Personally, if I knew my son's girlfriend had a high N (say 30+ at 25 yo) I'd advise strongly against marriage without a compelling reason. I'd also strongly advise against a woman with an N of less than 5. But a lot depends on the woman in question, too.

    And as far as it being a double standard?

    I'm OK with that.

  34. Ian Ironwood says:

    And a dude who doesn't ask her number (and who doesn't increase it by 20% to allow for "embellishments) is an idiot and soon-to-be ex-husband.

  35. Anonymous says:

    They lie about it because they know they have to.

    Typical response from a woman trying to rationalize the amount of men they've slept with and pretend that men like it, or shame them into thinking that they should.
    It doesn't work with fat or 'strong' (read 'masculine') women either.

    Also, typical lame ad hominem attack. "I disagree with you, so you therefore must be jealous/insecure/misogynist/creepy/have a small dick." Thanks, but happily married for over a decade.

    Any fat, slovenly cow can rack up a notch count of 100 guys just by being DTF at 3am.

  36. Athol Kay says:

    Susan did a nice run down of the numbers at
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/02/28/hookinguprealities/sexual-statistics-review-session/

    For women age 25-29 the median number of lifetime sexual partners is 3.6

    A woman with 20+ lifetime partners is a remarkably high number.

  37. What you don't get here, Kat, is that this is not "what will obviously happen" with a woman with a high partner count, as opposed to "what man usually look for" in a potential wife.

    If she had 20+ short and failed relationships, it may indicate that the problem is herself. A man, with this information in hand, may decide to be pragmatic and to not risk his time with her.

    It's just a matter of probabilities and common behavior, not "right or wrong" or "virgin vs. slut" or anything like it. But everyone may be held accountable of their own actions: she chose this path, and it has its own drawbacks.

    Sorry for my lame english, BTW.

  38. Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Mar 8, 2012 08:30 AM

    MacNut isn't waiting 1-2 years to have sex with her, he's still going to have sex with her in the normal course of events. The difference being he won't consider putting a ring on her until the relationship is at least a year old.

    Also remember she isn't likely to tell him her true number so he's being prudent in taking his time. One of the objectives of taking that time is to let her weed herself out.

  39. Ponyboy says:

    Ian…

    I can only speak for myself here and my observations…

    1.) I think the double standard here isn't that it's OK for a guy to bang a lot of chicks, but not OK for a woman. To me, it's that the other day on Athol's site all these married guys were complaining that their wives don't have sex enough. They were talking about leaving them, cheating etc… Now we have a girl who obviously likes sex, but she is getting taken out to the wood shed and deemed not marriage material – which is it?

    2.) Athol is well researched, I agree completely way more than I ever will be. But this is an opinion and a conclusion being drawn by a simple comment on a blog post. And a damaging one at that. This girl may be more rounded as an individual than her sexual history. But then maybe not, we don't know from a comment. That's why it's unfair to say she is used up and not marriage material based on a blog comment. I'm sure when you decided to marry Mrs Ironwood you took more into account that simply sex. And when she finds someone who wants to marry her, he will likely take more into account than her sexual history.

  40. Anonymous says:

    @Anon 7:08, there's no need to call me a flake or a pump & dump. In my 6:17 pm response above to Lainey, you would have read that I got married.

    The average age for American women to marry now is 27-28. It would be unrealistic to compare a girl of 19 to a woman of 28. My expectations of my husband were that he should be no more concerned about my exes than I should be about his.

    –Jaz71

  41. Athol Kay says:

    1.) I think the double standard here isn't that it's OK for a guy to bang a lot of chicks, but not OK for a woman. To me, it's that the other day on Athol's site all these married guys were complaining that their wives don't have sex enough. They were talking about leaving them, cheating etc… Now we have a girl who obviously likes sex, but she is getting taken out to the wood shed and deemed not marriage material – which is it?

    Both are extremes to be avoided. My viewpoint is that a very low partner count is best, but you should establish you have sexual compatiablity before getting married.

    Marriage is an extremely serious decision to make for a man under the current set of laws and family court system. Thus my basic advice is quite conservative in nature.

  42. Anonymous says:

    The flake I was referring to was the character in Athol's main article above, not in the comments. Sorry for the confusion.

  43. Anonymous says:

    Athol, the CDC report page 19 is at:
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

    The stats show what could logically be concluded, which is that a 15 year old is going to have been with fewer partners than the 44 year old.

    So men, if you think a woman will fudge her number (she will) and the real number will bother you, then just go with the CDC's findings for a one-man lovin' woman: Latinas with Bachelor's Degrees aged 20-24.

    –Jaz71

  44. Anonymous says:

    Ian, the inflated number will always be 5-6 then.

    We are coached by every women's magazine from the age of highschool to say 4-5.

    Just as his "NO" is the correct answer to "Do these pants make my butt look big?", so is her answer of 4-5 sexual partners. See?

    Jaz71

  45. Athol Kay says:

    Just as his "NO" is the correct answer to "Do these pants make my butt look big?"

    "No" is the exact wrong answer to that question.

    Buy the book lol.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Hi, Athol. I'm not the type of woman who would ever ask the big-butt question. Just as I would never bother asking how many partners someone has had.

    Both questions imply insecurity, which is why I made the comparison.

    –Jaz71

  47. The Macnut says:

    What Anon 9:38 said. I'll be having sex with her, just won't be thinking about putting a ring on it until at least the 1 year mark, and more likely two. I won't be rushed into an engagement any earlier, either she'll wait or she won't.

  48. nanoalchemist says:

    Jaz:

    Even if you're extremely confident and alpha (I'd say to the point of cocky to the stupid power), you're going to question a high N as a marriage partner.

    I think the problem lies in science. Men are concerned over a high number because past behaviour is an excellent predictor of future events. If she had 20 partners before you, and it went like this:
    1) Had a guy, dated, left him after 6 months
    2) Had a guy, dated, left him after 6 months
    3) Had a guy, dated, left him after 6 months
    .
    .
    .
    20) Had a guy, dated, left him after 6 months
    then…
    21) Met a guy! Its TWU WUV! I stay with him for ever!

    Bert and Ernie Science would say "one of these things is not like the other."

    That woman is going to treat her affair like 19th century catastrophism.

  49. Anonymous says:

    "expectations of my husband were that he should be no more concerned about my exes than I should be about his."

    oh and she said because he gave her orgasms 90% of teh time. so is it about the sex or not. i think you have a double standard about double standards.

  50. The sexual dynamics of wanting to marry a female virgin until marriage or engagement are very different when such are fairly rare in Western societies, compared to two generations ago when they were the majority in America anyway.

    These days only the strongly religious (generally in a faith that tries to represses sexuality a good lot) AND non impulsive, aided by not having too high a sex drive or even more having a very low one, tend to actually manage to remain virgins until marriage or at least engagement, especially with marriage occurring older ages in America these days. When the large majority of girls were virgins until marriage or engagement that wasn’t nearly so much the case.

    I think there are real deep bonding benefits to the girl being a virgin at marriage or engagement, which are offset today by what I mentioned above but weren’t in the fifties and earlier. She won’t have sex with anyone who’s a better lover than her husband. She won’t have had her heart broken repeatedly. She won’t have had her tendency to emotionally bond through repeated good or great sex eroded away by many repetitions with new partners.

    So it’s sexually risky to marry a virgin these days, but was advantageous when by far most were virgins. It is however divorce avoidance advantageous to marry a virgin today, still.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Hi Anon 1:29. My husband was perfect on paper, too, which I noticed you skipped over. Meaning he was Alpha, 6 figure job, cute, physically fit, and college educated. That's what got me to accept a date with him in the first place. The talents in bed just sealed the deal.

    –Jaz71

  52. Anonymous says:

    @nanochemist, no, I don't care about his past lovers. If he wanted to be with them, he wouldn't be with me.

    It's kind of a silly thing to worry about. You can't change the past.

    –Jaz71

  53. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, but how many dates in are you going to push for sex?

    Athol's been preaching that to keep a woman's numbers low, you shouldn't have sex with her until you're engaged. (This is one of his points that I disagree with, but we're all entitled to an opinion).

  54. The MacNut says:

    Sex happens when it happens. In my dating experience if a woman's into a guy and has a healthy sex drive, sex is going to happen fairly early in the dating relationship anyway, not much "pushing" would be required. It's a matter of recognizing when she's ready, and having the courage to make a move at that time.

  55. OffTheCuff says:

    What hooked me was the fact that he could bring me to orgasm over 90% of the time. Married that.

    Only 90%? Women have such low standards.

  56. Ponyboy,

    1. You need to be able to differentiate a woman wanting to have lots of sex with one man and a woman wanting to have lots of sex with lots of different men. The first case is a home run candidate for a wife. The second case is a strike out.

    2. Sure, other factors come into play in choosing a wife. But sex is huge for men. Other personality aspects, we can probably deal with. Using Athol/Jennifer has hypothetical dating examples, if Jennifer weren't into Star Trek, Athol could probably get over it and continue to view her a marriage material. If Jennifer told Athol that she was in the 98th percentile on number of sexual partners, he would likely pump her and dump her.

  57. I thoroughly embrace the stud versus slut double standard for previous numbers of sexual partners.

    Most men and women are wired differently. Most men and especially high sex drive alphaish men are wired to be polygamous, or monogamous plus promiscuous. Most women aren't wired to be either but rather monogogamous or serially monogamous. I realize you're different, but you're an outlier.

  58. Anonymous says:

    Jaz Why would you purposefully ignore the past and all of the information that it brings with it in choosing a mate?

    I have to count myself as one of the majority of men who want to know how my future wife would characterize her past relationships. To me it is very important to know how many she's had and why they did not work out. I do not want to know intimate details or blow by blow accounts of them, just big picture stuff. Does she say that she dumped her exes? Does she say they were all A**holes? Did she get dumped? Did she learn anything?

    In my mind, ignoring this information is foolish when talking about a lifetime mate.

    My 25 year wife was a virgin when I met her. That I was her very first was big honor to me. It made the sex so much more important than just sex. I did not start dating with the idea in mind that my future wife would have to be a virgin. But now that it worked out that way, I find that it adds a level of importance to her commitment to me.

    So would have to count myself as anecdotally confirming the study Atol quoted. Fewer = better.

    Yankee

  59. Anonymous says:

    I realize some time has passed but just had to comment on Athols post:
    "Nope the stats are fairly plain that the more sexual partners a woman has before marriage the higher the divorce risk is."
    Personally speaking if I'd have had any sex partners BEFORE my husband I would have divorced him immediately instead of waiting all those years. I would have known what I was missing and NOT tolerated it. So, there's always a different perspective.

  60. Anonymous says:

    A lot of people here have been hitting the same note:

    A number can tell you a bit about the person, but the story behind it can tell you so much more. How does she characterize her exes? Why didn't things work out? Is she willing to admit blame for former failed relationships? Does she have a history of on-again-off-again? Okay, so she's had a one-night stand: how does she think about that experience now?

    I've met plenty of good women who could swallow the chick version of the red pill and become truly excellent mothers and wives — and so I try to get them to read these blogs. They might have a relatively high number count, but perhaps if they truly 'wake up' to reality, they'll never again think or act the way they did before they realized the kind of shitty lies they've been told. When someone's reality changes, so does their behavior.

    I'm a 25 year old woman with an average number count, if the studies are to be believed. I'm thankful that I've always chosen carefully, mostly just by instinct. I'm one of the lucky ones. I have friends, however, with extremely high number counts who have woken up in their late twenties and realized why its been so hard to get a guy to commit to them. They've been lied to just as blue-pill men have, and they're extremely hurt and angry about it as well.

    The modern SMP and MMP are tough places to be. I agree that a number 20+ is equivalent to an "approach with caution" sign: but as Athol said, it shouldn't necessarily be the be-all-end-all of one's selection process. Especially not if everything else is perfectly in place (and the relationship, after the brain drugs wear off, is still top-notch).

  61. “Bert and Ernie science” = LOL

    I ignored my ex-wife’s sexual history and it came back to bite me in the ass. I went into it with the mindset that I couldn’t hold anything against her that happened before we met. Before we started dating, she was married to one guy and dating someone else. At the end of our relationship, she was married to me and dating someone else. I couldn’t help but notice the pattern and think maybe I shouldn’t have been so understanding.

    If I was going to get married again I’d be extremely judgmental about her past. Even stuff that’s not her fault. It might not be fair, but here we are.

    However, since I’m not planning on going down that road again…hooray for sexually liberated women! :)

Speak Your Mind

*