Sleeping around

Good for you. Sounds perfect

Galaxy

I cant remember the post but there was a statement that said these women shouldn't be surprised when that man wont marry them. So I think there is sexism in some of the judgements.

That used to be the thinking didn't it? Women were encouraged to 'hold out' until the wedding night in case the man "got what he wanted" and disappeared from the horizon.

I think the reason a lot of men - and women too, now - won't get married is simply because they do not want the commitment that marriage entails... and it isn't just about sex. It's the whole shebang - having to consider another instead of doing your own thing all the time, nights at home instead of just going out with your mates when you feel like it, the tie of having children, a mortgage, in-laws, weekends spent doing jobs around the house instead of being out enjoying yourself.

If a man only marries you to "get what he wants" then he most likely is going to be a pretty poor life partner IMO.

Galaxy

I cant remember the post but there was a statement that said these women shouldn't be surprised when that man wont marry them. So I think there is sexism in some of the judgements.

That was the one which sprang to mind when I spoke about hypocrisy and double standards!

there are so many sexist men

Who on earth would want to marry a man who behaved like that!

I cant remember the post but there was a statement that said these women shouldn't be surprised when that man wont marry them. So I think there is sexism in some of the judgements.

I meant some posters approve of it in all situations, and some disapprove in all situations, others differentiate between the committed and the uncommitted. Not being judgemental, just a statement of the opinions which have been aired on the thread, none of which seemed to imply double standards.

Double standards are when it is assumed that men will be promiscuous while women will be virtuous virgins. For every man who is sexually active there is an active woman. As my granny used to say when a girl was condemned for getting pregnant, "It takes two!"

Perhaps I misread.

Your juxtaposition of “some approve of having a lot of sexual partners” with “others” who are faithful to their life partners, seemed to me to imply that they were exclusive of each other.

Dickens

Elegran

Peasblossom

No, hang on. Having a number of sexual partners in no way means that you won’t be faithful to the person you choose as your life partner.

That’s a judgement that’s unjustified.

What do you define as being faithful to a spouse, then? The normal definition is not screwing someone else.

... why would you think Peasblossom means anything other than what is understood by the word 'faithful'?

That was the whole point of her comment, surely?

So why is Peasblossom disagreeing with my " once you choose to settle on one person as a partner for life, you should keep your promise to be faithful to that partner." We both have said and mean the same thing.

I think that all sounds fine peasblossom I have made the judgement that you are content and isn't that what most people want?

I googled mills and boon btw there was a book called the pregnant virgin

Peasblossom

No, hang on. Having a number of sexual partners in no way means that you won’t be faithful to the person you choose as your life partner.

That’s a judgement that’s unjustified.

quite

I had a number of sexual partners before I met the love of my life.

After that I never even set a foot upon a road that might lead to infidelity. One male friend said I gave off the strongest keep away signals he’d ever encountered ?

I stayed faithful to my vows when he became too disabled to make sex of any kind a possibility, though as I said before, there was still lovemaking, which is in no way the same as sex.

After he died, at a relatively early age, after a few years when I would have liked to die too, I discovered that there were many single men who, like me, enjoyed respectful, considerate, enjoyable sex without wanting the commitment of a relationship other than friendship.

Eventually I met the man I now live with, and we had the “exclusive” conversation fairly early on. We are good friends and compatible companions at this end of our lives, but not I would say, in love as we were with former partners. That doesn’t stop the sex from being amazing?

So go ahead and judge.

Elegran

Peasblossom

No, hang on. Having a number of sexual partners in no way means that you won’t be faithful to the person you choose as your life partner.

That’s a judgement that’s unjustified.

What do you define as being faithful to a spouse, then? The normal definition is not screwing someone else.

... why would you think Peasblossom means anything other than what is understood by the word 'faithful'?

That was the whole point of her comment, surely?

I am sure peasblossom can speak for herself but I interpreted it as if you have a number of partners whilst you are single this does not mean you cant be faithful in a marriage.

Peasblossom

No, hang on. Having a number of sexual partners in no way means that you won’t be faithful to the person you choose as your life partner.

That’s a judgement that’s unjustified.

What do you define as being faithful to a spouse, then? The normal definition is not screwing someone else.

I was really shocked, when I began teaching in FE, to hear the girls brag - about who they'd 'had'. That's equality though, I suppose.

No, hang on. Having a number of sexual partners in no way means that you won’t be faithful to the person you choose as your life partner.

That’s a judgement that’s unjustified.

Double standards? Untrue. Some people approve of people having a lot of sexual partners, some disapprove. Others say that once you choose to settle on one person as a partner for life, you should keep your promise to be faithful to that partner.

That isn't double standards.

Blondiescot

Dickens - agreed, there is an awful lot of hypocrisy and double standards in this thread.

Where?

And what parameters qualify to be a partner?
Full intercourse? Petting, heavy petting, kissing, etc.

Live and let live

Live and let live. No judging if at all possible.

Whether a woman has 2 partners or 102 it's not our business

“I feel sorry for those who when looking for live and commitment think casual sex is the answer”.

Me too.

But then I feel sorry for those who haven’t had the pleasure of sex without the burden of commitment and the demands of love.

Just enjoyed for itself.

Blondiescot

JaneJudge

This thread is full of sexism and misogyny. I understand attitudes were ingrained but surely that was partly due to a lack of contraception? Women (and men) NOW HAVE ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION oops to keep themselves sexually well and there are laws concerning consent that are much more robust than in years previously. It really is nobody else's business. No one is bringing shame to themselves or their family.

My Mother was so Victorian that even now I don't like going to the Dr for personal matters. I really don't think these old fashioned attitudes and judgement help.

Absolutely agree with every word of that!

I agree too!
I went to a very strict convent school, hellfire and brimstone lectures featured regularly, zero sex education and also had very few friends who were boys.
My parents made it very clear that if I was found to be having sex, let alone pregnant, then I would be kicked out, stat. A friend got pregnant at 16 and my bigoted parents still banged on about ‘bringing disgrace to her family’ 50 years later ?
At least now sex and sexual health are taught in school from an early age and openly discussed just about anywhere, which can only be a good thing in my opinion.

JaneJudge

the original post wasn't about within marriage though or even within a relationship, just the number of sexual partners

... the theme - like 'Topsy' in "Uncle Tom's Cabin - just growed

Socksandsocks01

I try not to judge others. Though I just can't get my head around it. I feel sorry for those who when looking for love and commitment think that the answer is casual sex. But I'm no therapist either. I'd be horrified if my sons were promiscuous. People get hurt. Not everyone thinks along the same lines. I'd stay well clear of a "jack the lad" that's my stance.

Well if a woman is looking for love / commitment - then I doubt casual sex is the right road to go down to find it. But, for various reasons, not all women are looking for that.

Of course there was a time when it was in women's best interests to look for it - when they had little economic power, education opportunities and civil rights. But that's no longer the case, so women are free to explore their own sexuality on their own terms. And I think it's rather sad that some will judge them as having no self-respect or morals because they choose to do this. Women will make mistakes, choosing the wrong mate / partner / whatever, and get hurt / dumped or, sometimes, even abused. But these things also happen within committed relationships - and they also happen to men..

I have to say I'd also steer clear of "Jack The Lad", too.