A
male
age
51-59,
*uperj35
writes:My wife had sex with 67 men before me...is that number too high or low for a woman? Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (22 May 2008): Just as a comment on this whole thread, the idea that men all get 100% praise for their conquests is total bullshit.
If all men really lived in some one-dimensional world where promiscuity & conquests were universally praised, then how in the hell does the average male have less than 10 partners in a lifetime? How, including ALL marriages & relationships too?
A small (but highly-visible) number of men will bang anything on two legs. A very large number of men will not.
A
male
reader, Ares  +, writes (21 May 2008):
 67 you say? The poor girl is more than likely cursing God that she wasn't born a male so she could rack up these conquests and sit around the bar with the other studs comparing stories of daring do. I fell so incredibly lucky right now to be a male, and think I shall march right into the bedroom and demand my fiancee tell me all her dirty secrets so I can judge her harshly, and then have have sex so I can complain about it to all and sundry. Regaling all the aunt's and uncle's with my story of woe... God it's good to be a manly man.
Can the moderator please make a new section for all these types of questions. How about calling it 'When I grow up, I want to be a man?' Or for ease of reading 'Mommy's Boy's'.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (21 May 2008): Sorry Yos, sorry poster, for all the stupidity, but I didn't start it, the others did.
The problem is we can't answer this question as sensibly and clearly as you, Yos. It's the height thing you see, everytime I think about too high or too low, I keep thinking Alice in Wonderland, and little and small, tweedledum and tweedledee and the silliness that goes on....
To keep myself safe from your tongue and to resist the temptation to play, this post is now seen as banned to me. Thanks for the question, Sir, but I am unable to give you any sensible advice.
...............................
A
male
reader, Yos  +, writes (21 May 2008):
 The largest set of surveys done on this subject is by Durex. In 2005 they surveyed 317,000 people and found that the global average of sexual partners is 9. There was quite a lot of regional variation, the USA was 11 and the Netherlands was 7, and Australia was 13 for example. Numerous other large surveys have been done with varying methodologies, they generally return a similar number.
Bear in mind that the 'average' is only one way to assess this. The median is actually lower, since a small number of people (around 5 to 10 percent) have a very high number, as in 50+. This small number of people push the average up, but not the median. On the flip side, a large number also have one, two or three partners.
Or put another way: the majority of people have about 10 partners, a large minority have just a few partners, and a small but active minority have a very large number of partners.
One thing is for sure though: thinking about isn't going to change the number, and it's not going to help you. The best thing you can do is forget about it, it doesn't change who she is.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (20 May 2008): Interesting question. Are you just curious, as it begs several other questions, like is this something that is bothering you now?I was married to one woman for over 20 years and have no idea of how many men she had sex with prior to me, although she was obviously experienced. I do know she had only 1 man, me, while we were married and that was all that mattered. I think that had she told me there was only one guy before that might have bothered me. If she had said a thousand, I would have been more jealous that I didn't do more when I was younger!I guess you have figured out that if this was a topic that might bother you, you might have asked that question prior to being married. You know us men always want to be the only man that the love of our life has ever had sex with before, but at the same time we want her to be that sex hungry tigress that pleases our every sexual fantasy in bed. Everyone has a past. That past is a part of the person and more than likey have contributed to those attributes that have attacted you to her, fell in love and got married.So if it bothers you, my advice is to accept, embrace and cherish. Don't worry about conquest stats and do what you can to build your loving relationship to ensure that number doesn't increase...
...............................
A
male
reader, LazyGuy +, writes (20 May 2008):
 An interesting study a while ago made a correlation between intelligence/education and sexual activity. The higher educated/more intelligent a person, the less they were into sexual activity (not sex itself, but more sleeping around etc).
I at the time commented on a geek site that they might have cause and effect mixed up.
There are only so many hours in day, each hour you spend dating/fucking you can't spend reading a book, studying, learning.
That leads to the conclusion that the less interest you have in dating/sex the more time you have left over for study. Therefor intelligence doesn't cause lower sexual activity but lower sexual activity causes intelligence!
There are some holes in my theory, mainly that I should have been a teen genius by this logic.
BUT there still is point to this. We all have different interests/hobbies. She is obviously interested in dating and sex. That is the way she passes her time, she probably isn't the kind of person to want to curl up on the couch with a book. She wants to get out there and meet people and go for it.
There is no right or wrong here, that is who she is. If you like who she is then you got to accept the consequence of it. It doesn't mean she won't the faithful to you, just that she is a person who is into relationships far more then some others.
A simple example, ages ago me and a mate took a trip through the US. I spent a lot of time talking to strangers, seeing the country, learning new things. He made one long list of conquests.
Oh, and "for a woman"? The 1950's called, they want their double standards back.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (20 May 2008): 250? Ew.
...............................
A
male
reader, andylee +, writes (20 May 2008):
 67 Isn't high at all. If she's an attractive woman and likes sex but plays it safe the number could be in the hundreds like me. Granted I was being paid for most of them but in my real life the number is closer to 250. I have two friend who are in their mid 30's and each has over a hundred conquests. Any number over 10 generally means the women simply enjoys it and can pick and choose her partners.
...............................
A
female
reader, Tisha-1 +, writes (19 May 2008):
 The limericks are the real issue confusing,
The big question is, protection; was she using?
For sixty-seven or such,
Even one could be too much,
For to risk life and health is never amusing.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (19 May 2008): To me it sounds high but it probably isn't a lot to be honest. People in their younger years do particularly just go from one to one.
...............................
A
male
reader, Yos +, writes (19 May 2008):
Amusing limerick, and no I'm not cross about any responses. The question was admittedly very in-artfully phrased but, well, I just wonder whether he appreciated the responses. My guess would be no.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (19 May 2008): How many people have you slept with poster?
...............................
A
male
reader, Uncle Sneaker  +, writes (19 May 2008):
 Oh Waz! You're just taking the mick,
To reply with a short limerick.
Sixty-seven is fine
(I'd prefer sixty-nine)
So... how often have YOU dipped your wick?
...............................
A
female
reader, Fiona xxx +, writes (19 May 2008):
 Do I assume you wife has slept with double the number of people than you, and that's why you ask?
...............................
A
male
reader, Yos +, writes (19 May 2008):
I'm a bit saddened to see how your question has been answered here. Dear cupid is a place where people should be understood and given help, not ridiculed and teased. To some of the aunts answering here: please grow up a bit and show more dignity.
To the questioner: by saying 'for a woman' you have put your finger on a double standard... that's partly why you're getting such a negative reaction. Having said that, that double standard is very real, for both cultural and biological reasons (although it certainly is unfortunate and unfair).
To answer part of your question: the answer is yes, it's a very high number. This is compared to averages, surveys, and based on my experience, research and questioning. It falls probably in the highest 5% or so of women. Bear in mind that this average is pulled down for lots of reasons: religious people often abstain, and many people get married young, or have just a few long term relationships. In slightly different circumstances those people's 'numbers' could have been much higher, with them being essentially the same person.
The focus of your question is 'too high'. That's the other reason you're getting a negative reaction. I have to ask you 'too high' for what exactly? You've not fully asked the question...
You need to finish that sentence, at least to yourself. And do it honest. Is it 'too high to be married to me?', 'too high for me to respect her?', 'too high for me to treat her well?', 'too high for me to trust her?', or perhaps 'too high for me to be able to cope with?'. Each answer means something quite different. You could be making a rational judgement, and emotional one, or a moral one. Or none of the above.
...............................
A
male
reader, oldfool +, writes (19 May 2008):
 Compared to most women, it probably is rather a lot. If you calculate it, it means a different man every month for five-and-a-half years.
I'm not sure what the point of your question is. Are you boasting about how many men your wife has had? Or are you in the all-too-common agony about "her sexual past"? Or are you just doing a survey?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (19 May 2008): Well I'd say that's a lot of men to have sex with!! But it seems in today's world, people have very loose standards. So maybe my opinion doesn't count. Even though I'm still young, I'd say that's too many to be honest.
...............................
A
female
reader, TasteofIndia +, writes (19 May 2008):
 "For a woman" - psht.
Moving on.
I think that the number is high, yes, for anybody. However, a lot - a lot - a LOT of people can match up to that... so I don't think that your wife is any less than normal. As long as she's happy and healthy, her number shouldn't matter.
"For a woman". Let's get into this century, hmm?
xx India
...............................
A
male
reader, Collaroy +, writes (19 May 2008):
 Hi again,
does a threesome count as one or two?
What about orgies?
I asked my wife and she said 69 (phwoaarr!!!)- but that's because she is a dirty little minx ..dirty dirty. And she cheated in her count! She included the halloween orgy as just one, where I know that she had at least 15 guys that night!
Then there was the Christian fellowship prayer weekend - she never told me how many guys she balled that weekend - but you know what these religious types are like!
So I'm now guessing 110.. that seems about right.
We win!
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (19 May 2008): Seriously, what's with this "for a woman" garbage? Do you have even the tiniest clue as to how sexist and hypocritical your question is? If it was a man in question, numbers simply wouldn't be an issue. When is this antiquated men-are-studs-women-are-sluts idiocy going to go away? It's 2008 for chrissakes! I'm so sick and f'ing tired of the multitude posts from men here damning and whining about women for behaviour they high-five each other for. The hypocrisy makes me want to vomit.
...............................
A
male
reader, Jamer70 +, writes (19 May 2008):
 you know what they say
Above 68, is too much
Below 66, is ok
And 67 is the grey area
It all depends on her past relationships, how many shes had etc
But in the end shes your wife and numbers dont matter right now
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (19 May 2008): I don't what's wrong with me tonight, you all keep making me laugh... "66 or 68" that's a classic one Collaroy. LOL...
Anyway I do think it maybe a little high, like big sis says we got do the maths. Right Columbo's we gotta work it out.
Firstly he didn't say how old she was so were looking at somebody betwen the age of say, legal (16 in the UK) and say give or take a couple of years before death. Secondly we don't know if the 67 was in all one night, or spread out one a year. (That would make her in her 80's by my calculation) Finally, we don't know how much sex she likes, I mean we know she likes (67 plus one husband), sex but how often and how much. I mean, maybe like I said it's once a year or evey three months, she could have taken a break once in a while and just met a whole pile of guys every couple of years.
Heck, I don't know about you but my head hurts. Why don't you stop thinking about things. Find something else better to do with your time. Go and find your wife and make love to her, your lucky you know, cause she lives with you now and it's you she's making love to.
...............................
A
female
reader, BigSis +, writes (19 May 2008):
 I was wondering that Collaroy.
Hey, Anon writer, did your wife have them listed? I mean...can she remember every one of them?
Personally, I think it's a lot, but then again not a lot if you spread it over the years.
My guess, she's about the same age as you, let's say for arguments sake, 34...that would average approximately 4 different partners a year ~ for 17 yrs, that's based on if she started having sex when she was 17 up until now.
How's my maths.....anyone?
xXx
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (19 May 2008): No number is "too high" or "too low", but it really does seem like a lot to me! how old where you when you two started dating?
...............................
A
male
reader, Collaroy +, writes (19 May 2008):
It's quite low. Are you sure its not 66 or 68?
...............................
A
male
reader, EllsworthT  +, writes (19 May 2008):
That all depends--how old is your wife?!? If she's in her 80s, then no; if she's 18, then does she have a sister and when can I meet her? "67" seems strange to me: It's too exact. After 20 partners who the hell remembers? Does your wife write the names down in a book? Does she carve a mark into her thigh? Is she a teenage fundamentalist mormon? What the hell's wrong with her? Seriously, whether your wife's promiscuous past matters is determined by two conditions: (1) You've had at least twice the number of partners and (2) you know none of her former partners, they're all long gone, and there's no chance either of you will run into any of them. Fail either of these conditions, your wife is a slut. But there are worse things in life. Try not to dwell on it. Have at least two hot affairs before you divorce.
...............................
A
female
reader, aphexinfinite +, writes (19 May 2008):
 in my opinion thats really high, but in the same sense maybe she thought some of them were the one and kept getting it wrong. also sometimes you have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find youre prince..and her sexual encounters are excatly that in the past. thats my opinion aphex xx
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (19 May 2008): Gee, I don't know. Is it too high or too low for a man? :/
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (19 May 2008): Between the ages of 16 and 20, I had sex with far more than that. I then got married and was faithful for 20 years and after my divorce I have only been with one man.
So that past 25 years with just 2 men.
I guess what I am saying is the past really doesn't matter as long as the person doesn't have some STD or something.
BTW, I've never told them how many I've slept with in the past. It might have made them think less of me and that wouldn't have helped anything.
...............................
|
