For people saying they care about body count

[Anonymous]

please stop saying body count. It's so lame. it's so so lame.

[Anonymous]

People who genuinely really like sex don't fixate so much on this. Women have an average number of seven partners in their lifetime. That's healthy and normal.

[Anonymous]

Not PP, but the world has far too many people like you in it.

Try to come up with something original. You look stupid when all you do is parrot back what someone else wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who genuinely really like sex don't fixate so much on this. Women have an average number of seven partners in their lifetime. That's healthy and normal.

Ha, that’s my number.

Woman who likes sex (happily married)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Stupid conversation that only stupid people have and that usually ends with stupid results.

Many people have faith-based convictions that include prohibitions against pre-material sex. How many partners a person had is vital in this context. And it is vital for both men and women of faith.

This is such a bizarre claim. I can't think of a faith-based conviction about this that I have ever heard expressed in terms that make it sound like number of partners would be material. None of the faiths with this conviction have a rider clause for "if you only did it with one person it doesn't count" or w/ev it is you are picturing.

[Anonymous]

I (F) am 61 and at a body count of 38. Never married, so I think it's a pretty fair number , nothing to be surprised at. Since my daughter has gone away to college (UCLA, said proudly), I've had a few more partners than usual. I've never volunteered my number without being asked by a partner. I have no interest in their number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Many people have faith-based convictions that include prohibitions against pre-material sex. How many partners a person had is vital in this context. And it is vital for both men and women of faith.

However, people like the poster quoted above (i.e., people with many former partners) try to downplay that they have had more people riding them than a Metro car on the Red Line.

Interesting how you invoke faith and then go on to crassly judge another poster.
Typical.

Reread my post. I did not invoke my faith (or lack of it.) I explained why certain people would be interested in how many sexual partners someone had if they were dating them.

The world has too many people like you for me to have faith in any higher power. And it is easy for me to judge you and the others on here who are attempting to justify their vast promiscuity.

Oh like me? I’m crushed. But I wasn’t judging anyone based on their sexual partners.

You, however, did with your asinine “rode more than the metro” comment. Watch out kettle, you’re black.

[Anonymous]

This is such a bizarre claim. I can't think of a faith-based conviction about this that I have ever heard expressed in terms that make it sound like number of partners would be material. None of the faiths with this conviction have a rider clause for "if you only did it with one person it doesn't count" or w/ev it is you are picturing.

Many Christian religions teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Starting there, a person who believes this tenet would care how many partners a potential mate has had since it indicates the potential mate's adherence to this tenet.

For example, Larla is dating Larry. Larry has told Larla that he believes the same principles of faith that Larla does (including the tenet that sex outside of marriage is a sin.) Larla asks Larry how many partners he has had. His reply, "I had one, my wife" (and Larry is dating because he is a widower), indicates a greater adherence to this tenet than a reply of "I had 20 before I married, and 15 more after my wife passed." Asking this question allows Larla to consider how Larry has applied this tenet to his life.

I think you are confused about who the number of partners is material to. However, your post is poorly written it is hard to tell. In a religion that believes that sex outside of marriage is a sin, each act of having sex in this way is a sin. And more sin would be worse than less sin.

[Anonymous]

Oh like me? I’m crushed. But I wasn’t judging anyone based on their sexual partners.

You, however, did with your asinine “rode more than the metro” comment. Watch out kettle, you’re black.

Yes, like you.

You are not judging anyone based on their sexual history because it is a sensitive subject for you, and it is a sensitive subject because you are promiscuous.

Own it, since the people who know you also judge you for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is such a bizarre claim. I can't think of a faith-based conviction about this that I have ever heard expressed in terms that make it sound like number of partners would be material. None of the faiths with this conviction have a rider clause for "if you only did it with one person it doesn't count" or w/ev it is you are picturing.

Many Christian religions teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Starting there, a person who believes this tenet would care how many partners a potential mate has had since it indicates the potential mate's adherence to this tenet.

For example, Larla is dating Larry. Larry has told Larla that he believes the same principles of faith that Larla does (including the tenet that sex outside of marriage is a sin.) Larla asks Larry how many partners he has had. His reply, "I had one, my wife" (and Larry is dating because he is a widower), indicates a greater adherence to this tenet than a reply of "I had 20 before I married, and 15 more after my wife passed." Asking this question allows Larla to consider how Larry has applied this tenet to his life.

I think you are confused about who the number of partners is material to. However, your post is poorly written it is hard to tell. In a religion that believes that sex outside of marriage is a sin, each act of having sex in this way is a sin. And more sin would be worse than less sin.

All those religions have elites that groom and diddle kids. Seriously, who cares what they preach about pre-marital sex?

Everyone does it, or they find ways around it through a technicality (Catholic girls did lots of @nal, Mormons do their “soaking”).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I (F) am 61 and at a body count of 38. Never married, so I think it's a pretty fair number , nothing to be surprised at. Since my daughter has gone away to college (UCLA, said proudly), I've had a few more partners than usual. I've never volunteered my number without being asked by a partner. I have no interest in their number.

I wouldn’t trade my marriage for anything but I am a little jealous! 45 with the “average” number of 7.

And congrats on UCLA too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ask the woman then multiply what she says by at least three. 😃

That's not smart. I've never ever lied about my body count.

Women here. Not only I know my count (4) but also the dates when I had sex last time with each of these partners. They were all very special to me and made me feel special

NP With count of 7 and only 3 were very special.

Gasp! I had sex with four men and it was mostly for the pure joy and fun of it. I should be ashamed. Clearly getting naked with another person and having fun (safely) is despicable.

(N.B. I am being sarcastic, in case you can’t tell. What it actually is, is: none of your business.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I (F) am 61 and at a body count of 38. Never married, so I think it's a pretty fair number , nothing to be surprised at. Since my daughter has gone away to college (UCLA, said proudly), I've had a few more partners than usual. I've never volunteered my number without being asked by a partner. I have no interest in their number.

Hot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ask the woman then multiply what she says by at least three. 😃

That's not smart. I've never ever lied about my body count.

Women here. Not only I know my count (4) but also the dates when I had sex last time with each of these partners. They were all very special to me and made me feel special

NP With count of 7 and only 3 were very special.

Gasp! I had sex with four men and it was mostly for the pure joy and fun of it. I should be ashamed. Clearly getting naked with another person and having fun (safely) is despicable.

(N.B. I am being sarcastic, in case you can’t tell. What it actually is, is: none of your business.)

Good for you: not saying having sex for fun is bad. It's just I don't now how to have sex just for the sake of fun/joy. Few men made me feel so special to them, in order for me to want sex them versus my massager. Most on my way were lazy daters, narcissists, dated other women and I just didn't feel a need to stop give them a look/waste any time on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ask the woman then multiply what she says by at least three. 😃

That's not smart. I've never ever lied about my body count.

Women here. Not only I know my count (4) but also the dates when I had sex last time with each of these partners. They were all very special to me and made me feel special

NP With count of 7 and only 3 were very special.

Gasp! I had sex with four men and it was mostly for the pure joy and fun of it. I should be ashamed. Clearly getting naked with another person and having fun (safely) is despicable.

(N.B. I am being sarcastic, in case you can’t tell. What it actually is, is: none of your business.)

It’s not despicable but maybe your outlook on life is not compatible with someone else’s. Wouldn’t it be better to sort that out up front rather than hide the ball and end up in another failed relationship?