Mothers - How many sex partners would you want your daughter to have prior to marriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And 17 would be a good age to start.

Right, and at least one of the 17 should be with another woman.

Obviously written by a snarky guy. Sexual orientation is no joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you all are avoiding the question

this is not a thread to discuss your perceptions of gender and slut vs stud

concrete number please

Phrased differently - if your daughter told you her number - what number would shock / disappoint you?

Don't avoid the question please -

GIVE #

Numbers aren't what would shock me. It's the reasoning behind the numbers that would shock me. If she had no partners before marriage because she thought it would make her a slut, that would shock me. If she had 7 partners because she need male sexual attention to feel good about herself, that would shock me. And if she had 50 partners as a conscious part of her own sexual exploration, I'd be fine.

So, there you go. And ease back on the thread rules, OP. This is a discussion board, not your treehouse. You don't get to dictate the rules of the conversation.

so 500 would be ok if she felt like she consciously wanted to explore 500 penises?

Yes.

I guess you would be proud.

You would be ok then too with her consciously choosing to be a porn star or a prostitute if she "consciously wanted to explore" it?

Why would pride enter into my feelings about the number of partners she has? 0, 5, 500, whatever - pride implies that I have some personal stake in that number, and in the details of my dd's sex life. Like I would be proud of the number of positions she tries or the number of orgasms she has. That's just weird and creepy.

You seem to expect me to put a lot of stock in a single data point - the number of partners. I just don't. That number just doesn't matter to me as much as the reasoning. If my dd is mature and self aware to make strong and conscious choices about her sexuality, then THAT is what will make me proud.

As for being a porn star or prostitute, I would be much more likely to be concerned for her physical safety - both industries are notorious for not always practicing safe sex, and prostitution can (but not always) set up an unhealthy power dynamic if a pimp is involved. I'd want to know she is safe. But no, I wouldn't be worked up just because her chosen industry is sex-based.

So much easier to say that in a hypothetical than in real life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you all are avoiding the question

this is not a thread to discuss your perceptions of gender and slut vs stud

concrete number please

Phrased differently - if your daughter told you her number - what number would shock / disappoint you?

Don't avoid the question please -

GIVE #

Numbers aren't what would shock me. It's the reasoning behind the numbers that would shock me. If she had no partners before marriage because she thought it would make her a slut, that would shock me. If she had 7 partners because she need male sexual attention to feel good about herself, that would shock me. And if she had 50 partners as a conscious part of her own sexual exploration, I'd be fine.

So, there you go. And ease back on the thread rules, OP. This is a discussion board, not your treehouse. You don't get to dictate the rules of the conversation.

so 500 would be ok if she felt like she consciously wanted to explore 500 penises?

Yes.

I guess you would be proud.

You would be ok then too with her consciously choosing to be a porn star or a prostitute if she "consciously wanted to explore" it?

Why would pride enter into my feelings about the number of partners she has? 0, 5, 500, whatever - pride implies that I have some personal stake in that number, and in the details of my dd's sex life. Like I would be proud of the number of positions she tries or the number of orgasms she has. That's just weird and creepy.

You seem to expect me to put a lot of stock in a single data point - the number of partners. I just don't. That number just doesn't matter to me as much as the reasoning. If my dd is mature and self aware to make strong and conscious choices about her sexuality, then THAT is what will make me proud.

As for being a porn star or prostitute, I would be much more likely to be concerned for her physical safety - both industries are notorious for not always practicing safe sex, and prostitution can (but not always) set up an unhealthy power dynamic if a pimp is involved. I'd want to know she is safe. But no, I wouldn't be worked up just because her chosen industry is sex-based.

So much easier to say that in a hypothetical than in real life.

Ok - thanks for your feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about oxytocin release?

We now know that in females sexual activity releases oxytocin and creates pair bond feelings.

to those who say 100 partners is ok - what about the tendency for women to bond to their partners?

Bond / break / bond / break

Is that healthy?

This is made up bullshit from the Christian right.

Um. Try doing a little research on oxytocin and see what you come back with. Pubmed is a good place to start.

And just about every woman I've ever met has said that sex makes them feel closer to the partner.

You're cute. You're still an ignorant fool, though.

The anecdotal evidence you cite on the second line is the exact opposite of peer-reviewed evidence published in Pubmed. The singular of "data" is not "anecdote."

It's bullshit because it takes a small piece of information about oxytocin and strings it out into a made-up story about what happens to women's emotions during sex.

Sex does create good feelings towards the person that you have sex with. It however doesn't create some kind of "pair bond" that causes psychological damage if you break it. Women aren't baby ducks that imprint on the first cock that they put in their vaginas. There's no evidence for that.

Women also have good feelings towards people who buy them an ice cream. It also doesn't create a "pair bond."

Men also have good feelings towards people that they have pleasurable sex with. The Christian Right doesn't emphasize this theory for men, though, because they are less concerned about controlling men's sexuality and very concerned with controlling women's sexuality.

There is an equal amount of evidence that humans are designed to be moderately polyamorous. A good summary of that evidence is set out in a book called "Sex at Dawn."

Both of these, however, are evolutionary psych approaches, so I tend to call "bullshit" on both of them. Humans have so much cognitive structure laid over the top of any instincts we once had, that it is unclear that humans have any sort of instincts at all. We just have too much cognitive ability to be particularly functional.

Here is the money quote from one of the most ardent critical pieces I have found supporting what you are claiming:

"After spending far too much time buried in oxytocin research, I'm not going to argue that the notion or suggestion oxytocin potentially plays some part in how we do or don't bond or otherwise behave with or feel about with others is invalid. It's pretty clear to me that it is valid to state it often does or may plays a part."

http://io9.com/5606765/myths-about-the-love-hormone-oxytocin-that-could-ruin-your-love-life

[Anonymous]

The truth is that sex is about emotions. You can't put numbers on that. Also, some people bond sexually on a deeper level than others. As DH says, women can be predatory too. Women and men can be both monogamous and polygamous.

Where feelings are involved -- for a person who gives his/her heart like myself and DH -- it's best to limit partners. We both have numbers in the single digits, and we've been together for nearly two decades now.

We we've both had experience with "players," people who cheat but treat monogamous partners as security blankets. Bad experiences all around.

The greater goal is to teach sexual ethics. There's nothing wrong with being a "slut" if you're sexually responsible, use protection and don't use partners who seek an exclusive relationship. However, it's best to wait until both partners are of legal age so that they get the nuances of birth control and STD protection.

Also, sexual orientation is not only about partners but about one's identity. Trying another orientation that doesn't fit one's psyche is stupid, a "user" move, and emotionally damaging to both partners.

The goal is to teach respect, both of oneself and of one's partners, but sex isn't about numbers, it's about relationships.

[Anonymous]

Sex in a emotionally fulfilling and supportive relationship is what I would want for her. She should have sex when she can deal with the emotional ramifications.

If she wants to have sex because everybody is doing "it", or she has sexual needs then she is better served masturbating and using sex toys.

Actually, come to think of it - why would you not give these tips to your daughter (masturbation and sex toys) instead of saying it is ok to have sex with X number of guys. She could have sex with tons of boys and still be having bad sex, at least when she is masturbating she knows what she wants and how to get it.

[Anonymous]

Never thought about a number. I teach my kids (boys and girls) that casual sex is often more headache than it's worth, and that our family values include being in love and in a monogamous relationship before having sex. I guess I assumed they'd each have two or three serious relationships before marrying.

[Anonymous]

Anyone remember the Mary Tyler Moore Show? In it Mary asked Mr. Grant what was an acceptable number of partners for a respectable woman. "7!" Mr. Grant barked back at her.

I think the 2 to 8 range is actually a good one, frankly.

[Anonymous]

The problem with OP is that he wants to attach value to the number of sexual partners. That is immoral and you should be ashamed of trying to associate the two, not proud.

Don't try to peddle your faults. It's not normal. You seriously need therapy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that sex is about emotions. You can't put numbers on that. Also, some people bond sexually on a deeper level than others. As DH says, women can be predatory too. Women and men can be both monogamous and polygamous.

Where feelings are involved -- for a person who gives his/her heart like myself and DH -- it's best to limit partners. We both have numbers in the single digits, and we've been together for nearly two decades now.

We we've both had experience with "players," people who cheat but treat monogamous partners as security blankets. Bad experiences all around.

The greater goal is to teach sexual ethics. There's nothing wrong with being a "slut" if you're sexually responsible, use protection and don't use partners who seek an exclusive relationship. However, it's best to wait until both partners are of legal age so that they get the nuances of birth control and STD protection.

Also, sexual orientation is not only about partners but about one's identity. Trying another orientation that doesn't fit one's psyche is stupid, a "user" move, and emotionally damaging to both partners.

The goal is to teach respect, both of oneself and of one's partners, but sex isn't about numbers, it's about relationships.

Thoughtful post, thanks.

OP here - I think that exploring sexual orientation its healthy actually. If you have questions, answer them.

Can you tell me why you think there is nothing wrong with being a "slut" as you put it?

If sex is about relationships and not numbers as you say - how could someone with 50 partners at age 25 have the relationships to go with the experience?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never thought about a number. I teach my kids (boys and girls) that casual sex is often more headache than it's worth, and that our family values include being in love and in a monogamous relationship before having sex. I guess I assumed they'd each have two or three serious relationships before marrying.

so like 2-4 partners?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with OP is that he wants to attach value to the number of sexual partners. That is immoral and you should be ashamed of trying to associate the two, not proud.

Don't try to peddle your faults. It's not normal. You seriously need therapy.

and what value do you think i'm trying to ascribe to a number?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough question. I'd want her to be having "mindful sex" and not sleeping with a guy because "he'll like me better" or "I think I should" or "everyone else is doing it" i'd like her to associate sex with an emotional connection rather than "hey, it's Friday, who should I do tonight?" For some women that will be two or three, for others it could be many more.

Meh. You know how many problems that creates?

Do a lot of posters use "Meh" or is there a single "Meh" poster? Just wondering, not sure if I like the "meh" or find it annoying.

I'd say lose virginity at 18
2-3 real sexual relationships/serious boyfriends before marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that sex is about emotions. You can't put numbers on that. Also, some people bond sexually on a deeper level than others. As DH says, women can be predatory too. Women and men can be both monogamous and polygamous.

Where feelings are involved -- for a person who gives his/her heart like myself and DH -- it's best to limit partners. We both have numbers in the single digits, and we've been together for nearly two decades now.

We we've both had experience with "players," people who cheat but treat monogamous partners as security blankets. Bad experiences all around.

The greater goal is to teach sexual ethics. There's nothing wrong with being a "slut" if you're sexually responsible, use protection and don't use partners who seek an exclusive relationship. However, it's best to wait until both partners are of legal age so that they get the nuances of birth control and STD protection.

Also, sexual orientation is not only about partners but about one's identity. Trying another orientation that doesn't fit one's psyche is stupid, a "user" move, and emotionally damaging to both partners.

The goal is to teach respect, both of oneself and of one's partners, but sex isn't about numbers, it's about relationships.

Thoughtful post, thanks.

OP here - I think that exploring sexual orientation its healthy actually. If you have questions, answer them.

Can you tell me why you think there is nothing wrong with being a "slut" as you put it?

If sex is about relationships and not numbers as you say - how could someone with 50 partners at age 25 have the relationships to go with the experience?

"Slut" is a sexist stereotype of non-monogamous women that keeps us all down. If a woman has multiple partners responsibly and ethically, I have no problem being friends with her simply because I'm monogamous. We may have different sex/relationship goals, but we have the same other goals: equality politically, socially and economically. Not all promiscuous women want to break up other relationships. They just don't want to be tied down. That experience is valid and I don't feel the need to judge.

As for "exploring" orientations, that's O.K. if a person genuinely has those feelings, but most of us are clearly straight or gay and know it by high school. They don't need to explore because they know who they are. They shouldn't use others just out of curiosity. Not knowing is O.K., too, as long as such explorations involve letting the partner know that s/he's just exploring. Using protection is absolutely paramount in such situations because they often involve high risk sex, both physically and emotionally. Mindlessly giving someone else a disease is crazy and cruel in this day and age, when people can prevent the spread of chronic, potentially life threatening illnesses.

No, volume is not the goal here. Staying true to one's identity and experiencing mutual respect with partners, whatever the number, is the goal.

Ideally, sex is about the expression of love, not the exploitation of another human being.

[Anonymous]

I'd say 10 partners, starting around 17-19yo.