Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As many or as few as my daughter (or my son, for that matter) wanted to have while staying safe and healthy, physically, mentally and emotionally. In our family, we don't slut-shame.

so 100 would be ok if she felt safe and healthy?

Sure. Honestly, I think 100 wouldn't even be that high if you end up marrying late like late thirties, early forties. Some people have to kiss a lot of frogs before finding the one.

At those ridiculously highly fictional numbers, it's obviously a person who needs Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous: http://www.slaafws.org/

Growing up in DC in the 1980s, I've known an handful of men and women like this. They're always tortured. They're either driven by repetition compulsion or some other affliction. Almost all want a solid, loving relationship with someone who really cares about them. Nobody wants to be used, certainly not seriously.

However, I honestly think you're being disingenuous in your post and that you'd never consider LTRs with anyone of that description.

Some people see sex as an enjoyable way to get some necessary physical release and don't view every partner as a potential ltr. Just a little FYI.

If you honestly believe this tell your partner, get tested on a regular basis and use a condom every single time you have sex.

BTW, this approach doesn't work well with very many women. If you want one reaction, watch Carmen Diaz's character's response to being called a "fuck buddy" by Tom Cruise's character in "Vanilla Sky."

I haven't seen this movie but I've never been crushed when a guy I fancied didn't want anything serious. They seldom do in college anyway. Most people just want to have some fun and then gossip to their friends afterwards It doesn't have to be a big deal.

That's another thing. I don't think many people just want to compare sexual experiences around the breakfast table the day afterward. That's a myth perpetuated by "Sex and the City" and shows like that.

Here's what my friends and I heard more of: "Oh, I met this terrific guy. We're going out Friday, and if it works out, I'll introduce you to him."
Occasionally, we heard something like this: "I slept with X and he didn't call back. What went wrong?"
Then, we'd all commiserate about it and help her through it until she met someone else.

Um, ok. You do get that other people, who are not you and your friends, exist, right? Because my friends and I had those conversations frequently, and I never watched SATC.

Anonymous wrote:Fathers - How many sex partners would you want your daughter to have prior to marriage?

Fathers - How many sex partners would you want your son to have prior to marriage?

I'd guess that, if these were the questions, the answer to the fist alternative question would probably be fewer than the original one, and the answer to the second alternative question would be surely much higher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As many or as few as my daughter (or my son, for that matter) wanted to have while staying safe and healthy, physically, mentally and emotionally. In our family, we don't slut-shame.

so 100 would be ok if she felt safe and healthy?

Sure. Honestly, I think 100 wouldn't even be that high if you end up marrying late like late thirties, early forties. Some people have to kiss a lot of frogs before finding the one.

At those ridiculously highly fictional numbers, it's obviously a person who needs Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous: http://www.slaafws.org/

Growing up in DC in the 1980s, I've known an handful of men and women like this. They're always tortured. They're either driven by repetition compulsion or some other affliction. Almost all want a solid, loving relationship with someone who really cares about them. Nobody wants to be used, certainly not seriously.

However, I honestly think you're being disingenuous in your post and that you'd never consider LTRs with anyone of that description.

Some people see sex as an enjoyable way to get some necessary physical release and don't view every partner as a potential ltr. Just a little FYI.

Another flip response by a non-parent who doesn't take the call of the question seriously. I bet you haven't had sex in months yourself.

Grow up.

Parent of a daughter here, and I completely agree that sex can absolutely be only about physical release. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you're safe. What's wrong with that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the question about how many partners daughters have? If you're a straight male, you're going to be banging someone's daughter so what's with giving a shit about numbers and all? Worry about yourself.

Sounds like slut defense.

Sounds like a homosexual, which is fine but why do you care what straight people do? It has nothing to do with you.

Homophobia has no place on this thread or this board.

That isn't a homophobic remark. If you think it's fine for men to sleep around but not women, you're basically saying you sleep with men.

I'm a female poster who wrote the prior remark and I meant it. The poster who wrote "sounds like a homosexual" sounded as if it were an accusation. Here's my take: don't slut shame anyone and don't use sexual orientation terms as pejoratives.

I'm the pp who made the remarks. I'm not being accusatory. I'm pointing out the absolute ridiculous double standard of judging women and not men for the same fucking thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the question about how many partners daughters have? If you're a straight male, you're going to be banging someone's daughter so what's with giving a shit about numbers and all? Worry about yourself.

Sounds like slut defense.

Sounds like a homosexual, which is fine but why do you care what straight people do? It has nothing to do with you.

Homophobia has no place on this thread or this board.

That isn't a homophobic remark. If you think it's fine for men to sleep around but not women, you're basically saying you sleep with men.

I'm a female poster who wrote the prior remark and I meant it. The poster who wrote "sounds like a homosexual" sounded as if it were an accusation. Here's my take: don't slut shame anyone and don't use sexual orientation terms as pejoratives.

I'm the pp who made the remarks. I'm not being accusatory. I'm pointing out the absolute ridiculous double standard of judging women and not men for the same fucking thing.

On a thread about fathers and sons and their advice, you can talk about it then.

The topic of this thread is moms and daughters.

Anonymous wrote:This thread isn't for someone who's trying to quit smoking.

Some of you restore my faith in people. I thank you for that.

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 a very good point!! Biology affects our emotions. This is why men can have so many partners and not feel anything. Women are biologically wired differently then men. All the sexual freedom in the world can not change this. The more partners a woman has the more likely she will have emotional baggage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As many or as few as my daughter (or my son, for that matter) wanted to have while staying safe and healthy, physically, mentally and emotionally. In our family, we don't slut-shame.

so 100 would be ok if she felt safe and healthy?

Sure. Honestly, I think 100 wouldn't even be that high if you end up marrying late like late thirties, early forties. Some people have to kiss a lot of frogs before finding the one.

At those ridiculously highly fictional numbers, it's obviously a person who needs Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous: http://www.slaafws.org/

Growing up in DC in the 1980s, I've known an handful of men and women like this. They're always tortured. They're either driven by repetition compulsion or some other affliction. Almost all want a solid, loving relationship with someone who really cares about them. Nobody wants to be used, certainly not seriously.

However, I honestly think you're being disingenuous in your post and that you'd never consider LTRs with anyone of that description.

Some people see sex as an enjoyable way to get some necessary physical release and don't view every partner as a potential ltr. Just a little FYI.

If you honestly believe this tell your partner, get tested on a regular basis and use a condom every single time you have sex.

BTW, this approach doesn't work well with very many women. If you want one reaction, watch Carmen Diaz's character's response to being called a "fuck buddy" by Tom Cruise's character in "Vanilla Sky."

I haven't seen this movie but I've never been crushed when a guy I fancied didn't want anything serious. They seldom do in college anyway. Most people just want to have some fun and then gossip to their friends afterwards It doesn't have to be a big deal.

That's another thing. I don't think many people just want to compare sexual experiences around the breakfast table the day afterward. That's a myth perpetuated by "Sex and the City" and shows like that.

Here's what my friends and I heard more of: "Oh, I met this terrific guy. We're going out Friday, and if it works out, I'll introduce you to him."
Occasionally, we heard something like this: "I slept with X and he didn't call back. What went wrong?"
Then, we'd all commiserate about it and help her through it until she met someone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As many or as few as my daughter (or my son, for that matter) wanted to have while staying safe and healthy, physically, mentally and emotionally. In our family, we don't slut-shame.

so 100 would be ok if she felt safe and healthy?

Sure. Honestly, I think 100 wouldn't even be that high if you end up marrying late like late thirties, early forties. Some people have to kiss a lot of frogs before finding the one.

At those ridiculously highly fictional numbers, it's obviously a person who needs Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous: http://www.slaafws.org/

Growing up in DC in the 1980s, I've known an handful of men and women like this. They're always tortured. They're either driven by repetition compulsion or some other affliction. Almost all want a solid, loving relationship with someone who really cares about them. Nobody wants to be used, certainly not seriously.

However, I honestly think you're being disingenuous in your post and that you'd never consider LTRs with anyone of that description.

Some people see sex as an enjoyable way to get some necessary physical release and don't view every partner as a potential ltr. Just a little FYI.

Another flip response by a non-parent who doesn't take the call of the question seriously. I bet you haven't had sex in months yourself.

Grow up.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is ridiculous. For the sexist posters bitching about sluts, if women truly had a few partners, say less 3 or less, then asshole men would be bitching about not getting laid. But of course, a woman who has more partners than what others is considered 'right' is a slut??? There's no logic in that.