Do guys really care about a girls sexual history?

[Bullitt]

I know I'm not the runnin around type, and if the girl I'm dating isn't either, then things are cool no matter how many she's been with in the past. I'm the present and if she's not a cheater then there's no reason to be apprehensive towards her and sex. Granted we've both been tested and whatnot.

[yesman065]

1) Research proves that there are more men than women fathering children to another while married. You alsomixed your info on the 30% that you quoted. There were 2 different studies one in which 30% of the women admitted to cheating or knowing a friend who cheated, and 30% of THOSE thought that the child born MIGHT not be their husbands.
2) I did my own research and conclude that women attempt to pick up men at bars at an almost equal rate. My test sample was quite small, relatively speaking, but nonetheless it was a sample.
3) Women and men can go indefinitely without sexual satisfaction - period. There is nothing NOTHING anywhere that hints proves or implies anything to the contrary - nothing credible anyway.
4) Women, I have learned, enjoy sex just for sex as much as men. Unfortunately they were so repressed by their male counterparts for so many years, decades and centuries that they were unable to express their own values, opinions and/or desires without severe repercussions from their male "controllers." (this is opinion), now that women are as outspoken as their male counterparts, many men cannot handle the supposed equality, they are fearful of women and intimidated by strong minded females. Hence the type of antiquated, broad-based BS that was spouted here earlier.
5)"Most men have sex for pure pleasure." On this point I agree - only problem is - that men are typically selfish and do it primarily for their own pleasure whereas women have been conditioned to be the "caretakers" of society typically sacrificed their own pleasure for their partner. Fortunately, that is not as common as it used to be and I stand by my statement earlier, that I will continue to do whatever I can to assure that my partner achieves all that she wants from our lovemaking. Maybe thats it - you say sex and I say lovemaking. There is a distinct difference to me. Most men, like you, just want to get off and miss most of the fun and the point - in my opinion.
6)"Men have out of body experiences at 100%." I have made love without achieving an orgasm and had little or no need to do so. Especially after round 2 or 3 - I derive more pleasure giving pleasure to my partner than receiving. And I have found a partner who feels the same way - therefore it is far more intimate than just getting laid or "having sex". Yes, I have heard of "fakin it" and I know the difference - (no need to get explicit) especially when there is no reason for it - we have that kind of honesty with each other.
7)". . .females claim to have and orgasm at only 20%." That was also incorrect - "A" Cosmo survey said that women only had orgasms 20% of the time during sex with strictly penile penetration ONLY- NO assistance. Not news sir - simply restates how inadequate and/or unfamiliar most men are with respect to the female body.

[9th Engineer]

I think we can separate the question here into two components 1)Does your sexual history have relevance to your sexual future 2) Does everyone care about this.
My thoughts
2) Obviously no, we've more than established that here. This is the personal opinion part of it that's been throwing people off I think

1) I think the answer is yes once you remove the thoughts and feelings of anyone (including yourself) from the equation. We acknowledge that it is appropriate to look at the past to make educated guesses about the future, if this wasn't true we wouldn't have the justice system, banking and financial system, or education system we do.

So what people have been saying is a reflection of both of these put together which really boils down to your stance on #2. People who do say the history of their partner has no relevance to them are really saying that they don't care about what it says, most actually included the caviet "unless their history contains one of these senarios...". So they give up that even they would judge it in certain circumstances, which means that #1 must be true.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

People who do say the history of their partner has no relevance to them are really saying that they don't care about what it says, most actually included the caviet "unless their history contains one of these senarios...". So they give up that even they would judge it in certain circumstances, which means that #1 must be true.

This I do agree with. But the original question was, after all "Do Guys Really Care" and not "Does Sexual History Have Any Relevance".

I think we have established that the majority of men in the Cellar do not care, or at least care about it less than almost every other factor.

Some men on this board do care, which suggests there are also men in the real world who do too. And more (and more vocal) than I had anticipated.

Live and learn. Learn how to use the ignore list anyway
Edited to clarify there are no Engineers on my ignore list

Originally Posted by yesman065

1) Research proves that there are more men than women fathering children to another while married. You alsomixed your info on the 30% that you quoted. There were 2 different studies one in which 30% of the women admitted to cheating or knowing a friend who cheated, and 30% of THOSE thought that the child born MIGHT not be their husbands.
2) I did my own research and conclude that women attempt to pick up men at bars at an almost equal rate. My test sample was quite small, relatively speaking, but nonetheless it was a sample.
3) Women and men can go indefinitely without sexual satisfaction - period. There is nothing NOTHING anywhere that hints proves or implies anything to the contrary - nothing credible anyway.
4) Women, I have learned, enjoy sex just for sex as much as men. Unfortunately they were so repressed by their male counterparts for so many years, decades and centuries that they were unable to express their own values, opinions and/or desires without severe repercussions from their male "controllers." (this is opinion), now that women are as outspoken as their male counterparts, many men cannot handle the supposed equality, they are fearful of women and intimidated by strong minded females. Hence the type of antiquated, broad-based BS that was spouted here earlier.
5)"Most men have sex for pure pleasure." On this point I agree - only problem is - that men are typically selfish and do it primarily for their own pleasure whereas women have been conditioned to be the "caretakers" of society typically sacrificed their own pleasure for their partner. Fortunately, that is not as common as it used to be and I stand by my statement earlier, that I will continue to do whatever I can to assure that my partner achieves all that she wants from our lovemaking. Maybe thats it - you say sex and I say lovemaking. There is a distinct difference to me. Most men, like you, just want to get off and miss most of the fun and the point - in my opinion.
6)"Men have out of body experiences at 100%." I have made love without achieving an orgasm and had little or no need to do so. Especially after round 2 or 3 - I derive more pleasure giving pleasure to my partner than receiving. And I have found a partner who feels the same way - therefore it is far more intimate than just getting laid or "having sex". Yes, I have heard of "fakin it" and I know the difference - (no need to get explicit) especially when there is no reason for it - we have that kind of honesty with each other.
7)". . .females claim to have and orgasm at only 20%." That was also incorrect - "A" Cosmo survey said that women only had orgasms 20% of the time during sex with strictly penile penetration ONLY- NO assistance. Not news sir - simply restates how inadequate and/or unfamiliar most men are with respect to the female body.

You're a "Sally."

A "Sally" is a guy that talks like a women to smooge and gain there acceptance. Your broad "apology" also suggest your being obsequies.

Now before I address your completely absurd and ridiculous positions, let me state first they're absurd and ridiculous.

The issues of paternity which I made mention of was in the context of men not wanting to raise and support children that they didn’t father. Try reading before you rush to post and show everyone what a “Sally” you are.

“Your own research.” Oh stop it. It’s exactly this type of comment that rings of such pathetic and needy emotional issues you need to take care of. Gets some help.

Who said anything about being able to go without sex? What lap-dog butt kissing angle are you going with here?

Well now you said something of note here, and that being…"Women, I have learned, enjoy sex just for sex as much as men.”

Men don’t need to “learn” to enjoy sex period and what a stupid comment, yet women DO! That’s where the rubber meets the road Sally.

Yea, yea, yea, men have been oppressing women for thousands of years and three sheets to the wind and 3 coins in the fountain. Notice that when they decided to demand a vote and equality how quickly they got it. Seems to me the social differences and roles where mainly a results of biological exigencies. Industrialization, medical advancements, and most importantly “free time” played a substantial role in women’s political and social evolution then men suddenly deciding to stop “oppressing” them.

I am not one for name calling but you’re a dope.

[mrnoodle]

Isn't the question really "Is there ever a situation where past behavior isn't a good predictor of future behavior?"

Usually the answer is no, unless the subject is sex. Then, we're all clean slates every time we hook up with someone new. I dunno if I buy it.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Isn't the question really "Is there ever a situation where past behavior isn't a good predictor of future behavior?"

Usually the answer is no, unless the subject is sex. Then, we're all clean slates every time we hook up with someone new. I dunno if I buy it.

Are you talking about cheating or promiscuity?
One has nothing to do with the other.

[samothy]

Most guys I've been serious with have tended to take almost zero interest in my past affiliations with other males--I've always been the one to volunteer information first. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has been serially involved with people who've had next to zero sexual history, and having come from a background of silence about sex: I'd be more inclined to put greater faith in a relationship where both parties came with some experience at least under their belts... But that might be too simplistic Beyond the basic questions of 'how much of a physical health risk am I taking by sleeping with you?' I'd be more concerned with what they feel they've learnt from previous partners rather than simply condemning/praising/whatever for the sheer number value of previous partners.

Sex can be as complex a phenomenon, or as simple as you want it to be--One boy I know (who, as a previous poster mentioned, may well suffer from poor self-esteem) who's been promiscuous in years past is now bending over backwards trying to preserve his first emotionally significant relationship. Other friends have spoken of how they're in favour of open relationships because sex is mainly physical and fun and they feel secure in their emotional attachments to their partners to allow for said flexibility. On the other hand, we're all relatively young and haven't been forced to accept 'adult' life quite yet. I'm in favour of faithfulness within relationships, and especially within marriage, if for no other reason than it reduces emotional dramas >_<

Boils down to having compatible world/life viewpoints, I suppose. If your ideas of what love and intimacy mean to you are inextricably linked with the properties of exclusivity within your relationships, then it'd obviously be easier on the mind and soul to be with someone who feels the same way. I tend to play in a grey area where I and my partner/s are concerned here--still trying to work it out for myself

Oh, and /agree with previous posters who've pointed out the futility of trying to generalize in this area.

[Aliantha]

I'm not one for name calling either, so I wont tell you what a fuckwit you are bmw.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I'm not one for name calling either, so I wont tell you what a fuckwit you are bmw.

Why all the anger? Are you frighten of something?

Just post relevant comments and spare me the anger, cause it ain't got no traction with me pumpkin.

Impress me with your intellect not your backside.

[Aliantha]

I'm not angry Mr Potato Head. In fact, if anything, I'm amuzed by your inability to differentiate between humour and anger.

[bluecuracao]

bmw, you're not exactly impressing us with intellect, yourself.

[yesman065]

BM, Well I said what "I" believe, and what I found out to be the facts. You immediately retorted with namecalling (of which I was accused of previously. Nuff said you have no position and this is something which we will just have to agree to disagree upon. You take your views, opinions and beliefs into the world and I will do the same with mine.

By the way YOU asked for researched FACTS to back up my stance and all you came back with was calling me a "Sally." Pretty weak - nah very weak indeed! Even though I completely disagree with you, I expected you would have something - anything to reply with. Again you disappoint. Oh well, as you said "Just post relevant comments and spare me the anger" BM. In fact if you have nothing pertinent to add - it is probably better that you add nothing at all.

[yesman065]

Slam dunk Sundae!

Originally Posted by yesman065

Slam dunk Sundae!

"Sally"