P.S. Just wanted to add--why is this all about men...is this a problem only in heterosexual relationships? And would men have a problem if a woman's number of lovers were all oral sex related? It's always seemed to me there's a big fear of how many cocks have been involved in a woman's sexual past...cause sex isn't sex without penetration to a lot of guys.

I'm right there with you. Sharing my number (ballpark, I stopped counting frankly) is an essential part of the early dating experiance, usually on the first date or before. I'm happily polyamorous, so anyone who can't deal with my sexual past is not going to be able to handle a sexual present with me and is not worth my time. Hugo makes it sound like it is only a very special lover that can give the whole "before there was us there was you" speech, but that's something I expect as a basic requirement. It's right up there with bathing, being respectful to others, and being able to dress yourself.

If you can still tally the number of men you've had sex with, then you're not a slut in my book ☺. In all seriousness, it should have far less to do with the number, and more to do with how it came about. If you had only been with five different people, but three of them were one night stands with someone you hardly knew, wouldn't that make you more of a slut than if you had been with ten partners that you dated exclusively for several months before you became intimate?

There is definitely a double standard, and you don't have to play along with it. There are plenty of men who are sexually secure enough to deal with a woman's sexual past, even if it out numbers their own.

Equality between the sexes includes equal rights in the bedroom. We are entitled to enjoyment of our sexual capabilities, without being demeaned by it. As long as we allow ourselves to be ashamed of our erotic nature, we will never be on equal footing to men. Of course that doesn't mean that we have to have sex if we don't enjoy it, only that shame won't be a factor in the decision process.

BTW, if performing oral sex on a man doesn't include penetration for you, then you're doing it the wrong way ☻

French: I was actually talking about receiving...

Receiving oral sex... aha, yes, I suppose that wouldn't involve penetration (unless you're like me and you enjoy a light fingering during).

I suppose I'm as bad as the rest of them. I assumed when you mentioned oral sex you meant performing it on a man. Even before Clinton first claimed that oral sex wasn't included in "sexual relations" -back when I still kept tally- I didn't include men I had only had oral sex with. I did however include women I had only had oral sex with, so who knows what that means.

Anyway, I was just joking around with you. I think it's funny how different sex acts are regarded by society. In defining prostitution, sex includes the touching of nipples in a sensual way, or any touching that is sexually stimulating. As far as statuatory (and probably forceable) rape goes, sodomy (oral or anal sex) is considered a more serious offense than plain old piv intercourse, and if a 19 year old performs oral sex on a 16 year old, it's more serious than if he were to have regular sex with her, supposedly. It must be a biblical thing.

Since my boyfriend is just as adamant I not know his as he mine, I think it's not so much a double standard as it sends the mind where it does not belong. I admire his request not to share because it shows he knows himself and knows that this is the best way to avoid bringing up jealousies that might be hurtful. But the longer we're together, the more that worry slips away.

Anyway, once you get into the "what counts" area, then the whole question seems ludicrous. I actually couldn't tell you therefore what my "number" is because of this. It's bigger than a breadbox, though.

If I'm looking to get laid, you would be my first pick.

If I am looking to procreate, you would be very low on my list. The reason is very simple. Scientific research has shown over and over again that women have a tendency to attempt to mate with the most dominate male they can find, while attempting to have a more compliant male raise the resulting children. Also, when a woman is attempting to become pregnant, she often will mate with more than one male in order to maximize the probability of getting pregnant.

Both of these research results are born out by the fact that more than 30% of the children of married couples are not the offspring of the husband and that is usually not known to him.

Since I would like to raise my own genetic off-spring, you would be a very poor choice for a mate.

Science is such an inconvenient thing for feminists. No wonder you dislike it so much.

The "what counts" issue clearly highlights the way PV intercourse as the standard is assumed and rarely challenged. Of course, people call bullshit on this when it is convenient for them -- for example, conservatives call bullshit on it when Clinton got a blowjob from a woman not his wife, and when teens start having oral sex as an alternative to PV intercourse (thereby reducing their risk exposure but upsetting the adults). We on the left tend to call bullshit on it because it discounts the experiences of lesbian and bisexual women, some gay and bisexual men, and many intersexed and transgendered folk.

Amanda, my wife and I mused over yours and Hugo's post last night, and her first response was, "wait -- you've slept with more women than me. I haven't slept with any women. I'm jealous. What's your number? Maybe I can catch up."

Which raised the question of my number. If one only counts PV intercourse, it's actually quite low, because I tended to gravitate to other forms of sex for casual partners through my most active years.

In college, the operating definition in my crowd for sex was "a reasonable attempt by one person to produce orgasm in another by physical contact." By that definition, cyber doesn't count, and mutual masturbation is something, but it isn't sex. Handjobs are in, though. It's the most useful definition I've found, though it isn't perfect. For example, it leaves out genital stimulation where orgasm is not a goal, which excludes tantra totally. But perfection is elusive.

I find a guy less attractive if he's had too many partners. I remember one guy who used to sit across from me at work who'd always brag about his "exploits" with women. The whole time, all I could think was "STD"...

To me, the possibilty of them having an STD is really the only thing that would make me concerned about anyone's "number".

Iguana:

Science says:
The most widely accepted figures indicate that between 50 and 70 percent of married men (between 38 and 53 million men) have cheated or will cheat on their wives.

I have search the Net high and low and can't find any corroborating evidence to support your 30% claim. A NYT article quotes 1 in 7 (that's 15% for those of use who like percentages), but that number comes from paternity testing centers which are anything but random samples of the population. You don't go an get tested unless you have a reason to suspect that you aren't the papa. Also, When they are asked how many sexual partners they would like over a certain period of time, men report that they would prefer more partners than women.
When they are asked if they would agree to have sexual intercourse with an attractive member of the opposite sex that they have known for varying lengths of time, men and women express different likelihood's of consent. Men reported that they would be slightly disinclined to have intercourse with a woman they had known for just an hour. In contrast, it is very unlikely that a woman would agree to intercourse after knowing a man for this length of time.
(http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year3/PSY339EvolutionaryPsychology/EvolutionaryPsychology.htm)

As a student of evolutionary psychology, you are absolutely and utterly wrong in your assertions that women have the urge to "sleep around" in order to confuse the potential fathers.

And for the record, I love science cuz it helps me prove you wrong.

Scientific research has shown over and over again that women have a tendency to attempt to mate with the most dominate male they can find, while attempting to have a more compliant male raise the resulting children. Also, when a woman is attempting to become pregnant, she often will mate with more than one male in order to maximize the probability of getting pregnant.

Iguana, I'm pretty sure that this means that these ladies would want to fuck me and marry you, but I don't see how you could use it to determine who you would procreate with. Unless you're suggesting that it's a bad idea to procreate with women in general, in which case, I'm open to suggestion.

This is the second time I've had an evo psych loving idiot claim that there is a biological difference between having sex with someone and having children with them. Who knew that human beings could evolve so quickly in the 40 years since the pill was invented?

Thomas, that`s pretty much the same definition I came up with in my college days. In my case, I blame my first lover, who was adamant that sex does not equal penetration. (As she put it, "that would mean there are all these lovely women I never had sex with, and screw that.")

Like someone above said, the "why"s of your number tends to me much more revealing than the number itself. (Someone whose number mostly consists of, "I was bored and wanted to get laid" isn`t going to inspire me to want to be with them. I`d rather be more fun than "nothing better to do right now".)

Thomas: Were you responding to me? If not, you may ignore this and marvel at my cluelessness. If you were, I've been with 8 women, but only three of them alone (meaning just the two of us, without any others present). One of them I dated and lived with for 2 years. The others were more casual (though only three were one time things).

I've been with far more men (lost count some time ago) though not because I'm more attracted to them; mostly because it's easier. The sex is easier, and even though I live in SF, it's harder to meet women for dating. Many lesbians aren't into bisexual women, and most bisexual women seem to want you to meet them with their boyfriends.

As for oral sex vs PV intercourse- the funny thing is that many women from very Christian families will engage in oral sex so they can keep their hymens intact.

Iguana: Your scientific theory sounds very plausible, and it's probably accurate for iguanas. But for women, I would hardly consider that a reliable standard. Sure some women get knocked up by a**holes who aren't desireable partners for raising children, but it is hardly the norm.

I once saw a TV programme where an iguana got depressed because he didn't have a mate, and they made him happy by giving him a stuffed toy iguana. It was a real thing, honest. He looked quite content by the end - though a content iguana does look a lot like a depressed one, I have to admit.

My answer to this question from nosy people who have no business asking (ie anyone I'm not sleeping with) has beenn to get all wide eyed and say "I'm not sure...are we counting girls too or just guys?".
Honestly, with anyone I'm actually sleeping with I'm quite happy to tell, and with most friends too. I don't see what the big deal is. If anyone's going to get all wierd about the number, well, that's a pretty efficient way to screen out assholes as far as I'm concerned.
I second Thomas's definition of sex by the way.

Re: The 30% figure

My (terribly un-rigorous) review of the online scholarship on the frequency of a "non paternal event" (isn't that a great euphemism?) suggests that 2%-5% is the conventional estimate. I believe Iguana may be confusing a study I vaguely recall that showed that---through a number of generations---the incidence of a non-paternity event got really high. So your chance of actually being the great-great-great-great-great-grandchild of your supposed great-great-great-great-great-grandfather is quite a bit less than 95%-98%, as you'd expect. Regret I can't provide a cite for the latter stat, but former should be here.

Iguana, I think I speak for all of us here when I say this:

You have to stop eating the paint chips. You know, the ones that taste a little like sugar? Those have lead in them, and they hurt your brain. I know they taste nice, but tell your mommy you've been eating the paint chips, and maybe she'll let you have ice cream instead. You do like ice cream, right?

Run along now.

FrenchKiss, I was addressing the issue you raised, though I didn't mean to single you out.

Both Amanda's blog and Alas have dealt with biphobia in the past month or so. Have a look at their archives.

The only number that matters to me is how many people they sleep with while we're in a mutually agreed on monogamous relationship. It had best be one. Other than that, I could care less.

You have to stop eating the paint chips. You know, the ones that taste a little like sugar? Those have lead in them, and they hurt your brain. I know they taste nice, but tell your mommy you've been eating the paint chips, and maybe she'll let you have ice cream instead. You do like ice cream, right?

Unfortunately, this sort of common sense coming from Mommy is ignored outright because, as we all know, Real Men don't listen to women.

I've managed to save up roughly $28640 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?