What Number of Sex Partners is Optimal?

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure, but I know it's a whole number. No fractions, please.

No fractions? Umm...but that means I can't tally each time I've viewed Balinese donkey porn as towards 1/2 of a sex partner. How on earth will I inflate the number of my sex partners now! Jeebers, Jeff, but you can be cruel at times!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So good of you to know exactly what other people should be doing with themselves and within their sexual and romantic relationships and insisting your beliefs on the subject are exactly what they need to get over those things they do differently from you.

Some behaviors are just wiser than others. It insulates a person from suffering bad consequences.

 

[Sunstone]

Some behaviors are just wiser than others. It insulates a person from suffering bad consequences.

I don't know whether this works for anyone else, but I see it as a trade-off between the risks and the potential rewards. Also, you can somewhat ameliorate the risks (use a condom, etc), although you can't entirely eliminate them. Overall, though, it's a bit like driving a car -- there are both risks and rewards.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It insulates a person from suffering bad consequences.

And yet some people have died from exercise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some behaviors are just wiser than others. It insulates a person from suffering bad consequences.

One example of a bad consequence that results from an unwise choice: living out one's days in loveless marriage just because of an arbitrary decision to limit onesself to only one sexual partner for life.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

One example of a bad consequence that results from an unwise choice: living out one's days in loveless marriage just because of an arbitrary decision to limit onesself to only one sexual partner for life.

There's no question that that situation occurs quite often between spouses today. Divorce rates are so high because of one spouse -- or both -- putting their interests first, ahead of their mate. Simply put, that's selfish, the opposite of love.
But one shouldn't have to suffer a 'loveless marriage' if enough time is spent getting to know their prospective partner well enough during courtship.

I still stand by my earlier statement, that spouses would work harder at keeping their mate happy, ie., on their marriage, if stricter morals were in place, and people knew it would be difficult to get sex. Nowadays, you can just visit a bar.
And if you're ugly, you just have to buy more drinks!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's no question that that situation occurs quite often between spouses today. Divorce rates are so high because of one spouse -- or both -- putting their interests first, ahead of their mate. Simply put, that's selfish, the opposite of love.

So you think that when one spouse puts their own interests ahead of the interests of their spouse, the other spouse should just sit there and take it?

But one shouldn't have to suffer a 'loveless marriage' if enough time is spent getting to know their prospective partner well enough during courtship.

Do you think it helps or hinders having “a long courtship” to convince horny teenagers that they aren’t allowed to have sex except with someone they’re married to?

Premarital sex improves the odds that, when a person does marry, it will be a marriage based on love and mutual respect instead of being an inconvenience in order to get laid.

I still stand by my earlier statement, that spouses would work harder at keeping their mate happy, ie., on their marriage, if stricter morals were in place, and people knew it would be difficult to get sex.

I don’t see bans on premarital sex as “strict morals” as much as I see them as arbitrary and harmful. Just because a rule is difficult to follow doesn’t make it good.

Rules on premarital sex came out of ideas that we see as abhorrent in any other context: the idea that marriage is nothing more than a breeding arrangement and that the bride is nothing more than property purchased from her father by her husband. You’ve given up the idea that women are property, but you haven’t given up all of the trappings of it. There’s no morality in this. Lots of oppression, no morality.

Nowadays, you can just visit a bar.
And if you're ugly, you just have to buy more drinks!

I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don’t see bans on premarital sex as “strict morals” as much as I see them as arbitrary and harmful.

!
What's "harmful" are the STD's rampant from such activity! It also results, many times, in unwanted children that grow up unloved with no stability or structured life, often a stepping stone to criminal activity and a burden to society.

Chastity is "difficult to follow", only because of lax standards prevalent in a society.

Self control is hardly ever abhorrent.


If your view of marriage is 'oppression, ownership and a breeding arrangement', then your experience of it is not based on a loving relationship, as marriage should be founded on.

Sadly, today, many view marriage as you do, most of them probably from experience. Modern society has bred selfish individuals, i.e., loveless individuals. (Maybe their parents were selfish, too.)

Have a good day, my friend.

 

[bubbleguppy]

Imma go ahead and give the boring answer: There isn't an optimal number that can be generalized to everyone. Every single individual should have as many or as few sexual partners as they like, as long as they are being responsible to their own health and the health of their sexual partners. If anything, having a couple at once would probably be the most fun though, haha.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

0, for everyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is approximately the best number of sex partners for people to have had in their lives?

One.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am getting old and I can't handle more than two a night.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

!
What's "harmful" are the STD's rampant from such activity! It also results, many times, in unwanted children that grow up unloved with no stability or structured life, often a stepping stone to criminal activity and a burden to society.

When kids grow up without proper sex ed, sure.

Chastity is "difficult to follow", only because of lax standards prevalent in a society.

The mere fact that something is difficult doesn’t make it good or beneficial. Why don’t you hop on one foot instead of walking? Is it because your standards are too lax?

Self control is hardly ever abhorrent.

I say that your model of marriage is abhorrent because it often ruins lives.

If your view of marriage is 'oppression, ownership and a breeding arrangement', then your experience of it is not based on a loving relationship, as marriage should be founded on.

That’s not my view of marriage; it’s the religious view of marriage that I reject.

And the way you base marriage on sex tells me that you aren’t actually basing it on love.

Sadly, today, many view marriage as you do, most of them probably from experience. Modern society has bred selfish individuals, i.e., loveless individuals. (Maybe their parents were selfish, too.)

My marriage is a loving, selfless union... in no small part because it rejects religious doctrines and traditions.

If it were up to you, I would still be in my first marriage, in a loveless relationship with a woman who was very selfish and very devout.

Have a good day, my friend.

You’re not my friend. You’ve done nothing to earn my friendship.

 

[Watchmen]

Depends. Case-by-case basis. One might be optimal for one person; a dozen for another and so in.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That’s not my view of marriage; it’s the religious view of marriage that I reject.

And the way you base marriage on sex tells me that you aren’t actually basing it on love.

I’m sorry, I apparently misunderstood. I thought that you were against marriage....that you thought marriage was an oppressive, woman-ownership, breeding arrangement. But you’re saying that’s a religious definition? Maybe the Koran? Certainly not the Bible’s! Ephesians 5:25-33, Ephesians 4:32, 1 Peter 3:7, Colossians 3:12-14 offer beneficial guidelines for a wife and husband....indeed, for the family. — Colossians 3:18-21.

I “base marriage on sex?” No, I just agree with the Bible, that sex should based, ie., limited, to marriage.

My marriage is a loving, selfless union

I’m really happy for you. Again, I apologize....I actually thought you were against marriage for yourself.

... in no small part because it rejects religious doctrines and traditions.

Again, what religious concepts do you think are harmful to a successful marriage?

If it were up to you, I would still be in my first marriage, in a loveless relationship with a woman who was very selfish and very devout.

Well, for a Christian, IMO, if one is selfish, that person is in no way devout! (Just self-righteous.) Titus 1:16...”They publicly declare they know God, but they disown Him by their works.”

You’re not my friend. You’ve done nothing to earn my friendship.

I look at everyone as a friend first. (If they try to harm me, then they earn my distrust.) I have many friends who have differing viewpoints. No offense intended.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’m sorry, I apparently misunderstood. I thought that you were against marriage....that you thought marriage was an oppressive, woman-ownership, breeding arrangement. But you’re saying that’s a religious definition? Maybe the Koran? Certainly not the Bible’s! Ephesians 5:25-33, Ephesians 4:32, 1 Peter 3:7, Colossians 3:12-14 offer beneficial guidelines for a wife and husband....indeed, for the family. — Colossians 3:18-21.

Actually, that passage in Colossians was one of the specific passages that I had in mind.

I was also thinking of that passage - I can’t remember the chapter and verse offhand - “the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the church.”

I really did have Christianity in mind when I wrote that.

I “base marriage on sex?” No, I just agree with the Bible, that sex should based, ie., limited, to marriage.

The two things are linked; that’s what I was getting at.

If you convince a bunch of horny young adults that they can only have sex within marriage, then they’ll get married in order to have sex.

You - along with everyone else who promotes the idea of sex only within marriage - help to create a situation where the purpose of marriage will often be for sex. This is an awful purpose for a marriage and one that isn’t likely to lead to much future happiness.

Imagine someone considering marriage. Whether they’re Christian or not, they’ll probably have a number of the same concerns:

- do I love her?
- does she love me?
- would our marriage be supportive and healthy?
- would we be happy together?

Now... imagine two guys with all those concerns, both the same except for one thing: one of them - the Christian - believes that sex is only for marriage. The other - an atheist, say - believes that sex before marriage is fine.

Will that difference have any effect on their decision-making? If the answer is “yes” - and I think it is for most young adults - then the Christian will be more willing to lower his standards on those criteria I listed in order to have sex. That compromise represents a difference in marital success: because of this insistence that sex only be in marriage, sometimes the Christian guy will sacrifice some of the things that lead to long-term happiness in order to have sex. The atheist doesn’t have this problem: he’s free to have sex while he’s waiting for his “forever” woman to come along.

This is what I mean when I say that you’re basing marriage on sex.

I’m really happy for you. Again, I apologize....I actually thought you were against marriage for yourself.

Nope - happily married.

Again, what religious concepts do you think are harmful to a successful marriage?

The big ones:

- restricting sex to marriage.
- prohibitions (or severe restrictions, depending on the denomination) on divorce.
- rejecting the idea of marriage as a partnership of equals (e.g. that toxic stuff in Colossians you linked to).

Well, for a Christian, IMO, if one is selfish, that person is in no way devout! (Just self-righteous.) Titus 1:16...”They publicly declare they know God, but they disown Him by their works.”

And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, right?

I hope you understand that I can’t take you seriously if you’re going to creatively define “Christian” to include only nice people, right?

I look at everyone as a friend first. (If they try to harm me, then they earn my distrust.) I have many friends who have differing viewpoints. No offense intended.

Okay.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What is approximately the best number of sex partners for people to have had in their lives?

Is there some reason or reasons you picked that number? If so what are the reason(s)?

Is the optimal number different for men and women? If so, why?​

I have noticed that some people -- for instance, James Dobson -- have all but made careers out of advising people to have as few sex partners in their lives as possible. They argue such things as "the more partners you have, the less you will properly bond with someone -- and therefore the greater the chance you will divorce."

But what do you think might be the optimal number of sex partners for someone?


As for myself, I've been happily and voluntarily celibate for about two decades now: I don't think ones happiness in any way depends on how many partners one has had. But before I decided to become celibate, I was perhaps a bit more active than most of the people I've known, and I suspect that in many cases -- maybe even in most cases -- if you've had 12 or so partners, and you've been reasonably active with most of them -- then you probably have about as much experience and knowledge of sex as you would have with three or four times that number of partners. So if I were forced to come up with an ideal number of partners for anyone to have had during their lives, I would most likely lean towards a dozen. HOWEVER.....

HOWEVER, unlike James Dobson and some other folks, I don't think there is any rational reason to universally prefer one number over another. For instance, a single great partner is better than a dozen mediocre partners in my opinion. And a number that works for me might not work for you. So I personally believe it's kind of hokey to think that a single number -- whether that number be none, one, or one hundred -- is optimal for everyone. Besides, quality trumps quantity in sex. So long as my partners are into high quality Balinese donkey porn, I'm happy.

What did you have in mind sailor?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So good of you to know exactly what other people should be doing with themselves and within their sexual and romantic relationships and insisting your beliefs on the subject are exactly what they need to get over those things they do differently from you.

A good dominatrix is hard to come by.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Hockeycowboy - regarding what I said about marriage as a "breeding arrangement"... this is mainly based on three things:

- the many Biblical passages that number a man's wife among his possessions, like livestock (e.g. the Ten Commandments, which lists "your neighbour's wife" and "your neighbour's ox" as both "things that belong to your neighbour").

- the way a woman (or girl) is sold by her father to her husband, as acknowledged in the Bible in the many references to a "bride price."

- the prohibition on sex outside of marriage.

I include that last point because I see prohibitions on premarital sex as being a way to try to ensure that the husband/bride-buyer is the biological parent of any children his wife might have. IOW, this rule is fundamentally about breeding, IMO.

 

[Thief]

What is approximately the best number of sex partners for people to have had in their lives?

Is there some reason or reasons you picked that number? If so what are the reason(s)?

Is the optimal number different for men and women? If so, why?​

I have noticed that some people -- for instance, James Dobson -- have all but made careers out of advising people to have as few sex partners in their lives as possible. They argue such things as "the more partners you have, the less you will properly bond with someone -- and therefore the greater the chance you will divorce."

But what do you think might be the optimal number of sex partners for someone?


As for myself, I've been happily and voluntarily celibate for about two decades now: I don't think ones happiness in any way depends on how many partners one has had. But before I decided to become celibate, I was perhaps a bit more active than most of the people I've known, and I suspect that in many cases -- maybe even in most cases -- if you've had 12 or so partners, and you've been reasonably active with most of them -- then you probably have about as much experience and knowledge of sex as you would have with three or four times that number of partners. So if I were forced to come up with an ideal number of partners for anyone to have had during their lives, I would most likely lean towards a dozen. HOWEVER.....

HOWEVER, unlike James Dobson and some other folks, I don't think there is any rational reason to universally prefer one number over another. For instance, a single great partner is better than a dozen mediocre partners in my opinion. And a number that works for me might not work for you. So I personally believe it's kind of hokey to think that a single number -- whether that number be none, one, or one hundred -- is optimal for everyone. Besides, quality trumps quantity in sex. So long as my partners are into high quality Balinese donkey porn, I'm happy.

maybe it's not the number but the variety of life styles
live with someone for awhile....see if it works

if not....move on