That's only about 2.5 miles shorter than the Nordschleife.

I can't believe he actually did the math.

That's definitely not what I expected when I clicked this thread.

I don't find it amusing. That's pretty goddam'ed disgusting if you ask me. There are a lot of better women out there. Just look. And oh, by the way, better get tested for STD's.

Incidentally, maybe this is contrived? Fake news, perhaps? Makes an amusing story.

And his name is "Charlie Murphy?" Give me a break. I'm sure he's as drunk-assed as the other one he's complaining about.

Again, probably fake news.

it's a lie, no girl that's enjoying the college experience that much is graduating in 4 years.

So...I'm guessing her name was Amy?

NSFW - In Her Day - NSFW

I did similar math about Tracy Lords a few years ago when it was reported she'd been in some ridiculous number of movies before turning 18. I want to say it was over 40 miles.

Seems like a fake to me, still...troubling if it's remotely accurate.

It should be illegal for a woman to enjoy that much sex. /sarcasm

I have a serious moral question regarding this.

As a Christian who holds dear to a one-partner scenario being ideal for Biblical reasons, I totally get why a story like this points to bad morals.

What I truly do not understand is why the secular world cares. I am being serious, not trying to cause a religious argument here, but if you don't have any convictions regarding celibacy until marriage, why does this come across as a bad thing to you? Pop culture seems to indicate that sex is okay after some amount of dating, usually single numbers of dates depending on where I try to get information from. Using that as an average, it's totally reasonable to see this number of partners, although I'm not checking their math, it's just too icky.

I hope not to lock this thread. For clarity, I am not using this to advocate for my religious beliefs, merely trying to understand the outrage if you don't have them.

tuna55 wrote: I have a serious moral question regarding this. As a Christian who holds dear to a one-partner scenario being ideal for Biblical reasons, I totally get why a story like this points to bad morals. What I truly do not understand is why the secular world cares. I am being serious, not trying to cause a religious argument here, but if you don't have any convictions regarding celibacy until marriage, why does this come across as a bad thing to you? Pop culture seems to indicate that sex is okay after some amount of dating, usually single numbers of dates depending on where I try to get information from. Using that as an average, it's totally reasonable to see this number of partners, although I'm not checking their math, it's just too icky. I hope not to lock this thread. For clarity, I am not using this to advocate for my religious beliefs, merely trying to understand the outrage if you don't have them.

Because that same culture gives a man with 200 "conquests" a high five, but a woman with that many partners is a ho. Double standard.

patgizz wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I have a serious moral question regarding this. As a Christian who holds dear to a one-partner scenario being ideal for Biblical reasons, I totally get why a story like this points to bad morals. What I truly do not understand is why the secular world cares. I am being serious, not trying to cause a religious argument here, but if you don't have any convictions regarding celibacy until marriage, why does this come across as a bad thing to you? Pop culture seems to indicate that sex is okay after some amount of dating, usually single numbers of dates depending on where I try to get information from. Using that as an average, it's totally reasonable to see this number of partners, although I'm not checking their math, it's just too icky. I hope not to lock this thread. For clarity, I am not using this to advocate for my religious beliefs, merely trying to understand the outrage if you don't have them.

Because that same culture gives a man with 200 "conquests" a high five, but a woman with that many partners is a ho. Double standard.

That's a very honest and altogether plausible answer. Thank you.

In reply to tuna55:

As someone who relies on an ethical compass as opposed to a moral one, I don't understand it either. I had a partner in college who's number was in the 160s, and this was during her junior year in college. She was open, honest, faithful and communicative. It was fairly shortlived, about 10 weeks, as of course a new potential experience caught her eye, but she held open lines of communication about it and didn't cross physical lines during that time.

In fact, in thinking back about it, the most shocking aspect about her is that she slept with Jared Fogle of Subway fame when she was 19. I didn't think that 19 5'9 and 34D was his type.

I'm no saint in terms of number count, but I've never cheated and never miscommunicated my own intensions regarding a relationship, friendship or potential for such after physical relations ensue. Honesty and not letting someone think they can possibly change what you're looking for at that moment in time are paramount. As long as you're not hurting anyone, and don't talk insesently about it (nobody wants to hear about someone else's current sex life) break Wilt's record for all I care.

captdownshift wrote: I'm no saint in terms of number count

I sort of get everything you've said other than this.

If you proclaim that the number doesn't matter, why do you judge yourself by that exact measure?

tuna55 wrote: I have a serious moral question regarding this. As a Christian who holds dear to a one-partner scenario being ideal for Biblical reasons, I totally get why a story like this points to bad morals. What I truly do not understand is why the secular world cares. I am being serious, not trying to cause a religious argument here, but if you don't have any convictions regarding celibacy until marriage, why does this come across as a bad thing to you? Pop culture seems to indicate that sex is okay after some amount of dating, usually single numbers of dates depending on where I try to get information from. Using that as an average, it's totally reasonable to see this number of partners, although I'm not checking their math, it's just too icky. I hope not to lock this thread. For clarity, I am not using this to advocate for my religious beliefs, merely trying to understand the outrage if you don't have them.

An excellent question! Doesn't bother me in the slightest that a woman I don't know from Adam has done over 200 guys. For her boyfriend however, he might just have received a nasty shock about her relationship history and possibly the level of STD risk he's been exposed to. I'm sure most women also wouldn't like to find out in the middle of a relationship that their boyfriend has been with an extraordinary number of sexual partners.

patgizz wrote: Because that same culture gives a man with 200 "conquests" a high five, but a woman with that many partners is a ho. Double standard.

There seems to be some logic behind it. It's easy for a woman to have lots of sex and takes effort to not have any, and it's easy for a man to have no sex at all and takes effort to have some. People cheer for effort. Why they care how much effort you put into your sex life is another question.

GRM never fails to entertain. I have friend in high school who liked to wear a t shirt with a picture of a buck toothed rodent wearing a miners hard hat and lamp, and the caption was....official beaver inspector. No teacher ever looked close enough to actually figure it out and tell him not to wear it.

I am just throwimg that out there because I have nothing to add to the original post.

tuna55 wrote: I have a serious moral question regarding this. As a Christian who holds dear to a one-partner scenario being ideal for Biblical reasons, I totally get why a story like this points to bad morals. What I truly do not understand is why the secular world cares. I am being serious, not trying to cause a religious argument here, but if you don't have any convictions regarding celibacy until marriage, why does this come across as a bad thing to you? Pop culture seems to indicate that sex is okay after some amount of dating, usually single numbers of dates depending on where I try to get information from. Using that as an average, it's totally reasonable to see this number of partners, although I'm not checking their math, it's just too icky. I hope not to lock this thread. For clarity, I am not using this to advocate for my religious beliefs, merely trying to understand the outrage if you don't have them.

In this case, I'm just like "10.45 miles? High five! (Provided they didn't get an infection)." The only ridiculous part is that this dude was paranoid enough to actually do the math.

In reply to tuna55:

I think maybe one way to look at it is if i said im not opposed to drinking alcohol most people would think nothing of it. If i then went on to say that i drink 16 beers a night, five nights a week, just about anybody would say thats way too much and not ok.

gearheadmb wrote: In reply to tuna55: I think maybe one way to look at it is if i said im not opposed to drinking alcohol most people would think nothing of it. If i then went on to say that i drink 16 beers a night, five nights a week, just about anybody would say thats way too much and not ok.

I think that example is too easy. If you have too much alcohol, you can't go to work, you can't drive, etc There is an easy line to see.

With this subject, there is no line. You're basically agreeing with my claim that it makes no sense, because there is no line, no tangible number which you can use to delineate "too many".

I once calculated that all of the turds I’ll lay in my life placed end-to-end will likely come to ~3.78 miles.

In reply to tuna55:

The alcohol example is a good one actually. The numbers we give for alcohol is completly arbitary, based on the increasing risk to others when you start drinking.

Sex also comes with it's share of risks like a proliferation of STD's or un-planned pregnancies. I may get flak for that last one, but I believe it has a true social impact.

In reply to aircooled: Way to perpetuate that silly stereotype. Anyone with "significant" experience knows that there is little in the world as resilient as the Bob Costas.

But there really shouldn't be a difference between man and woman. It's high-risk for both.

I know I wouldn't want to take the risk of sleeping with someone like that. And I would not feel confortable if I learned that after having slept with her.

So it's all based on STD risk? Really?