Does sex define who you are?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-07-2003
Does sex define who you are?
28
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 9:20am
Does sex, define who you are as a person? Let's for a minute pretend that there are not any STD's(wishful thinking) so as not to cloud the issue. In another post someone mentioned that nice-guys are not whores. I personally don't ever ask a person about their sexual history, or really care to know for that matter. It's not a criteria that I judge a person's character by. If you're a great person, I'd never know if you were a whore or not. Do you ask and thereafter judge someone based on their sexual past?
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-07-2003
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 6:13pm
Please let me first say that I don't in any way advocate casual sex for the very reason of the presence of STDs.

**Life,I think "recent" sexual history is important to some people. Honestly, if you met a guy, and you liked him, and his friend told you... or maybe it just came up in conversation that he had been with 30 women in the past year, Would that be a red flag in your opinion ?

Well, that's what I assumed because growing up, guys didn't hide the fact that they wanted, like, and pursued sex. Whether it was true or not that was the way I grew up. I just assumed that any guy I could date had lots of women. Maybe I became indifferent because I was conditioned that way.

***It would be a red flag in mine. Why you might ask? In many people, patterns of behavior are an insight to whats really going on in a persons mind. Does his (her) ego need to be stroked that much!? How insecure is this person?

Well, I think that you could find out those things without knowing their sexual history. Those are very hard characteristics to hide, and they usually show up fairly early on, especially the ego stroking. ;-)

***Is this person so used to having sex with a large variety of people that they just might have a problem adjusting to only one sex partner. (will he (she) be more prone to be a cheater because they put such little importance in the value of sex?)

Now this I'm going to have to research(hopefully there's some info). I don't think I agree, because first of all sex within a loving relationship is very different than casual sex. There's little comparison between the two, and I believe that they are two different entities in and of themselves(I tried, it but I didn't like it). I really don't think that the amount of sexual partners you had prior to getting married makes a difference. People cheat for so many reasons. If the relationship is rock solid, nobody will cheat.

***Im thinking that college cant really count in this equation..it isnt real life..lol What happens in college stays in college.

To have the urge to have sex with many partners is what makes us male..To keep our sex exclusively for the person who loves us with all their heart is what makes us a man...

You see, that's where you're wrong. Women have very strong sexual urges too, that makes us women, and when we fall in love, we're still women.






Edited 9/22/2004 6:16 pm ET ET by life_is_but_a_dream

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-04-2004
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 3:21pm
Hah! I KNEW I'd hear from you! You respond to every post (which aren't many). Ya just can't stand it, eh? I totally disagree with you. Street smarts are better than the typical standard belief system, babe.
Visitor (not verified)
anonymous user
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 4:24pm
I guess one could say..to want to have sex with many men is what makes you female..To keep our sex exclusively for the man who loves us is what makes us a woman.

I`ll disagree with you when you said "If the relationship is rock solid, nobody will cheat

" That is just not true. Our society has cheapened sex to the point where "some" ,not all people have the attitude that it is "JUST SEX" I have seen both men and women who dearly loved their spouses, would never leave them, have sex outside their marriage because it is "JUST SEX". Where did they get the attitude that sex is nothing more than a handshake with an orgasm??...you guessed it..lots and lots of casual sex before they found "the one".They became immune to what the true meaning of sexual relations between a woman and a man was supposed to be.

I will totally agree with you on the point that love "can" make all the difference.Some people who were promiscucs, understand the difference and remain loyal to their mates...But face it, the divorce rate is over 50% now. ..I agree people cheat for many reasons..but if they regarded sex as someting very very special as it was intended to be, they would find "other" avenues to feed their egos, feed their self seteem,or connect emotionally with someone else.
Avatar for sugarbeat
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 4:40pm
you can never take out the std risk, that's why i ask the number and am honest with people when they ask me. i want to know what the risk is before i decide whether to take it or not. the fact is most people are not aware that they have an std, so asking doesn't guarantee anything. further, most people have not been tested for genital herpes unless they have had a symptom and requested the test. the risks are considerable(most sources say 1 in 4 or 1 in 5, with 90% not knowing they have it). so if someone has had 20 partners i generally assume they have had sex with 4-5 partners that have had it. it doesn't mean they have it, but the risk is greater than someone who had 4 or 5 partners and likely had sex with only one person that had it. i also consider how willing they are to go without a condom with me, and if they are lax about insisting on using one i assume they have gone without with previous partners.

i agree with the person who said you can tell a lot by the number of partners a person has had, not so much to judge them but to get a better understanding of where they are coming from.

as for me, i wouldn't say it defines me, but sexual expression has played an important part in my self-actualization. i would have a considerably different identity if i was to erase my sexual experience.

Visitor (not verified)
anonymous user
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 5:35pm
I agree with a lot of what you say sugar. Some people act in a "moral" fashion and some choose not to. If a person chose to act immorally when they were young, but for a long period (years not weeks) have changed their values and behavior, then and only then can I forget their past. Std`s is a whole other issue. Saying one has changed and putting the changes into practice over time to demonstrate the changes are ingrained, are two totally different issues.

Immoral, impersonal, irresponsible sexual habbits, do tend to give a clue as to the type of person you are dealing with. They may be sucessful in other avenues of life, but as a social animal, there is a little to be desired... To each their own.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-23-2004
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 5:54pm
I do not think past history, sexual or otherwise, necessarily defines "who we are". People change over time, make mistakes, and learn from those mistakes and grow. A lot of people don't even really "know" themselves until they have earned the wisdom that only comes with getting older. I pretty much didn't have a clue who I was or what I wanted in my early 20's and spent the time trying to "find" myself. What's really disturbing is the "double standard" usually applied in the case of sexual histories, where men can brag about being "players" but women are made to feel ashamed and are called names. Sometimes I wonder if it's the people that have had very few partners, consciously or unconsciously, "envy" those who have and try to sour their experience by putting them down. (NOTE I'm not saying everyone does that, but maybe some people do). I think a MUCH more accurate gauge for what type of person someone is is not how many partners they have had in the past, but how they behave in the present as far as how quickly or slowly they will become "intimate" with someone they have met. I know some people will object to that comment, but how someone responds to that decision is definitely a reflection of their personality.
Avatar for sugarbeat
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 6:07pm
i'm not sure we are on the same page humpdaddy. i don't judge morality and responsibility by the number of partners like it seems you do. for example my last partner did not lose his virginity until he was 25 (he's now 34), he has had 8 partners, which i consider relatively low for a never married man his age, but he suggested having sex without a condom. another partner i had became active at 16 (also 34), had 22 partners, brought up the std topic before having sex and was insistent on using condoms. i make my judgements accordingly and honestly, i favor the latter. i'm not sure who the bigger risk of these two are, but to me they are both moral and the latter seems more responsible and less naive.

i must say, however, that i do have a range i am comfortable with and that would be between 5-40 partners. not saying i would rule out someone that had less or someone that had more, but i'd have some preconceptions they'd have to get past.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-07-2003
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 6:51pm
Honestly, sugar, I would view all people as a potential risk, regardless of how they treat the condom. I think that nothing short of testing is appropriate. I just won't take that risk and I wouldn't risk someone else's health.

Avatar for sugarbeat
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 7:35pm
of course there is always a potential risk with everyone, even virgins (i.e. they could have oral herpes and pass it to you when they go down on you). even when people say they've been tested and are clean, it doesn't necessarily mean they are. certain stds are not routinely tested for and even when they are the person may show up positive for type I herpes (which 60-80% of people have) but you won't know whether it is oral or genital. so i agree it's all a risk, kissing's a risk, sex is a risk, living is a risk.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-07-2003
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 7:41pm
Like I said, there's sex, and then there's sex with love. I see them as two separate entities. I definintely think that sex with love is different than just sex, so I make that distinction. With that said, "just sex" is based only on lust. So you see Hump, I can understand why people have "just sex" and don't believe it cheapens "emotional sex" because one has nothing to do with the other.

I'll stand on my contention that if a relationship is rock solid, no one will WANT to cheat and just because a person had "just sex" with others prior to the union, doesn't mean that they'll cheat or even want to cheat. I see no correlation.


Edited 9/23/2004 10:33 pm ET ET by life_is_but_a_dream