I Told My Boyfriend How Many People I’d Slept with…and He Didn’t Like the Answer

Yahoo ^ | 06/19/2019

[Responsibility2nd]

“My boyfriend can’t get over how many people I’ve slept with. I shouldn’t have told him, but he pressed me for the info. He was 'nerdy’ for most of high school and college, and just started coming into his own in his mid to late 20s. I have been dating consistently for years, and have had my fair share of hookups and relationships. And while I don’t think my number is crazy at all, he can’t deal with the discrepancy. We’ve been dating for two years and we’re serious. I don’t want to break up. How can I handle this?”

I agree that you probably shouldn’t have told him, but lots of people fall into the trap of discussing their sexual history with their current partner, and I get it. If you trust someone, it’s natural to want to talk about what you’ve learned from past relationships and sexual experiences. That said, numbers really aren’t necessary, and rarely do anything aside from making one person feel bad.  

But you can’t go back, and his reaction may have provoked an important conversation. After all (and as you well know), this isn’t an issue of who has slept with more people. It’s about his comfort with his past, and it’s about both of you establishing that your needs are being met by this relationship.

First, you have to figure out the problem you’re tackling, because it will change the course of action.

[A_perfect_lady]

You just don’t want to admit that it wasn’t an evil plot to destroy mankind.

[rb22982]

Look, stats 101 in B -school would have led them to a different methodology. You can believe they are on the up and up all you want.

[Tired of Taxes]

That’s horrible. Sorry to hear that.

Hope you were able to sort it all out...? Or were you stuck with that debt after the divorce? I know that it’s very difficult to prove in court that a debt is cheating debt.

[A_perfect_lady]

This, in sum, is what I personally take away from this whole exchange:

1) Some academics sent out a survey to gather data on drug and alcohol-related sexual abuse on college campuses.

2) They wanted to improve their assault prevention programs.

3) Politicians got hold of it and used it to scare-monger and pander to voting blocs.

4) The authors gave several interviews to the media rebutting the scare-mongering.

5) You blame the academics rather than the politicians, possibly because you assumed the academics were female.

6) You never actually looked at the survey.

[Tired of Taxes]

So then, the Dems lied about the statistic by making the percentage sound higher than the study itself says it is.

Then the article made the percentage sound lower by referring to a different study that actually measured something else entirely.

It’s like the old saying:

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

[A_perfect_lady]

Yeah, basically.

[KC_Conspirator]

I paid the debt off. It was easier to just pay it and move on. The ex was irresponsible and indigent and it would have never been resolved.

But I did learn there is life after divorce, and its better than before.

[Tired of Taxes]

But I did learn there is life after divorce, and its better than before.

Yes, it is better. But it also can be difficult for people who are stuck with debt they can never pay off. Sometimes it's not CC debt a person is stuck with, but instead other debt one spouse hid from the other.

[papertyger]

Has your hysteria subsided yet?

You keep telling me how I'll respond to your answers instead of giving me those answers. Do you imagine that's not noticed?

No, but you'll make excuses and demand that I find evidence to refute your hypotheticals.

What hypotheticals? I asked for EVIDENCE; the one thing you can't be bothered to provide. William and Mary not accepting women does not prove women couldn't get an education. "Some banks" having discriminatory rules does not prove women had no access to credit. Women not being able to get a job as a coal miner does not prove they couldn't get employment.

Was there discrimination against women: sure. Was it anywhere near the systematic oppression you paint it as: not even close.

I think it is illustrative that you two are so hysterical over "common knowledge" when you haven't provided even a single provable example of what you assert. That tells me everything you THINK you know about the subject is actually hearsay.

Women like you are why AOC isn't ridiculed out of the public square.

[Tired of Taxes]

Who was “hysterical”? It seems you’re the one having a hissy fit. lol

You asked another freeper for evidence of something. I saw your post and found some info.

Many men here have been claiming that men are victims.

I have repeatedly posted that the issue isn’t men vs. women. The real issue is that nice people (both women and men) sometimes get the shaft.

The link I posted is just historical fact - a piece of information that you asked for.

[A_perfect_lady]

William and Mary not accepting women does not prove women couldn't get an education.

Oh, you want a list of all the colleges in the US, with the year they started accepting women?

"Some banks" having discriminatory rules does not prove women had no access to credit.

Oh, you want a list of all banks, with their attached rules, and the years they were revised?

Women not being able to get a job as a coal miner does not prove they couldn't get employment.

Oh, you want a list of all jobs a woman could not do, nationwide, and a copy of the hiring policies from the employers records? Is that what you want?

We give you examples, you say, they don't count. They aren't enough. You aren't satisfied. Here's a heads-up: I don't care if you are satisfied.

[papertyger]

Here's a heads-up: I don't care if you are satisfied.

You don't care about truth, either.

As for the "lists," it would at least be a start... instead of you trying to "Super Bowl Sunday" your way around the obvious fact none of your complaints, aside from voting, were anything like universal.

You traffic in hearsay. That it is popular hearsay is irrelevant.

[papertyger]

The link I posted is just historical fact - a piece of information that you asked for.

You posted a "fact" that is not in any way dispositive of what you want to prove. Despite what your link claims, neither of my grandmothers, one married and one single, had any problem what so ever obtaining "charge plates."

That kind of bumbling logical oversight demonstrates your demeanor was...what?

[A_perfect_lady]

I have no interest in spending my afternoon doing research for you. Why should I? Why should I labor to convince a stranger?

[A_perfect_lady]

Wow. You know what? On second thought, I decided to go ahead and start looking up, say, when colleges started admitting women. I want to thank you for opening my eyes, because you were right... I had no idea. I thought most major colleges didn't start letting women in until the 1920s. Ha! Other than the loathed lefties like Columbia, Oberlin, Berkeley, et al, it's more like:

Harvard Medical, 1945
Princeton, 1969
Yale, 1969
Colgate, 1969
Johns Hopkins,1969
Georgetown, 1969
Bowdoin, 1970,
Williams, 1970
University of Virginia, 1970
Brown, 1971
Lehigh, 1971

In 1972, Title IX was passed letting women into all colleges, but apparently military ones were exempt because they didn't start letting women in until 1975.

Oh, and this is nice: apparently Harvard let women in but had a 4 men to 1 woman admission policy until 1977. You know who let women into college before the US did? Kuwait, 1966. Kuwait. Ahead of us. Amazing.

[Tired of Taxes]

Despite what your link claims, neither of my grandmothers, one married and one single, had any problem what so ever obtaining "charge plates."

Hmmm... I don't think the article made a claim that "papertyer's grandmothers had problems obtaining charge plates."

Rather, it said,

"Many banks required single, divorced or widowed women to bring a man along with them to cosign for a credit card . . ."

It didn't claim that ALL women were denied credit.

That kind of bumbling logical oversight demonstrates your demeanor was...what?

I'm not the one who made a logical oversight. :P

You were talking about history and wanted some evidence, so I found an article. I wasn't part of your original discussion, but here's how it went (correct me if I'm wrong): Your discussion began when someone pointed out that divorce wasn't so common in the old days. The response to that point was that women couldn't divorce so easily in the old days. And that's how the subject of credit, for example, was introduced to show why divorce wasn't an option for many women back then.

So, papertyger, the question for you is... Do you think women could divorce just as easily in the old days?

(For the record, I avoid using credit cards. If I don't have the cash for something, I don't buy it.)

[A_perfect_lady]

If his grandmothers had someone co-sign for them, it just proves your point anyway. Given that they probably got them before he was born, he wouldn’t know either way.

[Gene Eric]

LOL

[papertyger]

So your point is that because a woman could not go to any school she wanted women were denied an education?

[papertyger]

It didn't claim that ALL women were denied credit.

So what was the point of your link?

I asserted women had access to credit before your citation, and you aren't denying it.

So, papertyger, the question for you is... Do you think women could divorce just as easily in the old days?

The point was never whether a woman could divorce. The point was that women were NEVER "forced" to remain in abusive circumstances due to an inability to provide for themselves and their children.