How Many Partners Makes You Promiscuous?: More On The Never-Ending Debate

I'm not going to tell you exactly how many people I've slept with, partly because I don't know, partly because I stopped caring long ago, and partly because it's none of your business. But I will tell you it's more than French First Lady Carla Bruni's reported number: 15. Way more. I share that information to make the point that how and why we choose our sexual partners differs for everyone; there's no single perfect number that will make you: a) happy and b) not a slut.

But to read Virginia Ironside's recent tirade against Bruni's perceived promiscuity is to think you've landed back a few centuries. Any hint that we might have come a long way, baby, that there was ever such a thing as feminism, let alone the misguidedly labeled "do-me" feminism, is forgotten as Ironside leaves us with such gems as more than fifteen lovers means you're "starting to demean sex itself" and "it's no longer something special that you do only with the chosen few."

Ironside has a lot to learn about sex. I believe that sexual decision-making should be left up to the individual, based on their own desires and values, not some random standard based on what other people think. If your goal is to not be labeled a slut, and you're a woman, well, good luck. Have even one partner, wear a skirt too short, make out on a street corner and be ogled by a particularly nosy, nasty neighbor, and you're a slut, plain and simple. Reputation has little to do with actual sex acts and everything to do with perception.

Further, Ironside assumes that the only reason a woman would sleep with many lovers is for "experience," presumably meaning some kind of sex acts she hasn't done before. "It's unlikely Carla will ever be thinking: 'What might have been.' She's been there, done that and got the nightdress. But what would be the point of Carla - or anyone else - accumulating more lovers?" This viewpoint is what truly dehumanizes sex, turning it simply into a robotic, mechanical movement of bodies rather than a complex set of impulses, attractions and acts driven by all sorts of motives.

Your number of partners and how "special" the sex is are not necessarily related. To me, sex is special when it takes me somewhere I can't go alone (and I don't just mean orgasm). When I'm with my boyfriend, I'm certainly not thinking about my past bedmates, and I highly doubt he is either. If you're doing it right, you're fully in the moment, swept away, as it were. Sex is as special as we want to make it, and for some people, that means exclusivity, for others, casual sex, and for many, some amalgam of the two.

Ironside, like many casual sex detractors, needs to place sex within marriage or committed relationships above more temporary affairs in order to bolster her sense of her own morality. I might go that far─12, 13, 14 or, well, okay, 15 lovers─but 16, and no man will ever want to touch you again!

During the fifteen years I've been sexually active (with some pretty long dry spells in between), I've been in monogamous relationships, been single, had one-night stands, threesomes, and hookups. I've slept with people I loved, and people who I'd just met. Some trysts were amazing, some were forgettable. But isn't that the same with everything we do?

I can tell you that one of the best lovers I've ever had was during a one-night stand. I was hopelessly besotted with someone else, so much so that I thought about him all the time, thrilled when he said hello to me, and was so locked inside my fantasy life I couldn't see my way beyond it. This other man sweetly propositioned me, and I turned him down, explaining my crush. "Maybe I can help you get over him," he suggested. And that's exactly what he did. We had a torrid night in his apartment, and he drove me home the next morning and shared some of his own heartbroken moments. It was hot, but also sweet.

The notion that there is one right number for everyone (and by "everyone," we're usually just talking about women; men seem to be granted immunity from the numbers discussion) crops up every few months, as if to remind women not to take our perceived sexual freedom for granted. I wrote about this topic in June 2006 for The Village Voice, and praised an excellent novel (and fun summer read), Twenty Times a Lady, by Karyn Bosnak. In the book, the heroine backtracks to find her former lovers so that her number doesn't get too high for her comfort. I quoted Bosnak as saying, "When I'm 70, I don't care if I've fucked 70 people. I want to look back and say I took every chance I could."

I agree wholeheartedly. I'd be lying if I said I wished my number were lower, but not because I have some artificial limit on how many lovers I think is acceptable. Rather, there are plenty of people I've bedded where, looking back with the power of hindsight, I see how wrong they were for me. But even those experiences have taught me things about myself, and my sexuality, and have informed my future choices.

To Ironside, women are reduced to nothing more than our number of partners; not our sexual comfort level, sexual satisfaction, or any other indicator of sexual health and happiness. It's the number, not the people informing that number, that matters. That tally becomes the sum total of our sex life, regardless of what we got out of it. It's possible to try everything under the sun with one person and be completely content, or sleep with 100 people and still feel unfulfilled.

Further, her notion that men are so fragile that they'll be tortured by the idea of a woman's prior experience is hopelessly outdated. Sure, some men long for the chaste virgin, but others want a woman who knows what she likes, and doesn't like, in bed. My fellow Huffington Post blogger Jenny Block explores this conundrum in her book, Open, suggesting that men who hold onto the ideal of the virginal women aren't always that thrilled once they get her into bed.

Basically, Ironside is saying that if you've screwed more than 15 people, you're a big slut who should hardly dare show her face, let alone expect to date or marry. Bruni is not only showing her face, but proudly claiming her past paramours. So am I, and if you want to call me a slut, go right ahead. That urge says more about you than it does about me. Some, like Ironside, are happy to cast aspersions, make ridiculous proclamations, and pretend they know best for everyone. If that sounds like you, have at it. I'll be busy doing you know what.

Comments

[googthang]

I love how the liberal writer thinks sleeping around and being a slut is somehow empowering. The only thing men think about when he picks a life mate is if the woman is a slut and is clean. However the current logic is only getting women in trouble if they want a relationship. It's not surprising these "sex and the city" women are always are looking for a man and can't keep one. It's simple, no man want to be with a slut. Slut is about 15 or more partners, by the way.

[spirittemple]

What about Oxytocin the neurological phenomenon that happens only to women. Oxytocin is the love glue of fertile estrogen women. It makes a woman "fall in love" chemically with a man that she has orgasmic sex with, but only if, they have chemistry, through pheromones. Thus, if a woman has slept with even one man and becomes glued/oxytocin bonded because he had the right smell, then she may become "damaged goods". It can take a woman years to forget this man even if he was a one night stand. Detoxing from him can make them sick. Women have a mystical juice which I feel is connected to oxytocin. When activated it dumps twice as much dopamine in the brain as heroin. A woman literally becomes addicted to the man she's bonded to and can tolerate all his craziness with a smile--because she's totally high. Women bonded like this are loyal and devoted. The more sex partners a woman has the more she erodes and dilutes this delicate bonding. That's why religions advocate virtuous women. That's why there is a double standard. So follow your nose. Stay chaste women because no man is worth the Russian roulette of losing your ability to generously love a man with all your heart and soul! Understand, respect and protect your nature for a life time of happiness. Confused women can desperately jump from guy to guy trying to wash off the last guy's bonding smell until burn out.

[williamwilliam2]

You can try to pretend it doesn't matter, but sorry, it matters how many partners a woman has had. If somethings give'n out easily, over and over again, it loses value. So a man is going to place a higher value on the affections from a more modest, less promiscuous woman, than affections from a more promiscuous woman. Sure, a highly promiscuous woman could compensate in other ways to raise her value in the eyes of her man. But deep down, we all know it matters. Funny how young teens know it and older adults, but those in between think they can 'right their own rules.' I recall Nicolas Cage married a young woman living with her parents - her parents! How promiscuous do you think she was? When I would date a promiscuous woman, I would know right away, I would never marry that woman. But maybe avoiding marriage is the sought after reward for the modern, promiscuous woman.

[ferngrower]

I will have sex with anyone that I choose to have sex with. The beauty of this is that it is MY CHOICE and I own my own set of core values that do not belong to anyone else. The number of men I've slept with is no one else's business, especially society and Virginia Ironside.

There is a misconception by the younger and older generation that if you've only slept with a few partners that you aren't as good in bed as someone who has slept with many. That's just not true. Sex isn't about getting it right. Sex is an internal spiritual gift that we all have. I have my own unique way of expressing sex. The less inhibited I am during sex and the more I'm able to let myself flow through the better the sex will be. It also helps to stay limber. :)

[scotus1]

I think "Stepfan" hit it on the head. 15 or 150 or several times that is not a remarkable number for a forty-year old super model European sophisticate. Think of the thousands of times Carla must have been hit upon over her stellar career and 15 is obviously an almost unbelievably (actually, I don't believe it for a minute) low percentage of scores. Then again, for somebody with modest or even negative physical attributes, 15 partners might be an astronomically high percentage of scores to hits. It is simply a matter of relativity, as Einstein might have said, and knowing his reported history with women, this would doubtless be a subject high on his radar.

[zepfan81]

This is such a loaded question. Why? Because it's not about a number, it's about age and the quality of ones partners. First Lady Bruni is a beautiful, sophisticated 40 year old that has worked in the fashion and music industry, so in my opinion 15 is a relatively low number. Now for a 22 year old living in small town Idaho, working at the local Wal-Mart 15 partners would be a lot. Why? She's younger and most likely the men aren't of good quality. The same goes for men. If a guy just picks up the easiest skank at a bar he can find he is a slut. I do disagree, though about the number of previous sex partners being important. In a relationship it is. It's simply a matter of compatibility. If one partner has been around the block a few times and the other is relatively conservative i doubt in the longterm it will work out. Sexually adventurous people will ALWAYS be that way. They crave variety and a longterm monogomous relationship will not leave them content. By the same token I don't think people should marry as virgins or with little experience because down the road at least one will begin to wonder what the missed out on. In my experience most cheating happens in the above scenerios.

[1will]

If you can't keep up with the number then the odds are good that you're promiscuous.

[Rjmartinelli]

This article seems to focus a lot on the morality debate of promiscuity but it seems to miss the real mark by a fair margin. You're decrying the symptom instead of looking for the root of the reaction.

I personally believe it has far more to do with a base loyalty/personality check than any moral hangup.

If a man or a woman have had a number of sexual partners it can, for some people, raise questions on how loyal this person might be in a relationship and whether or not it would be worth the time to pursue one with the person in question. It could also betray an inability to commit to a relationship or a person, or any number of other underlying personality traits that could cause issues down the road.

Nowadays there is also the safety factor, even the safest sexual precautions do not prevent the spread of STDs 100%.

So all in all, I respectfully think you may want to look at this topic from a different angle Rachel.

[ianrmcdonald]

I don't disagree with anything in Rachel's review. The many comments here seem to make only one point: moral posturing about sex is oppressive and wrongheaded. To me, this is all true and not very interesting..

Instead,we should worry more about the seismic and the overwhelming biological and emotional power of this topic, and how lucky you are when you have achieved the self mastery and social awareness needed to let these kinds of questions just roll off your back.

The comments I read all appear to come from people with this mastery, which is allocated or developed unevenly and arbitrarily. If you have it, you can't understand how the world looks from the other side.

Sex, without this mastery, can be a source of threat, humiliation, and isolation. Without those skills accepting that someone in your life has had a large and diverse sexual history means accepting that this person enjoys a kind of social power and leverage that you do not. Easier said than done, for many of us.

Unlike say, unequal abilities to cook or shoot a basketball, lack of access to relationships has, a special biological dimension.

No one is entlted to anything, in this regard.. But like anything else that is distributed unequally, life is harder on the losing end than the winners can appreciate.

So think about this...how many people exist on this "other side"? A few losers? Or most of the people you haven't encountered? I couldn't tell you.

[Tulka2]

Oh well, when they get that virtual, full body suit, it will be the end of sex anyway. At least for most men. Tantra is what you are searching for.

[Ursa666]

When I met my husband (#3) he asked how many men I had been with. I told him to think of the number he thought was too many, then subtract one. That's how many LOL Who counts these things anyway? Absurd! 15 or 115 is nobody's business. I dont think I ever kept track and I sure don't want to try now. Maybe Ironside should put on a corset and bright red lipstick and loosen up a little. It would probably surprise (and THRILL) her husband!

[sent2null]

Well if I have intentionally been selective and wish to be with people that have also been that way shouldn't I have the right to know so I can make the choice? 15 or 115 it is the business of the prospective partner and no one else, if you have nothing to hide then there is no reason to feel anger at having the question asked, anger simply belies the shame or fear that some may have when someone they are dating asks the question. If we do as you suggest , what about cheating in past relationships ? Is that okay to hide or lie about as well? Someone that would do so (lie about cheating more so than actually cheating) speaks volumes about the type of person they are to me and if I am considering them for a walk down the aisle you better be sure I have a right to know it.

[OGWiseman]

You're right on in your article, in that any notion that the number of people you sleep with is more important than what you feel is ludicrous and outdated. However, you fail to point out something that I've noticed my entire life:

The double standard exists in our society today, but it is enforced on women BY OTHER WOMEN. I've never refused to sleep with or date a woman based on her being a "slut", and neither has any of my male friends. It simply doesn't occur to us, because we're too happy the woman is there and willing. I (and most or all men) are happy to pretend we're the only ones, and it's not really that hard.

The double standard is maintained and enforced BY WOMEN. I have certainly had interactions in my life where a woman warned me away from another woman that SHE perceived to be slutty. So I'm not saying that the double standard isn't real. I'm saying that the way to combat it isn't to point the finger at men, it's to point the finger at women.

[NoSillyName]

Maybe, but I wouldn't get that impression by reading a lot of these comments written by men.

[huzzah]

You've never refused "to sleep with or date" a woman based on her being a "slut". But what about a serious, long-term relationship with the possibility of marriage? I'm not saying you wouldn't marry a "slut", but a lot of guys would be willing to sleep with or date a "loose" woman yet not see her as marriage material.

Personally, I believe sluttiness is not related to numbers apart from how many of them overlap. My ex was a slut, and she'd only been with one guy before me. Then she married the guy after me. I say she was a slut because when we started dating she was still seeing her ex, even though they had supposedly broken up. And then she started seeing her current husband behind my back while we were still together. That's slutty behavior -- having more than one current partner and keeping one or more of them in the dark about it, especially if a supposed commitment has been made.

Sluttiness is not so much about your number as it is about how you reached it.

[zepfan81]

I agree. When was in a fraternity, which was a very masculine environment, guys that slept with a lot of women were rarely "praised." If anything they were ridiculed. Why? Most decent women have standards and it typically takes a good amount of work to get them in the sack. So although these guys got more play, their playmates were typically non-attractive girls with no self-esteem or girls with little going on upstairs. I think the concept of guys causing the double standard is garbage. I've known few instances where guys I know have called a woman a slut that didn't deserve it (cheating, gangbangs, no standards, etc.) Typically it's women referring to other women that way, and usually with no real justification other than jealousy or perceived competition. Men don't care about a womans sexual history until they enter a relationship and as I stated above I feel that's justified. Women must understand the following and just accept it as the way men think. Men put women in the following categories: 1.) short term sexual partner 2.) Girlfriend/Wife 3.) Close, plutonic friend. Most men just aren't going to want to get in a longterm relationship with someone that gives it up without much of fight. To a lot of us that gives a clue about future fidelity (or lack there of.)

[huzzah]

I mostly agree. I think the whole "numbers" thing only becomes a problem when your expectations for others are unreasonable or when you don't live up to the same standards you have for potential partners. If you expect a woman to have behaved a certain way, then see to it you behave that way as well. If you believe that the label "slut" is deserved in the cases of "cheating, gangbangs, no standards, etc", then don't take part in those, either. It's that hypocrisy in some men that I hate. The "I'll do her but I won't date her" mentality. For every girl who cheats there's a guy she's cheating with, not to mention all the guys who cheat as well. For every gangbang a girl is in there are 3+ guys. I'd imagine there are more guys who fall into the "cheating, gangbang, no standards" categories than there are women. I don't know that I feel OK with ANYONE passing judgment on someone for past sex acts, but those guys are definitely last in line. Unfortunately, I think that's where a lot of the judgment springs from.

I agree with the last couple of sentences, but I think men should be upfront with women about which category they fit into. If you both agree it's short term and casual, fine. But don't let her think you might have a future if you've already decided she's only good enough to bang, not good enough to marry.

[PissedOffProf]

I could care less how many partners that anybody has. Never have, never will. So should you. I admire anybody who celebrates their sensuality and sexuality. Live your life to the fullest. Our time is short, so very short. Sex is so beautiful, so right, so pure, so playful, so cleansing. Number of partners is irrelevant. But being yourself is.

I live in a celibate marriage with a woman, who I is the love of my life, but who totally lost interest at menopause. Through no fault of her own. For the past eight years. I sometimes wish I could disconnect sex from my love of her, and my loyalty to her and to our family. I think that it might make my physical situation easier. But it wouldn't. I know me. I choose to be married to the woman I love, and her conditions for staying married are clear. It is what is right, what is best, for me.

Do what is right, what is best, for you. Whatever that may be.

Peace...

[huzzah]

Have you looked into hormone replacement therapy or something of the sort that might rekindle things? Cause I gotta tell ya, I believe that if someone completely loses interest in sex and is unwilling to try to regain interest, then he or she should give their spouse the freedom to seek it elsewhere...

[drd1044]

Multiple sexual partners in women could also be a symptom of a problem. Bi-polar disorder (that also affects men), incest or sexual abuse as a child, need for any affection when none has been given, etc. My experience and knowledge is that men who are so-called players are more often acting out of selfishness, power trips, and need to "prove" their masculinity.

[SneathLane]

Oh, please! Clearly you don't understand the fun of sex, the intimacy it can bring even with complete strangers, the physical well-being it produces, the sheer pleasure of it.

You assume that anything that's enjoyable has roots in pathology. I'm sure you also believe in food addiction and sex addiction, and probably think that people who love cute fuzzy kittens are just avoiding meaningful human interactions because they were abused as children.

The fear of pleasure is, itself, pathological. You sound like you've had too much religious training or too many neurotic psychologists in your life. Try to let life be life, without constantly imagining terrible monsters lurking in the background.

[huzzah]

That's a bit of a harsh reaction. The point was not invalid. A high number can mean you really like sex and have a healthy attitude toward it, but it CAN also stem from seeking affection. I have an acquaintance who's 27 and has slept with over 20 men, and she HATES sex. Hates, as in could care less if she ever has it again. Yet she will have sex with a new guy after 3 or 4 dates. Why not wait longer if sex is not enjoyable?

Sorry, Sneath, but your post is far less reasonable than drd's. You don't believe in food or sex addiction? Why not? I'm not saying that everyone that is fat or has a lot of sex is addicted, but some people are. Why else would someone who is morbidly obese pound down twinkies and coke? Why else would someone spend thousands of dollars on internet porn? If we follow your argument, is cocaine or heroin not addictive, but just something pleasurable?

[freedomisabsolute]

Thank you I am glad drd and huzzah have a good grasp on human behavior. Sex is a fun healthy activity. If the way it is being done is healthy and fun.

here is a food analogy it is much more beneficial to eat fruits, vegetable, complex carbs, good fats and lean proteins. But every once in a while having some junk food is fine because overall live a healthy lifestyle.

If you are usually conscious about your partners and why you are doing them, very well. And if you have a one night stand or fling every so often, fine as wine. But promiscuity is a dysfunction and can be symptomatic of an addiction and other pathology just like over eating binging purging excessive gambling lying. When men have a lot of sex partners and claim it is because they love women but then at the same time treat them as if they are highly disposable and easily replaceable, what is really going on there?

The numbers game is understandable it is indicative of the type of person you are. Just like the rest of the choices we make. If you have problems saying how many, you think it is too many and worry other people will judge you like you have judged already yourself.

And yes women do it to other women more or as much as men keeping the double standard alive, which I do not adhere to. But women are seen as our moral compass.

[ExRepublican]

"there's no single perfect number that will make you: a) happy and b) not a slut."

Rachel - your comment above somewhat saddens me. MEN have done a bang up job making women feel like sh*t - hence we are STILL using the word *slut* in 2008? Gosh, aren't we a backward society.

IF there were truly a slut - bank on IT being a man. I hate that word. Very WEAK and controlling men use it as a hammer to bludgeon their wiminz into being faithful (see JE link, sheesh) and submissive.

I didn't read the rest of your article - no need. Do what YOU want to do. No need to explain to anyone, cept your partner, at anytime. Sex is great. It feels great. It's v-e-r-y healthy, no matter what far right nuts, uptight WEAK men or the religious have to say about this.

And hey, sensual sex is even better! :-) Sex vs sensual sex - two different animals. Both have their place but 'sensual' sex wins..... hands down. My opinion only.

[Rjmartinelli]

Eh-hem, I'm sorry but to date I've heard more women use the word "slut" than any collection of men.