however someone quoted a study that your idsa is true for females, because intimacy starts very meaningful but more partners loses its meaning. but for guys it was just love not major.
Nope. I’ve been single for 5 years. I haven’t had sex in 4 years. Haven’t kissed anyone in 1 year. It’s pretty easy to stop if there’s no one who interests you in that way.
Not really, it just gets harder to trust the more I date and I recognize issues a lot earlier so when it comes to taking someone seriously it's definitely not the same as when I was 20
no, cos the number of sexual partners has nothing really to do with emotional intimacy or connection or commitment, that's nromally been casual. But when that's all there it's very easy to stay in a relationship
The ones who said no are just lying and keep on pretending lol..
2
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
23 d
Sex is simply sex when it's simply casual. I'd much prefer this because committing to a relationship isn't worth it nowadays especially if you're a male.
For men, no. For women, every dick that goes into her makes her less capable of forming a pair bond with any man.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
22 d
A person with a promiscuous past is extremely unlikely to admit they are less capable of forming a lifelong pair bond, even though they are.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
1 mo
Over 100, and yes. I think it’s more that I’ve only known parents that cheat, get divorced, and blended type dysfunctional families, more than my sexual past.
Home > Relationships > Questions > People with high number of sexual partners, do you find it hard to commit to one in a monogamous relationship/marriage?
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
30Opinion
that is me but no, because only one at a time.
however someone quoted a study that your idsa is true for females, because intimacy starts very meaningful but more partners loses its meaning. but for guys it was just love not major.
Nope. I’ve been single for 5 years. I haven’t had sex in 4 years. Haven’t kissed anyone in 1 year. It’s pretty easy to stop if there’s no one who interests you in that way.
Not really, it just gets harder to trust the more I date and I recognize issues a lot earlier so when it comes to taking someone seriously it's definitely not the same as when I was 20
I hav had soon sooo many sexual partners n yet I don't find it difficult to be in love with only n only my husband
Most people I know who had frequent partners without cheating eventually settle down. Probably when the testosterone starts to lower.
@Night_Descends
no people with high body count can easily get in commuted relationship.
to me high body count didn’t cause any difficulty
As a guy, I can easily say that sexual partners or casual relationships or whatever you name them. are certainly different than a woman to marry.
Criteria is significantly different.
So shouldn't be hard if you are serious about it.
no, cos the number of sexual partners has nothing really to do with emotional intimacy or connection or commitment, that's nromally been casual. But when that's all there it's very easy to stay in a relationship
No. I think those who have difficulty with monogamy struggle for other reasons.
The ones who said no are just lying and keep on pretending lol..
Sex is simply sex when it's simply casual. I'd much prefer this because committing to a relationship isn't worth it nowadays especially if you're a male.
sex is very important in a relationship more to one than the other in most, my daughter states that if she keeps his balls dry and mt he says
That presumes I would want a monogamous relationship.
For men, no. For women, every dick that goes into her makes her less capable of forming a pair bond with any man.
A person with a promiscuous past is extremely unlikely to admit they are less capable of forming a lifelong pair bond, even though they are.
Over 100, and yes. I think it’s more that I’ve only known parents that cheat, get divorced, and blended type dysfunctional families, more than my sexual past.
how high is too high for you?
Nope
Mo not at all with the right person
Not in the least.