.png)
65 partners by 25?
TikTok relationship expert Jack Maddock advised a man to ditch his 25-year-old girlfriend. The reason? She revealed she’d had 65 previous sexual partners. New York Post columnist Mary Madigan was not impressed – with Maddock’s advice.
Perhaps this could have been used as a teaching moment, where Maddock could have explained that any issues the man had with his girlfriend’s sexual past was a reflection of his own issues, insecurities and ingrained misogyny.
The young lady’s extensive sexual history definitely raises some issues for the gentleman in question.
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
The likelihood of her bringing sexual disease to the relationship is high, including those that could affect her fertility – an important concern should the young gentleman wish to start a family.
A woman who’s had 9.287 sexual partners per year (assuming she became sexually active at 18) may also suffer from sexual addiction.
Some men scoff at the condition (which isn’t listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), but any repetitive behavior that you can’t stop that’s fucking up your life is The Mother of All Red Flags.
It’s impossible to make that determination without testimony from the young lady, but there’s a strong chance the SA flag is flying. As it would for a male with a similar body count, BTW.
There’s also the commitment issue. The young lady is going through lovers at a pace of roughly one a month. This does not bode well for a man seeking to “settle down.” Especially one who values monogamy.
If the man’s had relatively few sexual partners – and the odds are high – he’d naturally wonder if his sexual performance is up to par. And then worry that the sex vet will find a suitable alternative lickety-split (so to speak). Trust. It’s a thing.
Ingrained Misogyny?
As for the charge that a man concerned about his partner’s body count is guilty of “ingrained misogyny,” huh?
A man who prefers a less previously sexually active partner may hate women, but that preference is not in and of itself evidence of misogyny.
Given her inherent bias, Ms. Madigan’s view of what Mr. Maddock should have advised the gentleman contemplating romance comes as no surprise.
He could have calmly outlined that women shouldn’t be defined, judged or seen differently based on their sexual experiences.
Are we not at least somewhat defined by who shares our bed? If a man only has sex with men, prostitutes, transsexuals or someone dressed in a fursuit, fine. Chef don’t judge and neither should you.
But our sexual proclivities and patterns reveal something relevant when it comes to establishing a healthy relationship.
BC on the DL
Speaking of a judgement-free zone, the love guru and the Aussie columnist both agree that “no one should tell anyone how many people they’ve slept with before getting into a relationship.”
So you should hide your sexual history from your partner until after you’ve grown close, when disengaging is ten times more difficult on every level? Are the two M’s assuming it won’t matter by then? Or suggesting that keeping your sexual past forever hidden is the best way to protect the relationship?
However you slice it, the body count conundrum is a major minefield. I reckon it’s best explored very carefully or avoided altogether. But what do I know? I’ve moved on to counting marriages.
More Like a Guideline
I agree with Ms. Madigan on this much: Mr. Murdoch is wrong to a make hard and fast rule about body count (so to speak). It may not be misogynistic to do so, but it’s certainly unhelpful when it comes to matters of the heart.
If Mr. Maddock’s advisee has strong romantic feelings for his sexually experienced partner, it’s wrong to advise him to cut bait based entirely on her sexual history. Who knows? She may be the best thing that ever happened to him.
Meanwhile, Ms. Madigan clearly believes women should be free to explore their sexuality without judgement. True! But she fails to appreciate the fact that none of us are free from the consequences of our actions, sexual or otherwise.
Comments