nine-out-of-10 women over 50 are sexually active today, compared to just 50 per cent of that age group in 1970.

And this is a bad thing? Sex after 50 is great, especially the part about not having to worry about pregnancy.

"but people in France don't seem to think an exposed titty or having sex is going to ruin you forever like in too many parts of the USA."

I think if you talk to actual people, and NOT leaders of any type, most people don't think it's ruination. It's the leaders that don't know how to counteract instinct, that have the biggest problems...

I noticed that nobody is scolding frenchmen for having 13 partners... these kinds of stats are a crock. They rely on you telling the truth when told, rely on common definitions, rely on social norms.

Sounds pretty good to be a frenchman though...

most people don't think it's ruination.

We live in a country where many people are religious, and believe, without evidence, in god, and all sorts of ridiculous stuff about "sin." You wouldn't believe the letters I get from kids raised in families like this, and the guilt they have, etc.

While I don't believe that promiscuity will necessarily lead to ruination (to use a mostly hyperbolic word,) I've seen enough evidence that it can cause serious challenges in a persons life. Even removing the idea of sin from the conversation there are real consequences that can cause real problems.

Granted many of these problems can be mitigated by taking precautions but they are not foolproof of course. Disease (and death), unwanted children, emotion repercussions from aborting unwanted children, psychological problems reinforced by promiscuity. I've known and know people who have experienced each of these.

Only a small percent of those sexually active may ever encounter these problems but in my opinion that is enough for one to make a reasoned and logical decision to opt out of premarital and extramarital sex. It isn't necessarily motived by puritanical beliefs, guilt or fear of divine retribution.

"and the guilt they have, etc" AA.

Who says there wouldn't be guilt? Presumably the French, Italians, Mexicans and so on are religious too. For those of them who are Catholic, they aren't even allowed birth control. The question is, do your actions fall in line with the rules, whatever they are, whoever makes them? If you think the rules are wrong, then you rebel. If you get uptight about rebelling, aren't you trying to have it both ways? Seems like you feel guilty because you have the feeling that what you did was wrong. If you don't accept the rule to start with, how do you feel wrong?

In a very real way, a short term or long term relationship, that ends with a person being dumped has far more downsides, and real impact. Far more than an esoteric idea of sinfulness. Atheist, Agnostics, Buddists, all feel these things too. Remorse, regret, guilt, these are universal, I think.

The chemistry in our brain is very odd, and I don't buy the idea that religion is to blame for that. Is it wrong to sleep around? If the aids infection rate is 56%, yes. In our country, if you use protection? Well maybe not, it depends on an unbelievable amount other things going on in people. How they feel about each other, their expectations, the consequnece of not meeting the expectation. There are very real punishments. They seem to be boarderless, based on my international circle of friends, and relations. They are basically every religion imaginable. Maybe I just have unusual friends.

Civilization is a construct, it makes sense that religion would back that construct up. I think if you searched around for aboriginal tribes, you would find that their mores about procreation have their own good and bad points. Maybe it's harem based, maybe the king has 20,000 virgins at his disposal. If I had a real curiosity about how numbers of partners affect what thing, I'd want to study Japan. Since they are 80% Buddist, but are still completely modern, it would be interesting, because you could control for the whole Judeo-Christian influence. Seems like it would tell you a lot about how social constructs came to be under other religions.

My parents invited my brother and me to their house last weekend for lunch, and we got into a discussion about this story:

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7932556

My brother was of the opinion that he would want her as mayor on the merits of the photo alone. That woman looks great and everything is covered up. I want to ask her about her ab routine. If she is self-disciplined enough to get in that good of shape, it's probably not a bad sign. I wish more people in government were self-disciplined.

"Only a small percent of those sexually active may ever encounter these problems but in my opinion that is enough for one to make a reasoned and logical decision to opt out of premarital and extramarital sex."

Dale, do you mean that opting out of premarital and extramarital sex is the only reasoned and logical decision? I think people who opt out of it because of those low-percent risks are like people who are afraid of being on airplanes even though the risk of a crash is incredibly small.

I don't really care whether other people have sex outside of marriage or not - it doesn't affect me one way or the other. But there are risks involved with opting out of premarital sex, too. I know a lady who simply hates sex - she thinks it's gross and disgusting. I doubt that her husband would have married her if he'd known what her attitude was prior to marriage. He might not have married her if he'd known she was only going to put out like five times during their entire lives.

Anyone notice how feminists attribute positive things about women to their "nature," while anything which might be criticized, or which countervails "fem-thought," is blamed on that darned patriarchal culture? And that at the same time, anything negative about men is chalked up to their malevolent natural tendencies, and culturization is dismissed as a mitigating factor?

Or is just me .... ?

While I don't believe that promiscuity will necessarily lead to ruination (to use a mostly hyperbolic word,) I've seen enough evidence that it can cause serious challenges in a persons life. Even removing the idea of sin from the conversation there are real consequences that can cause real problems.

Sorry, but I've been a, well, libertine, throughout my life, and I'm also an atheist, and I'm also ethical -- and without believing, without evidence, in god -- and the "real problems" are where?

The French are a largely secular society and they don't have these "real problems." Life requires sense, so does sex. Deal with it.

In short, for much of my life, before I found a boyfriend I wanted to be with for more than a few months, I fucked like a bunny with various guys, and I don't have a disease, and I wasn't left for dead in an alley.

About the link, I like a mayor with nice abs, and she qualifies. I loved this bit from the story:

Opponents said it wasn't fitting for the mayor to be so depicted. They said they also disagreed with her on issues about water and the local golf course.

Re: very slightly true stereotypes about other nationalities and their attitudes to sex. Every country has 'em!

I've always loved this (dated) movie quote. Tt's an enraged, uptight Brit lecturing an enraged American...

As far as I can see, American men have been totally emasculated- they're like slaves! They die like flies from coronary thrombosis while their women sit under hairdryers eating chocolates & arranging for every 2nd Tuesday to be some sort of Mother's Day! And this infantile preoccupation with bosoms. In all time in this Godforsaken country, the one thing that has appalled me most of all this this prepostrous preoccupation with bosoms. Don't you realize they have become the dominant theme in American culture: in literature, advertising and all fields of entertainment and everything. I'll wager you anything you like that if American women stopped wearing brassieres, your whole national economy would collapse overnight.

["It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" - 1963)

Anyone notice how feminists attribute positive things about women to their "nature," while anything which might be criticized, or which countervails "fem-thought," is blamed on that darned patriarchal culture? And that at the same time, anything negative about men is chalked up to their malevolent natural tendencies, and culturization is dismissed as a mitigating factor?

I get tired of this, and debunk the thinking that male sexuality, for example, is "wrong," instead of simply different from female sexuality, in that it's more visual. The myths like this hurt relations between men and women, when women think a guy is a jerk for not being attracted to her after she, say, gains 50 pounds.

On the female side, a woman will be likely to lose interest in a man who spends 50 weeks on unemployment, as women are driven to seek "providers," and this is so even if they're quite wealthy and well-employed, and don't need anybody to support them. It's hard-wired stuff and resenting somebody for it is just silly.

"Life requires sense, so does sex. Deal with it."

yes, yes it does. and yet we see how often sense goes right out the window, when dealing with biology. :shrug: I think the problems are there in every society, it's just the definition of problem. I don't think the problems with breakups or breakdowns change at all. How much different it is from annoyance, to problem? In this case, probably the same, assuming you didn't catch something nasty in the bargain. THAT might might be a problem. But they do affect us deeply. The stats will just never help with that definition. It doesn't matter how many partners there are, if one of them totally screws you over. If your first or 10th partner taumatizes you, it'll be hard thereafter.

My biggest curiosity may be where the religious angle comes from to start? I didn't read anything in the article that mentioned it at all...

Holy shit this is pure silly. I am really curious what the stats for the U.S. would be, if honest ones could be found.

French women's first experience of sex is now almost as early as that of the opposite sex: in 1950 there was a two-year difference, but the gap has narrowed to four months, to around 17 and a half.

Dear gods, women are catching up to men?!? Oh no, what the fuck will we do?!? Most importantly, who the fuck cares? I mean I am sure this data is interesting in a socio-anthropological sense (it's a good thing from my perspective) but from a rhetorical standpoint, this is totally useless data. And the notion that more women are continuing to fuck past fifty is just ridiculous. My mom's sixty, my old man's seventy two - they still fuck. And this is somehow supposed to be a bad thing?

French women have an average of five sex partners to a French man's 13.

Unless the men are going over the border in droves for their nookie, this doesn't add up.

"Fuckbunny"? is that a character on one of those wierd furrysex websites?

And I'm glad you don't have a disease and aren't dead in an alley or else I wouldn't get to read your blog. Fortunately being promiscuous doesn't typically lead to being dead in an alley nor did I claim it did.

According to the CDC millions in the US can't make the claim about being disease free. Millions can't say that about HIV and their eventual death. I don't know how many of these are sex related infections but even a small percentage is a big number. According to UNAIDS in 2005 over 130,000 people in France (the model country apparently) were living with HIV/AIDS (admittedly, I don't know how many of these are sex related.) These people should have been more responsible but precautions are not foolproof. If the risk of acquiring HIV were not a legitimate concern then safe sex would not be such of focus of education. I don't think is is unreasonable to consider this risk when deciding if one wants to have sex.

Then there are the emotional ramification that some women suffer after abortion. Secular scientific journals have documented this. According to the research I've seen (at nih.gov) those with previous psychological problems are more likely to suffer post-abortion psychological effects. Back in the day when I was sewing my oats I didn't conduct a psychological evaluation on my potentials and I'm sure most guys do not. Then there is the small number who suffer even if statistically they are not in a group that is projected to do so. While you may be unflappable this is not a universally shared trait. Personally I do not want to risk that by an action on my part I would be complicit in causing a woman to be in this situation. I think the risk, though minor, is high enough to factor into the equation.

There is the aspect of unwanted children. Personally, if I were to knock some woman up I will not abandon her and if she chooses to keep the child I will do my part in raising it without have to be ordered by a court to do so. This however would seriously hinder many of the plans I have for the future. This may be minor on the ruination scale but still a legitimate concern that one must take into account.

And while I may not take religious beliefs into account when choosing the lay a woman the reality is that many women do maintain them to some degree. I could make the argument that my action would help them break the stranglehold of these religious beliefs. I don't doubt that this is true. While I only have anecdotal information here I personally know women who have experienced the opposite. The depression and guilt they have suffered because their actions were dissonant with their upbringing was real. In my opinion they should resolve these issues before engaging in sexual activity. I have no hard data on this but I'm willing to bet that many do not realize that they are encumbered with these beliefs until a situation arises which reveals them. I don't think it is unreasonable to choose to not have sex with them because I value their emotional well-being more than getting my prick wet.

These and a few other factors are, I think, legitimate reasons completely independent of religious views that one may decide not to participate in premarital or extramarital sex.

I don't see where I claimed that anyone who scrogs like a bunny is unethical or claimed that one must believe in God to be ethical. I know many, many atheists who are ethical. What I claim is that there are legitimate reasons aside from religious beliefs that one my choose chastity over promiscuity. I reason one way. You reason the other. Nor do I see how my particular ethos in any way threatens yours. I fail to see why this would be an area of contention.

These and a few other factors are, I think, legitimate reasons completely independent of religious views that one may decide not to participate in premarital or extramarital sex.

Oh, how ridiculous. I'll never have anything but premarital sex, because I don't believe in marriage.

Crossing the street is fraught with peril, too. Should I refrain from premarital street crossing as well? Or just look both ways and be on with it?

Chastity is too often mistaken for morality. It's simply a choice not to have sex, usually connected to the belief, without evidence, that there's a big man in the sky who's moving us all around like chess pieces, and actually gives a shit about us...and the business of religion, which is very, very, very invested in not having women have sexual freedom.

Also you should consider that the statistics have to be wildly wrong. Mathematically, men and women have to have the exactly the same total number of opposite sex partners*. Since the numbers of partners of men and women are hugely different, and not moving in the same way, we have to conclude that this is all a reporting problem. French women, are becoming significantly more likely to tell pollsters that they have more partners. Whether, they actually, do or do not; who knows?

*If a man and a woman have sex there are two possibilities:
1. They've had sex before. Neither of them increase the total number of sex partners.
2. They haven't had sex before. Both of them have one more total partner, and therefore men and women overall respectively have one more sex partner each.

The average number could be slightly different (avg. = total partners/total women) because the actual number of men and women is slightly different, but it's not a ratio of 5 to 13.

Mike, I think you haven't controlled for some other relevant factors... like when women start families, they are generally off the market for a while, regardless if it's a stable relationship or they are alone. I don't know if the 20% of their fertile lives they spend having a period would be easy to add in or not, but it seems to count. If you get past the fact that this was extrapolated from 12,000 people... I don't think you will find basic math errors, even if people can make stats say whatever they want them to... how they slice and dice the numbers would be interesting to find out, but ultimately irrelevant applied to any other country. Even if you come at it from Amy's direction of religion, you might expect England to be similar to France, since their religious profiles are similar [roughly 2/3 Christian] but I haven't run across study documentation about partner numbers in England. You would also have to try and control for birth protection availability, and what type, pre or post... Heh, maybe a stats maven will read the thread and run with the ball to figure it out. I'm guessin' that a homogeneous society like one of the Scandanavian countries, would tell you tons on the issue...

Amy, you want one part of evolutionary psychology without the others. Sorry but that is worse than believing in things without evidence, it's believing things that are false. Your cloak if scientific truth is rather stained.

Evolutionary psychology is pretty well clear: sluts aren't relationship material. Keep evading it.

Also, I think you missed the most interesting part of this mis-titled article,

One of the more surprising findings was that one-in-five French men aged between 18 and 24 "manifests no interest in sexuality", while abstinence rates for men under 35 was twice as high as for women.

Now, why would that be? Duh.

Jeff, you assume that I was behaving without thinking. You don't need to even know what ev. psych is to know sluts aren't relationship material.

But, consider this: I knew what I was doing. I didn't find anybody I wanted a relationship with, so I just fooled around. In modern urban society, you don't get a scarlet letter for this -- nobody had any idea. Wow, gee whiz.

Frankly, as somebody above said, I don't know whether their data are even valid or reliable. I was simply commenting on the idea that five partners for a woman was some big deal.

Dale -

I don't know of anyone who objects to others abstaining. I think most people object when others start hammering them because they happen to like fucking. Just as there are plenty of reasons to abstain, there are plenty of reasons people choose not to.

As for Amy's not ending up diseased or dead, I imagine that like my own similar state, it was quite intentional. I.e., I made a concerted effort to be safe from disease. I used condoms and also went four to six times a year for VD testing, just in case. This was just one aspect of being an ethical "fuckbunny," as it were. (I generally prefer "slut" or "lecher.")

It is perfectly reasonable and admirable even, that you have apparently chosen not to sex around. I am a firm believer in people making choices about sex that they are comfortable with and suit their disposition. I have the most profound respect for the sexuality of others, as long as it is not victimizing still others. So kudos to you for your own sexual choices. I just expect the same respect for my own choices. I do not expect others to embrace it mind, only to respect that though I have chosen to make different choices than they, mine are just as legitimate as their own.

With respect to the stats, it's been mentioned a few times (even in a few movies) that women tend to divide the real number of guys they've been with by half or more, and men tend to double their numbers, so that may work out to both men and women having around the same number of partners.

When I was in my slutty phase, I was extremely careful, like DuWayne: always used condoms, got checked for everything about 3 times a year, and was very selective who I slept with (I had that luxury, being a tall, slim, blonde, attractive woman with big tits and long legs).

And since women don't wear the Scarlet Letter in modern society, there is no way for a man to know how sexually active a woman has been in the past. I never tell a guy my past history, and I present myself as a very classy lady. I'm very talented sexually, but I learned most of what I know from books (certainly not from my male partners, most of whom didn't have much of a clue how the female body worked)

I get pretty pissed off at people judging me too, so I'm usually pretty private about my sex life. Just become someone chooses not to have sex doesn't make them morally superior.

I'm very talented sexually, but I learned most of what I know from books...

Me too. When I was twelve, I found a couple text books from a women's studies class in a pile of stuff donated to my uncle's resale shop. They had pictures of women's pertinent bits, so I shuffled them into my pile of take homes. As one of my minor OCDs is something of a compulsion to read books that I am looking through, I started on the road to being a better lover, before I ever started.

Ironically, because I have several older brothers, none of whom explained anything to me, I was far more familiar with how to please women, than I was with fulfilling my own interests. I am an extreme oddity, in that I didn't discover masturbation until several months after I lost my virginity. OTOH, I was the sort of lover that girls talked about to their friends. I was especially known for being the go to guy, for losing one's virginity.

Oy, to be young and far more stupid again.

"I'm very talented sexually...

"Me too."

Oh, me too - absolutely:)

You know, I was actually referring to the "from books" part. But I have no trouble with saying I'm a pretty damn fine lover too. Least ways my partners have generally been pretty happy with the sex aspect of being involved with me. I am very much into my partners pleasure. The exciting thing about the sex is not the orgasm, it's the build up. Integral to that is a partner who is being well pleased, so I get very keen on making sure my partner is enjoying it.

5 for women, 13 for men? I think they're ALL lying about their numbers. I've only known one French guy well enough to know about his sexual history ... try multiplying the men's number by 15. NOW we're talking promiscuous.