Why does having very many sexual partners mark men out as great in bed? Researchers from Glasgow University analysed the responses of 15,000 British men and women to a sex habits survey. Put simplistically, and allowing for exceptions, it seems that women are still inclined to go low when counting sexual partners, while men are more likely to go high. Which should shock precisely no one.
Presumably, women who go low are aware of how promiscuous females are routinely judged more harshly than their male counterparts. Double standards aside, men are more likely to boast about high, sometimes very high, numbers of sexual partners. On Love Island, young men claiming to have big numbers (sometimes hundreds) of partners were treated like Greek gods, with barely any comment or even a suspicious question or two. (Such as: “How come you all have numbers that neatly end in a nought?”) It still seems accepted that the higher the number, the more successful, desirable and alpha a lover a man must be. But does that actually make sense?
This isn’t a “men can be slags too” article. (“Women aren’t slags either” would be more helpful.) I’ve just never understood this idea that the greater the number of partners someone has, the more likely he is to be “good” in bed. Too often, such trophy-hunting boasts don’t even seem to be about an honest, primal, monogamy-rejecting need for constant variety, rather a (very intriguing) urge to impress other men. After all, what woman is likely to be swooning at the thought of being Lucky Miss 199?
Regardless of motive, even if the numbers are true, it doesn’t necessarily follow that these men are great performers – it could just mean that they’re good at getting people into bed, which is not to be discounted, but it’s another skill set entirely. If anything, for a youngish man to get these high numbers, presumably there wouldn’t really be much time for relationships, so they’d be having a lot of one-night stands, which – how to put this delicately? – could become a little formulaic. Which means that men playing a high-numbers game actually risk being bad in bed because they’re just doing the same things all the time, just with different women and not “developing their repertoire”, as it were. While they’re having a lot of sex, they’re not necessarily becoming as experienced (or experimental) as other people in long-term relationships.
Of course, I could be completely wrong and all men who boast of sleeping with astounding numbers of women have done themselves proper proud every single time. However, the next time a man in a long-term relationship find himself glumly listening to someone else brag about his innumerable conquests, he could bear in mind that it might not all be good news. Similarly, any men out there who talk up their numbers, beware – women may be listening, and forming their own conclusions.
Sorry is the hardest word, especially for Roseanne Barr
Roseanne Barr has apologised for a tweet that likened a former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, who is black, to an ape, which caused public outrage and led to the cancellation of the rebooted sitcom, Roseanne (which will now be made as The Conners, without Barr).
Mind you, it’s hard to tell – did Barr apologise or did she do that thing of non-apologising apologetically?
During the interview on Fox, Barr disparages Jarrett’s hair – let’s be generous and put that one down to nervous bravado – says she made a mistake, the incident “cost her everything” and she wishes she’d “worded it better”. Also that she didn’t realise that Jarrett was black and that the tweet wasn’t meant as racist, rather as political.
Then Barr does this thing of “apologising” to Jarrett if (if?) her post caused her offence, and “harmed or hurt” her, but not apologising expressly for what Barr herself said. Which is an old, shabby trick of making the problem the person’s reaction (or implied overreaction), rather than what was originally said or done.
How pathetic, and that’s from somebody who used to love the sharp, earthy humour of Roseanne (the woman and the sitcom). It looks as though this “apology” can be filed away with all the others that Barr has made since the incident, including the one that stuck the blame on sleeping pills.
Just to be clear, Barr’s original tweet said: “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.”
Lineker has as much right to an opinion about Brexit as anyone else
Gary Lineker has had the temerity to hold an opinion about Brexit. Unlike everybody else in Britain, who have steadfastly had nothing to say on the subject since June 2016, Lineker is backing the People’s Vote campaign for a referendum on the final deal with the EU, now feeling that “Brexit is going very wrong indeed”. For this, the football host has been insulted, berated and told to concentrate on his job.
What justifies such a boorish takedown of someone merely expressing his opinion? I happen to agree with Lineker, but it doesn’t matter whether you do or you don’t. He still has a right to speak, along with people from all other walks of British life – lawyers, taxi drivers, students, hair stylists, teachers, builders, nurses and so on, many of whom are also expressing strong opinions about Brexit.
Sometimes, it seems that only well-known people aren’t allowed to speak, which seems unfair. Do people shout: “Shut it, and trim my fringe” in hair salons? Or: “Stick to what you’re good at – driving me home” in cabs? The fact of someone’s celebrity doesn’t necessarily make their opinion more interesting, or valid, but nor should it bar them from public debate.
• Barbara Ellen is an Observer columnist
