SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

This concept has been bandied about in a number of threads here:

Is it proper decorum to ask for/share sexual history details with:

(a) a new lover

(b) somebody you're contemplating marrying

For my part:

(a) I think the mainstream here is you inquire/disclose anything needed for physical safety ("Ma'am, I have active herpes, we need to use protection, but even with that, there is still a risk, do I still have your consent?"). Anything beyond that is not relevant.

(b) Yes, absolutely, for several reasons, one of which is illustrated by a couple currently posting here. The WW was the AP for a MM at the time this couple met and began their relationship. She never completely ended the relationship with the MM before getting married to her BH (but I gather the relationship with the MM did sort of fade away eventually), who found out years later.

Me, personally, I would not marry somebody who was, or who recently was, an AP for a MM. In fact, I would have to think long and hard about marrying a person who was ever an AP for a MM. In my mind, somebody who disrespects that boundary in one direction (outside-in) is more likely to disrespect it in the other direction (inside-out).

Stepping back, I'd feel way more comfortable marrying a woman with a decent-to-high sex number, but an ethical one with men she desired and was honest with, than a woman who did shady stuff like sex with somebody else's husband, or acting as a sugar baby, etc. You learn something about a person's character through every aspect of his or her history. As they say, the best predictor of how a person will act in the future is how he or she acted in the past.

Butforthegrace,

Great topic btw!

IMO there are two instances where "deets" should be disclosed.

1) If there is any type of health risk (STD/HIV) etc that puts the new partner at risk.

2) If any relationship previously was impacted by infidelity.

Aside from that, we all have pasts and we all should be building our own new sexual relationship together, thus partners, etc from the past are not relevant.

My disclosure points are to ensure that I would make informed decisions; whether to proceed with the relationship or end it based on the risks of 1 and 2.

Is it proper decorum to ask for/share sexual history details with:

(a) a new lover

(b) somebody you're contemplating marrying

For a new lover, I believe you should share relevant details only, such as any chronic health issues that would have a potential impact on that individual (i.e. herpes). Other than that, I think that anything else is not relevant. I'm not one who shares my "number" as I think it is not relevant. And I've never been asked, and I have never asked.

For someone you are contemplating marrying, I believe all of the above is relevant, plus anything else you might think is helpful and sheds light on them as a person, such as how some of their more significant relationships ended, what they learned from that experience, etc.

Cat

Didn't this thread just (finally) die a week ago?

Oh, yeah, it did.

https://www.survivinginfidelity.com/forums.asp?tid=637514

Worndown,

Laughing my ASS off. Thanks for the hilarity this morning!

Worndown,

Laughing my ASS off. Thanks for the hilarity this morning!

Thank you...I'll be here all week.

9 o'clock show will be totally different from the 7 o'clock show.

The WW was the AP for a MM at the time this couple met and began their relationship. She never completely ended the relationship with the MM before getting married to her BH (but I gather the relationship with the MM did sort of fade away eventually), who found out years later.

#ImFamous 🤷‍♂️

https://www.survivinginfidelity.com/forums.asp?tid=637514

Oh yeah, I remember that thread. That's the one where it was decided by a select few that research into the likelihood of a person cheating by an accredited American university should be always be summarily dismissed. Personal anecdotal stories, i.e. "I know someone who did this so that proves that any study's findings are bogus", are what people should base their decisions on.

It was a real eye-opening experience and I learned a TON!

Oh yeah, I remember that thread. That's the one where it was decided by a select few that research into the likelihood of a person cheating by an accredited American university should be always be summarily dismissed. Personal anecdotal stories, i.e. "I know someone who did this so that proves that any study's findings are bogus", are what people should base their decisions on.

There are plenty of "statistics don't matter" posters. And, in a way, they are right, statistics cannot tell you what ONE person is going to do in a situation, no matter how accurate they are, they predict group behavior, not individual behavior. My WW is a great example, statistically speaking, very unlikely to cheat, but she did. I'm another example, more likely to cheat than average, but haven't.

But, the blind distrust of stats does bother me a bit. And statistics show a very interesting and decisive story when it comes to past partner "numbers" and success in marriage, (cliff notes, higher numbers increases likelyhood of D, especially for women). Now, we can all cite the woman we know who had 100 partners in college and never cheated, I'm sure they are out there. And we can all cite the virgin bride who cheated. Again, no argument that they are out there. But, statistically speaking, the virgin bride is less likely to cheat on you than the woman who's cracking into triple digits on sexual partner counts. It's inarguable, at least from the stats, and it's not a "little bit more likely" it's significant. It also appears to effect men (more partners, less martial happiness) but to a lesser degree.

I have a big "number" and I didn't cheat and am pretty happy in my marriage (before the A). Those stats are bogus! No, it doesn't work that way. Just like marrying a rock star you're far more likely to have cheating than marrying plumber and living in Podunk, KS. Doesn't mean all rock stars cheat or no Podunk plumbers do, but, it does mean you're greatly increasing your chances of cheating marrying a rock star vs a plumber. Statistics are a very powerful thing when trying to select for outcomes, no, sometimes they are wrong (my case), but if you want to give yourself the best possible chances, ignore them at your own peril.

IMO, only transmissible STDs or children from prior relationships are an absolute must to disclose. Anything else is up to the respondent’s discretion.

But, statistically speaking, the virgin bride is less likely to cheat on you than the woman who's cracking into triple digits on sexual partner counts.

RIO, is there really data to back that up. It feels counterintuitive to me. A woman with a high sexual count might be more likely to D if she is unhappy with her H -- because she is independent and not afraid to be alone -- but is she really more likely to cheat? Seems like here on SI we see a disproportionate number of BH/WW threads where the WW a virgin when she got with her BH.

My intuition is that a woman with a high count knows what she likes and wants, and if she decides to commit and settle down, she means it.

[This message edited by Butforthegrace at 3:23 PM, May 14th (Tuesday)]

I don't think there is much in sexual history that predicts how likely someone will cheat. You have to get to know a person and make a call based on what you learn about that person.

But, statistically speaking, the virgin bride is less likely to cheat on you than the woman who's cracking into triple digits on sexual partner counts. It's inarguable, at least from the stats, and it's not a "little bit more likely" it's significant. It also appears to effect men (more partners, less martial happiness) but to a lesser degree.

RIO, is that hearsay internet statistics or real research statistics. They usually are not at all very similar. Is there a source?

Good lord. I asked this question in the last thread. Think about it. And answer it (which none of you "Once a whore, always a whore" folks did)

But quite honestly, this is just your projection (whores cheat, virgins don't) and is just your hope of figuring out who will/will not cheat (Answer: You can't 100% predict it).

In a study from the University of Colorado Boulder, Mark Whisman, a psychology professor at CU, found "a history of cheating behavior, more permissive attitudes toward cheating and a greater acceptance of casual sex are all related to a greater likelihood of engaging in cheating behavior."

I would say this is the bigger problem (bold above). Not the being a prude part.

Not to mention the definition of "greater acceptance of casual sex." I have a "greater acceptance" than say...our vice president, or the Pope, or ISIS - I don't care if people do, and I have. Does this mean I am suddenly going to cheat? Damn...

As others have said - it's one study. And social psychology is rife with false positives (in fact, it's estimated that 75% of social psychology studies can't be repeated - Google "replication crisis"). Not to mention you are quoting one sentence out of a whole paper.

So, use Occam's razor: Does is really make any sense that someone who slept around in their 20s (say 50 people - 5 per year for 10 years), got married at 30, stayed monogamous/faithful for 15 years, got divorced at 45 and is now dating again - Is going to be a cheater?

Does that really make any sense at all to you?

But, statistically speaking, the virgin bride is less likely to cheat on you than the woman who's cracking into triple digits on sexual partner counts.

This is why this whole conversation is a joke.

You've got one person swearing the above is true, and then another (in another thread) saying the exact opposite is true. They both can't be, and they both aren't.

You can't just make broad generalizations about ONE aspect of a persons personality and say it applies 100%. There are so many aspects of a person that very rarely does one thing lead all (severe mental issues probably the exception)

The fact of the matter is that what some one did 10, 20 years ago doesn't directly translate into who they are today. To think it does is just ridiculous.

I think statistics are important. However, the practical application really depends on the subject and what the statistics are attempting to quantify. Obviously, risk calculation is among the most useful. But you must interpret the studies they are based on narrowly and looking at the deviations is more important than the overall broad conclusions.

The study RIO cited did in fact conclude as such. However, the authors were able to explain the "virgin bride" deviation (compared to others) due to religious significance and not related to sexual promiscuity. However, nothing from this study really determines the overall satisfaction of these marriages. The take away is, if you are really hell-bent on avoiding divorce despite the quality of the relationship, marry someone who believes it is more of a sin than to accept shitty a relationship.

I do like stats personally. I don't see them as gospel but I see them as useful in some areas to quantify general experiences. I do not really trust statistics related to human interpersonal relationships on their face though.

Like everyone, I don't believe that anything must be disclosed except for STDs.

ETA: I take the Hans Solo approach of not wanting to know the odds if I get into a relationship. Trying to prevent getting hurt usually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of negative relationship outcomes. Going into a relationship with this expectation that the other party must earn your trust will likely be downfall of the relationship. How can you love someone who doesn't respect you? No one wants to feel guilty until proven innocent.

Also, going into a relationship fearing getting hurt is like going into a boxing match and being afraid of being knocked out. What's the point?

[This message edited by KingRat at 4:17 PM, May 14th (Tuesday)]

My wife knows who all my ex girlfriends were, and correctly assumes that we had sex. It’s really never been discussed, and has been a non issue.

However, I did leave off a few of the less important sex partners. Girls who were insignificant blips on my past relationship radar, and my one and only ONS that I had about a year before meeting my wife. My wife had a low partner count, I was only her 2nd sex partner (she has 3 now, thanks to AP!). In the beginning, I left out some of those insignificant ones because I didn’t want my number to intimidate her or piss her off. Now it is just pointless to tell her.

Also, virgin brides are somewhat likely to cheat. You hear all the time stories about one and onlies who want to experience other people. On the other hand, girls who have been around the block several times may not feel the need to cheat, as wild oats have been sewn. You just never know.

Does that really make any sense at all to you?

What makes sense to me is the notion that someone who has been cheated on can WONDER about the following:

1) Someone who has had casual sex with a large variety of partners PROBABLY likes having casual sex with a large variety of partners, and is used to it.

2) When someone who likes having casual sex with a large variety of partners decides to get married, they are deciding to give up having sex with a large variety of partners and instead are deciding to just have sex with one partner, something they are not used to.

3) It MAY be POSSIBLE that this someone who has now decided to have sex with just one partner and is not used to it MIGHT decide that they miss having sex with a large variety of partners, something they are used to, and decide to cheat.

I myself WONDERED if there has been any research done that shows that people who like having casual sex with a large variety of partners are more likely to cheat?

I did a quick google search and sure enough, SOME research has been done at the University of Colorado that shows that people who have "a greater acceptance of casual sex" MAY have "a greater likelihood of engaging in cheating behavior".

NOTHING in the research shows that someone who likes having casual sex with a large variety of partners WILL cheat on you.

SOMETHING in the research shows that someone who likes having casual sex with a large variety of partners MAY have a higher likelihood of cheating on you.

Based on this, MY OPINION, i.e. MINE ALONE, is:

1) If I as a BH decide to marry someone who has had sex with a large variety of partners, I have EVERY RIGHT to be pissed as fucking hell if they decide to cheat on me.

2) Based on the research, however, I have NO RIGHT to be surprised that they did.

One of the things that I have read over and over on SI is "People cheat for all kinds of reasons".

Are you saying that this needs to be changed to "People cheat for all kinds of reasons, EXCEPT liking having casual sex with a large variety of partners. People NEVER EVER cheat for that reason."?

I say that's fucking bullshit, but that's just ME.

When someone who likes having casual sex with a large variety of partners decides to get married, they are deciding to give up having sex with a large variety of partners and instead are deciding to just have sex with one partner, something they are not used to.

I'm a male. While single I had lots of casual sex with a large variety of sexual partners. This is something that, as a male, I'm biologically programmed to seek and enjoy, and I did.

I also got tired of being single, of all the bullshit that goes with peacocking to try to get into women's panties, of being viewed as a commodity (because of my professional career), etc., and, more than all of that, I craved the warmth and cozy comfort and intimate love of a wife and family. I knew what I was "giving up" -- I didn't view it that way -- when I chose this. And my wife was not my best sex.

I've not cheated.

Are you saying that this needs to be changed to "People cheat for all kinds of reasons, EXCEPT liking having casual sex with a large variety of partners. People NEVER EVER cheat for that reason."?

I don't understand how you go from "people like having sex with different partners" to "that means they will cheat." Which is what you are saying.

Or how you somehow think that since at some point in a person's past that they did have sex with multiple partners, that means they continue to do so.

Do you have the same food preferences/eating habits you did 20 years ago? Of course not. So why doesn't someones sexual preferences change? In your telling - they don't.

I've never said people wouldn't cheat because they wanted some strange. But that is a very different proposition than saying, "Since people do like strange, they WILL cheat."

Which is what you keep insisting.

You: Multiple historic partners = likely to cheat.

Just about everyone else: Multiple historical partners does make one predisposed to cheat. There are a large number of other factors that come into play.

Next question:

What's the magic number that means someone will cheat?

1? 3? 20? 100? 15.2(that 0.2 was just the tip)

(Bonus question: Is the number the same for men and women? Is it different? Why?)