SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Also, you're taking this out of context, you're ignoring how someone was completely willing and happy to engage in this with random strangers for prolonged times but thinks it's too much of a bother and effort to do it with their spouse whom they supposedly love and cherish. That alone tells you a lot about how much they value their sex life with their spouse

How was MY example taking this out of context?

You seem to take it personally when your wife has done something with someone else but wont with you. And we are speaking about a previous SO not an aP....

Let's go back to MY example.

If my WH had participated in pegging with a previous partner but doesnt want to with me should I then divorce him over it?

My answer is NO. He has his reasons for not wanting to go there with me and i wouldn't see it as a hit to my ego or an indication of how he feels about me. I would be the caring wife I am in understanding that a particular sexual act is not something he wishes to do. End of story. Theres plenty of other ways a couple can show their love affection and sexual desire without resorting to performing acts that make them feel badly. That's not love. Its control and manipulation.

Out of curiosity where are you getting the idea of "prolonged times"?

The OP stated a one time video.

I would wager you would not be top on the list for a trans woman to date with the attitude I see permeating your responses.

Fantastic. This is what I love about being a free human in a free country.

I didn’t attack anyone. It’s an empirical fact that a trans woman is a human being who had their male genitalia surgically altered to be a facsimile of a vagina. I don’t see why stating the obvious is an attack. And I don’t know why someone would insist that any man who didn’t want to date someone like this is somehow a bigot. They’re just a free human being making free choices.

Oh my everloving God. Never said you were a bigot, never said anything other than some empathy and a bit of kindness would go a long way. Didn’t impinge on your free choice etc either. And it isn’t a facsimile of a vagina. It is one. As are surgically enhanced breasts or faces or anything else. I respect your right to a personal choice to not date or otherwise have a relationship with a trans person but have a wee bit of sensitivity as a human being.

I agree completely with Hellfire, if you're to marry someone you should be able to make an informed decision and know as much information as possible about that person period.

Also, you're taking this out of context, you're ignoring how someone was completely willing and happy to engage in this with random strangers for prolonged times but thinks it's too much of a bother and effort to do it with their spouse whom they supposedly love and cherish. That alone tells you a lot about how much they value their sex life with their spouse

My ex was crazy into hardcore bondage. It didn’t start that way, it was lightweight stuff, still not my favorite thing, but I went along with it. As the years went on, it escalated to more hardcore, and it was the ONLY way he’d have sex with me. So yeah, I (not so happily), went along with it. When he decided he wanted to live out a rape fantasy, and then did it while I was passed out after a party, hard stop.

If my husband decides it’s something he wants, should I go along with it because of my past? Nope, it’s a hard no for me. If he decides that’s a dealbreaker, then ok, that’s his choice. Me saying no in no way means I don’t love or cherish my spouse. It in no way means I value my sex life less with my spouse then I did with my ex. I am really not sure how anybody could take it that way, tbh.

(To be clear, I had this discussion when my husband when we met and I told him it was off the table, because it is a dealbreaker for me.)

At what point is it not prejudice to not want to date a transgender woman?

I mean my answer would be bc theyre not "real" women. And they're not. Their DNA does not change. I have no problem referring to them as females. No problem with them identifying as females. But if I don't want to date one, I'm labeled as prejudice?

Out of curiosity where are you getting the idea of "prolonged times"?

The OP stated a one time video.

Nope.

You need to get caught up.

He saw one time. She told him she did those things in every sexual encounter before him and she enjoyed it. But with him she wouldn't.

[This message edited by GoldenR at 11:54 AM, November 29th (Friday)]

If the situation was reversed, and a perspective partner, for whatever reason, was a virgin, I could understand saying, "I want to have sex with my partner, and therefore we're not compatible."

However, if that person was a virgin and interested in having (consenual, enthusiastic, meaning they don't feel manipulated or under duress) sex, what I wouldn't do is say, "Oh, you've never had sex before in your previous relationships? Dealbreaker! Clearly you value sex more/less than I do, or I wouldn't satisfy you, or you would be more likely to divorce me."

Why? Because, as far as I'm concerned, whatever sex acts they have or have not done before don't really affect what they are going to do in this (hypothetical) relationship right now. I'm also not going to project or judge their lack of sexual experience and decide that's going to tell me what kind of person they are, because I don't think it indicates if they're a good person, or honest/trustworthy, or intelligent, or responsible, or kind.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I’ve seen some of in this thread is that certain sexual acts are indicative of poor morals if a woman does them with prior partners—but not if she then does them with her H—then it’s acceptable and even desirable. Is that a correct interpretation?

However, if that person was a virgin and interested in having (consenual, enthusiastic, meaning they don't feel manipulated or under duress) sex, what I wouldn't do is say, "Oh, you've never had sex before in your previous relationships? Dealbreaker! Clearly you value sex more/less than I do, or I wouldn't satisfy you, or you would be more likely to divorce me."

I found myself in this situation last year. I posted a reply in NB to another member in similar position. The quote below is a part of that post by me.

I was dating a woman in her mid 30’s who had never been in a relationship before, that includes anything physical/sexual.

When she first shared that with me, I was a little shocked. Not because I thought there was something wrong with her emotionally or mentally. I was more concerned about her lack of experience with relationships overall. Talking with her, she had theories and ideals of what a relationship would/ should look like, but absolutely no lived experience to back it up.

Looks like I was unable to meet your standard again, ibonnie.

[This message edited by Loukas at 12:17 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I’ve seen some of in this thread is that certain sexual acts are indicative of poor morals if a woman does them with prior partners—but not if she then does them with her H—then it’s acceptable and even desirable. Is that a correct interpretation?

You didn't get that from me.

People have said if she did oral, anal, facials with random guys she didn't care about and enjoyed it, that she shouldn't refuse her H who she (supposedly) loves and values more than those guys. And that refusing to do those things with her H shows that she sexually values those other guys more than her H.

The acts ppl are shaking their head at is gang bangs.

[This message edited by GoldenR at 12:12 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

I mean my answer would be bc theyre not "real" women. And they're not. Their DNA does not change. I have no problem referring to them as females. No problem with them identifying as females. But if I don't want to date one, I'm labeled as prejudice?

Yes, honestly that's a really old-school, programmed thought process. A trans woman is a woman, not a man who's had surgery. A lot of people have the same thoughts as you do though.

We all have prejudices. In our heads we think things about people that we might not say out loud. I wouldn't go so far as to call someone a bigot for not dating a trans person. I don't even think they're a bigot. Trans acceptance is a relatively new thing. A lot of people are uncomfortable with it. Even people who will say the right things in conversation.

Maybe the term shaming is the issue, or prejudice?

I didn't even bring up trans women in the first place. I just mentioned them because it was getting thrown around in the conversation.

Nobody has to date anyone to prove anything. However, if you won't date someone because they're trans, or participate in group sex, or have a lot of previous partners, it's because of you, not them. They're good enough.

They're good enough.

Not for me.

A trans woman is a woman, not a man who's had surgery.

Wait....not a man who had surgery? Unless they somehow willed away their penis and magically created a vagina to take its place, they most certainly are men that had surgery.

[This message edited by GoldenR at 12:25 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

Maybe the term shaming is the issue, or prejudice?

Bingo!

Nobody has to date anyone to prove anything. However, if you won't date someone because they're trans, or participate in group sex, or have a lot of previous partners, it's because of you, not them. They're good enough

Hallelujah! That has literally been the entire argument! Exactly.

I do not think it is slut shaming or prejudicial to not want to date a person for any reason that makes them less sexually attractive to you. That's a personal issue that you do not have to justify to anyone.

I have a big problem with using false justifications for why you feel that way. No, obese people are not less intelligent, less hardworking, less talented, less determined in the face of adversity. Look at Oprah Winfrey, who has battled her weight all her life and is a role model for every characteristic I described. You don't find fat people sexy, fine. But don't hide behind specious "reasons" that don't hold water.

And yes, Thumos, if you call people "fake" and "mutilated," you can expect pushback for narrow-mindedness and intolerance. You don't have to agree with what people do with their bodies, but it is none of your business, and using terms like that just bullies people who are suffering. I've never met a trans person who didn't want to be born with genitalia that corresponds with their identity. They're making the best of a bad hand that was dealt to them. If I have surgery to remove my breasts for breast cancer, will you call me "mutilated?" If not, then why do the same if my trans son has them removed for gender dysphoria?

Holy shit, did this thread really just devolve into a discussion about trans people?

These are my favorite threads because they underscore the fundamental differences between male and female thought patterns when it comes to certain topics. And irony abounds whenever the topic is something like double standards, because when two very different (in general) POVs emerge in the dialogue, this dichotomy *should* make the reasons behind these double standards self-evident. If you're against fence-sitting finger-pointing at the human race, feel free to skip all the crap below.

With regard to sexual history...we're going to tell the other person what we want to tell them and nothing more. Because we want to keep them. And guess what? That's a shitty thing to do, but we all do it. We have our "good" reasons for doing so. Lying by omission is still lying. Withholding information is always a selfish, strategic tactic to get what you want. And none of us is ever going to stop doing that because this is baked into the pie. Draw the arbitrary line wherever you want. "Well, he better damn well tell me if he's cheated in the past, but who I banged in the past is MY business." "Well, she better tell me each and every dick she's so much as laid eyes on, but I'm not going to tell her when my life's in disarray and I'm doubting myself because then she'll get turned off and leave me."

I also get a major kick out of the arbitrary line drawn between "reasonable preference" and "judgmental bigot". We want what we want. Whether someone wants a person who is good looking, or is drenched in wealth, or was born with certain biological parts, or has jet black hair, or is 6 feet tall and above, or has only sexed up one other person, or WHATEVER--it's all just a preference based on some ingrained thought process that you're not going to change overnight if at all. You can't force a woman to date a slovenly layabout who lives with his parents at 40 and wears gravy-stained t-shirts, and you can't force a man to date a woman who's been hollowed out by every guy on the block six ways from Sunday--even though some people will gladly date both examples. This "my mate picking strategy is morally superior to yours" bullshit is ridiculous.

It's noteworthy that the latter situation in the previous example is not immediately obvious, thus can be covered up by...LYING! I think when a lot of men hear the term "slut-shaming", they instinctively know this is but an argument posed to protect a woman's right to lie about her past. Just like when men complain about women only wanting to date rich guys, this is coming from men arguing to protect their right to be mediocre at their profession without having to sacrifice the physical expectations they put on prospective partners. These are both tactics designed to get people to install socially-imposed filters to help them overlook what might otherwise have been DEALBREAKERS--for better or worse. It's all in the pursuit of keeping your mating options open through social manipulation rather than, ya know, changing anything about yourself as a person or simply sticking to the smaller pool of potential partners that you have access to given your life choices.

By the way, I don't read about evolutionary biology even a little bit, so maybe I'm talking out of school with this shit, but this explanation seems blatantly obvious to me as a person who lives in the world and pays attention to other people.

Edit: Oooh, and to be clear, I don't give a shit if a woman is having the sexual exploration time of her life. But I totally understand the visceral (key word) response that a guy might have to some kind of particular sexual history, and I very much know the gut punch of a woman doing tawdry things that she never did with you, even though intellectually I get why that's unfair bullshit (like much of life), and in practice I've never said a disparaging thing to my dating partner about their sexual history.

[This message edited by AbandonedGuy at 12:39 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

I was dating a woman in her mid 30’s who had never been in a relationship before, that includes anything physical/sexual.

When she first shared that with me, I was a little shocked. Not because I thought there was something wrong with her emotionally or mentally. I was more concerned about her lack of experience with relationships overall. Talking with her, she had theories and ideals of what a relationship would/ should look like, but absolutely no lived experience to back it up.

Looks like I was unable to meet your standard again, ibonnie.

I don't see how that's the conclusion you're coming to, because that's not how I would see it. It sounds like to me you broke up because she was unrealistic -- "she had theories and ideals of what a relationship would/ should look like, but absolutely no lived experience to back it up."

If someone thinks their partner is going to wake up every morning with a full face of makeup, hair done, never forget to put down the toilet seat, and doesn't have a grumpy day because *luv*, and they're basing these notions on romantic fairy tales, then I could understand not wanting to continue the relationship.

If you are considering marriage, would his or her financial history be any of your business? Bankruptcy, etc.? Most would say "yes," since past behavior is a good indicator of future choices. Marriage is a major financial risk.

I would put sexual history in the same column. If a person has a history that makes their long term, monogamous commitment questionable, I think a future spouse has the right to know that. Marriage is a major emotional risk.

Just my opinion. Of course, we all have the right to decide what we are willing and not willing to accept.

Nobody has to date anyone to prove anything. However, if you won't date someone because they're trans, or participate in group sex, or have a lot of previous partners, it's because of you, not them. They're good enough

Hallelujah! That has literally been the entire argument! Exactly

I wish it was! If so it would have died down by now.

They're good enough.

Not for me

This is the issue. If you're uncomfortable dating someone that's fine. You're not better than them.