SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Interestingly there have been a few empirical studies that looked at the question of sexual partner count and the impact a higher count has on the ability to pair bond effectively.

Turns out for both men and women, but especially for women, the higher the sexual partner count, the less successful they are at long-term pair bonding.

“We further found that the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be,” said researchers from the University of Denver.

This is probably not all that surprising to most people.

Who knows why - maybe it has something to do with “dampening” the impact of oxytocin as a pair bonding mechanism. Or perhaps forming and breaking short term pair bonds repeatedly impairs a brain’s ability to experience long-term monogamy, or habituates the brain to desiring a series of short-term bonds. In any case, I’m sure scientists will begin to pinpoint the causes more in the next several years.

So yes, this stuff matters. And yes, a potential or current partner has every right to ask and to know, just as the other partner has every right to decline an answer.

I don't think he lied. He was happy to settle if that was her truth.

Maybe not a conscious lie, but if he's looking for kinky and he settled for vanilla, he wasn't living his truth.

I consider myself extremely liberal about matters LBGTQ. I also believe gender dysphoria is a real thing.

I also believe in gender dysphoria, and thanks for the clear and concise statement on phenotypes and genotypes. That helps clarify my own thinking that we’re dealing with an ontological category error.

On this same topic people may be interested in what Andrew Sullivan, a gay man, recently wrote on this topic. Amazingly gay men and lesbian women are now being accused of being “transphobic” if they don’t want to be with or date transgendered people.

I see this as splitting the LGBT movement apart, and the reckoning is coming sooner rather than later. Gay men want to be with gay men. Gay men are biological males who desire other biological males. Now they are being told they *must* accept a woman who had gender reassignment surgery to become a “man” and if they reject these people, they themselves are “bigots”

It’s a topsy turvy world for sure

Who knows why - maybe it has something to do with “dampening” the impact of oxytocin as a pair bonding mechanism. Or perhaps forming and breaking short term pair bonds repeatedly impairs a brain’s ability to experience long-term monogamy, or habituates the brain to desiring a series of short-term bonds. In any case, I’m sure scientists will begin to pinpoint the causes more in the next several years.

The scientific aspects are always so interesting to me. It stands to reason that the more sexual partners one has, the less likely the brain would be to associate the release of biochemical agents to the sexual partner rather than to the activity itself. This would certainly add to our understanding of things like sexual addiction.

"It is transphobic, I am now informed, for a gay man not to want to sleep with a trans man who has a vagina.” ~Andrew Sullivan

It appears our society is morphing into one big brain twister.

[This message edited by Thumos at 1:51 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

Obviously this is anecdotal, but it could likely be assumed that if you've only had one pizza in your life, you are going to be more satisfied with its quality than if you've tasted a 100 different pizzas.

Being that we are socially monogamous creatures, we have no other biological drivers to slam Pandora's box shut.

My thoughts (in no particular order):

1. I would certainly feel betrayed if I found out my spouse lied to me about his pre-relationship sexual history. In my mind, relationships should be open/honest. The reason that he lied would matter to me. For example, if it was something he was deeply ashamed of, or if the act was coercive/assault, I would likely be much more understanding of his lie than if he simply didn't believe I had the right to know (in that situation, he would certainly be entitled to his secrets but he should not have let me that he felt that way as opposed to leading me to believe that he had been open/honest).

2. The humiliation and trauma that this apparent man in the original story would have felt having been shown this video by his boss (understanding that the boss could show it to anyone), would be a lot for anyone to handle.

3. It's gross to assume that you are entitled to any sexual act that your spouse has previously performed. That said, I can see how incredibly damaging it would be to your ego if your spouse denied you something that you wanted and that he/she had apparently previously enjoyed.

4. A lot of y'alls' "preferences" and rationales for such preferences, sure sound a lot like like judgments made on the basis of prejudices/bias.

5. We all have prejudices and biases. ALL of us. Not all prejudice/bias is wrong or incorrect but many are.

6. Our preferences, prejudices and biases often say more about us than they do about the people we hold them about.

7. Despite the above, no one is suggesting that you should be forced to date people who, for whatever reason, you do not feel compatible with or attracted to.

8. Rightly or wrongly, the sexual histories of our sexual mates matters a lot to some people and less to others. Part of this has to do with perceived compatibility - which is not an irrelevant consideration.

9. Womens' sexual histories are almost universally judged and scrutinized more carefully/harshly than the sexual histories of men.

Nobody cares about my 2 cents, especially when I say things like this, but people are entitled to sexual preferences about who they marry or are going to marry, and people are also entitled to share or not share, lie or not lie if they don't like being judged by those preferences. And there's nothing that either side can do about those truths!

The mating game is a gamble, a risk. There are NO sure things in love or war, and ya'll can kick and scream about how unfair that is, but you can't control how others feel or act.

Men want what they want. I understand, and I don't blame them. But I would probably make sure that I really love someone and respect them, enough so that if I find out they are not the perfect specimen I was searching for and deserving, I'd still want to work through it. I'd make sure I love them for lots of other important reasons.

Women, adhere to guys' standards or move along from those guys or lie--whichever you feel is appropriate. But in my experience, accepting yourself as you are and moving along from your Mr. Judgy Judgerton is preferable to twisting your identity into a pretzel or lying about who you are. I cannot ever recommend lying, but I also cannot control what you choose to do when Mr. Wonderful breaks out his high demand list for access to his castle. Just be prepared to lose access when he finds out the truth. And fyi: there are open-minded guys to marry, no lying or pretzel-living required.

"Expectation is the root of all heartache." Shakespeare

Yep.

Carry on with the arguing.

[This message edited by OwningItNow at 2:26 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

Everybody has the right to set their own standards/preferences. What they want in a spouse. What they personally will and will not accept. These preferences do not have to conform to anyone else’s.

My cousin is a black guy, who only dates and is attracted to Asian women. Why? It's just his thing.

Everybody has a type/s....tall, short, skinny, curvy, soft, muscular, poor, rich, funny, arrogant, religious, agnostic, masculine, feminine, thrifty, spender, football, soccer, paleo, vegan, Coke, Pepsi. etc etc.

And for some people they prefer a spouse with a low notch count. For whatever reason. Could be religious. Or its the bonding issue mentioned above. Or its past experiences. On and on.

So, IMO before tying the knot, if it matters and is asked about by one of the two people in the relationship, there should be disclosure. If one does not want to disclose then the other person can make an decision taking that into consideration.

But there should be no lying involved. Either explicit or by omission. Because we all know on this board what happens when stuff comes out later.

I do not approve of anyone who advocates lying in a relationship. A relationship with someone is not an entitlement.

We are all capable of being judged. What of it? I am on the conservative side. Some could still reject me for things I have done. And... they might even be better for it. Might even be right.

I live my life to the best of my ability. I do the best I can. It is not perfect. Expecting that all people everywhere endorse your every move is excessive.

I do not approve of anyone who advocates lying in a relationship.

Well, then I am sure all lying in relationships will stop. You can tantrum all you want, but

People who are judged

Feel it's fair to lie.

What's the plan for putting an end to that? Hymen tests?

[This message edited by OwningItNow at 3:05 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

People who are judged

Feel it's fair to lie.

Feelings aren't facts. As we see in the original post, the truth has a way of coming out. So, not only is this man socially and professionally humiliated, he's been betrayed by a lie. Sure, it might have still been an embarrassing situation, but it didn't have to be a personal betrayal. If he had known beforehand, it's an "oh shit" moment and everyone goes home unscathed.

Believe me, I'm sensitive to the issues surrounding misogyny. But when we turn the situation around and we see a female who's suddenly and brutally confronted with her husband's florid sexual history, there's no difference in the humiliation or betrayal if she didn't know that history existed. Say, she believes she's in a "one and only" situation and suddenly she's confronted with a guy who was in actuality a huge player. Do we condemn her for as intolerant if she ends the relationship?

The arguments from the (my business is my own) grouping appear to be motivated by a need to rationalize and avoid the potentially negative consequences of being determined as being a less desirable partner/person due to past behaviors (that the participant clearly recognizes, otherwise why would they attempt to hide it)

I have seen a number very poorly executed attempts at diversion in this thread that even my 11 year old would most likely see-through.

Yet I have NOT seen any logical argument against providing the truth.

I am curious if anyone could make one.

I am curious if anyone could make one.

It can't be done. It's an ideological argument that is very easily flipped on it's head as soon as the roles are reversed. Take away the misapplied use of slut shaming and this thread would have taken off in an entirely different direction. Probably the "she did for him but won't for me" crowd...

blahblah, that’s the point I think some in this thread are trying to make—not understanding WHY sex with multiple people at once or certain acts makes them “undesirable” as a partner. It’s evident that it does, for some people, and that is their right—but I think, if I understand correctly, that’s the nature of part of the argument here.

Loukas - I'm interested, what do you think an appropriate definition of slut-shaming is?

Loukas - I'm interested, what do you think an appropriate definition of slut-shaming is?

For sure. Say the husband in this story decided to divorce his wife. Being lied to was something he wasn't able to make peace with and he felt he had to move on. Once divorced, he decides ending his marriage wasn't enough and then decides to tell everyone willing to listen "Hey if you're looking for a good time, go fuck my ex. That bitch is easy, hell, she'll even take on four guys at one time and give you a video for the spank bank." That would be slut shaming. It is literally publicly shaming her, for what may be defined as slutty behaviour.

emergent8- I'm interested, what do you think an appropriate definition of slut-shaming is?

I have a question, do you believe the past history of someone should be irrelevant?

If so why?

How does past behavior not affect future behavior or perspective?

Gender-specific? (seems most/all for hiding history are female). I ask this as it seems misandric undercurrent is more likely than the misogynic issue that some are attempting to propagate.

[This message edited by blahblahblahe at 4:52 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

The generally accepted definition of slut-shaming is just stigmatizing or criticizing someone for their sexual behaviour. There can be a public component to it, but there doesn’t have to be.

There can be a public component to it, but there doesn’t have to be.

If there's isn't a public component, there isn't shaming. Expanding the definition to encompass anything more does great disservice to the legitimate argument with regards to slut shaming. Seriously, water down the definition all you want, the more you do, the less it will be taken seriously.

[This message edited by Loukas at 5:10 PM, November 29th (Friday)]