SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Not for me.

How dare you Golden! You don't get to decide that!

@landclark

What’s wrong is judging others, which is NOT the same as making a decision on who we want for a partner.

Judging things is how people make decisions. We judge food as tasty or not. We judge clothes as looking nice, being comfortable, or not. We judge every goddamn thing, all the goddamn time. And as far as I'm concerned you're free to put up a booth in the middle of the society, as long as you get a permit from the city council for doing so, and invite random men and women in for sex. I literally don't give a damn. You do you. However, on the flip side, this also means I get to exclude you and others who act in a similar manner from being potential partners based on that. And find out I've been deceived and lied to gives me very much the right to eject.

@DragnHeart

How was MY example taking this out of context?

Because you're happily ignoring the entire surrounding issue. From lying to your partner to deceiving them into thinking such acts were always a no-go for you, to making them believe you have never done them with anyone before.

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

Once again, you're ignoring the part where if you had been straight up honest from the get-go. Chances are your marriage would've never come about, to begin with.

This isn't about forcing a partner to engage in these acts, it's about a partner lying about their past, what they have done prior, what they were willing to do for past partners, and how little they are willing to do for the person they eventually married. I wouldn't expect her to do these things, I'd get a divorce attorney. The lies and deceptions alone are good enough a reason for that.

@NorthernMSB

And it isn’t a facsimile of a vagina. It is one.

No, it's not. You can quickly go google the pictures. It's really, really not. You're comparing this to "enhancements". One is adding to something that already exists, the other is doing away what existed prior and then making an imitation of something else entirely.

@landlark

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

You're constantly and on purpose misrepresenting what I am saying to try and make a point that simply can't stand. I have at NO POINT whatever said you should be doing such things, or expected to do such things. What I said is that if you having engaged in such things in the past, or refusing to engage in them now when you were willing in the past you should be upfront and honest about that with your partner. And if that is a deal-breaker for him or her. That isn't slut-shaming, it's their goddamn right to make such a decision for themselves. Not to force you into it, but to walk out on you.

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?

No, it's actually several issues being discussed all at once. We now also have the trans angle in this. It's also not "women doing it", it's people being allowed to exclude other people of EITHER gender for having engaged in various sexual acts from being potential partners.

As well as excluding them as being potential partners for being willing to engage in such acts with everyone, from complete strangers to prior partners, while telling their partner they're completely unwilling to ever even entertain the notion of exploring these things with them.

@Slowlygoingcrazy

Yes, honestly that's a really old-school, programmed thought process. A trans woman is a woman, not a man who's had surgery.

Look, buzzwords. A trans woman is a biological man who had surgery to outwardly look reminiscent of a woman. If a guy doesn't want to date that person, that's completely justified for a variety of reasons. Such as a 42% chance of them committing suicide, an inability to ever have children, them being a biological male, etc.

Loukas, not to mention that you gave her a chance before deciding you weren't compatible. You didn't just say, "Oh, you're a virgin/never been in a relationship before? Dealbreaker! Hard no!" If anything, I feel like that's agreeing with what I said?

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

Ok...then their value of sex is not in line with mine. Forget "good enough". I've set parameters in my head on who I'll get into a relationship with, and they don't qualify.

“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.”

Respectfully, that’s bullshit. DragnHeart hit the nail on the head. It’s says nothing about valuing some other guys more. It says what sexual practice she is currently comfortable with.

This is looking to find some sexual insult where none is intended, at least without a helluva a lot more evidence of intended slight and valuing a partner less deliberately. People constantly change. There are so many more ways a partner shows commitment and valuing a partner than engaging in

anal. It’s important in a M or LTR for a couple to establish sexual compatibility. It often requires compromise and give and take, but in the end if either partner is dissatisfied with their current sex life and what their partner is willing to do, if it is a dealbreaker so be it. But it is about the two of you and what you are currently willing to do. Trying to manufacture some insult and say you are not valued as much as previous sex partners simply on the basis that your partner performed a sex act while single in 1987, but now won’t perform it with you, is misguided IMO. There is so much more needed to get to reach that conclusion. There is so much more that should go into a calculation of whether your partner values you and your relationship. Just my two cents and probably that’s all it’s worth. Lol!

On this whole issue of whether a surgically altered penis is the same thing as a real vagina. Well, no. It’s not. It doesn’t work the same way. It doesn’t self lubricate. There are no ovaries. It’s a penis that has been essentially filleted open and reconstructed into something that looks like a vagina, with nerve endings and blood vessels intact. It’s really remarkable and a feat of modern science. And I do have compassion for people with gender dysphoria who want this surgery.

But it’s not the same thing as a woman with a real vagina. In some cases the colon is used and that has to be cleaned and maintained in a different way from a real vagina.

In fact this is kind of a silly conversation. It is not bigoted or “old” or insensitive or uncaring to deal with this as a set of empirical facts.

On this same note, Andrew Sullivan, a gay man, wrote a really interesting piece recently about how gay men and lesbian women are being accused of being “transphobic” for not wanting to date transgender people. This gets a little confusing so stay with me, but here’s a scenario: A lesbian woman likes and is attracted to women with real vaginas. She doesn’t want to date or be with a man who had gender reassignment surgery and now has a surgically altered penis made to look like a vagina. For this refusal to date this transgendered person, the lesbian woman is accused of being transphobic and a bigot. Yes, this is really happening. No, it’s not hypothetical. And yes, it’s really ridiculous.

The LGBT movement, in fact, is facing a reckoning over it and will probably split apart.

I would say the lesbian woman is not a bigot and that she understands the transgendered woman’s vagina is not the same thing as the vaginas of women she is attracted to.

Anyway this is now thread jacking territory. So back to the original topic:

Yes, anyone is well within their rights to want and expect to know a potential or current partner’s sexual history, just as the other partner is well within their rights to demur or say no to this request. In which case it’s a free country with lots of attractive, compatible people who are free souls with free wills. If two partners are at an impasse over this issue, then they can simply go their own way. No one has been shamed or forced to do anything they don’t want to do.

This is really easy and far too much space here has been devoted to something so remarkably common sense. It’s a really totalitarian impulse for anyone to insist that someone must accept a person’s sexual past, no questions asked, and risk being accused of bigotry or misogyny if they don’t toe the line.

[This message edited by Thumos at 12:52 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

Loukas, not to mention that you gave her a chance before deciding you weren't compatible. You didn't just say, "Oh, you're a virgin/never been in a relationship before? Dealbreaker! Hard no!" If anything, I feel like that's agreeing with what I said?

I gave her a brief chance because because we were already getting to know one another. However, had I known she was a virgin beforehand, it would been a hard no.

Judging things is how people make decisions. We judge food as tasty or not. We judge clothes as looking nice, being comfortable, or not. We judge every goddamn thing, all the goddamn time.

Precisely. Thank you.

Trying to manufacture some insult and say you are not valued as much as previous sex partners simply on the basis that your partner performed a sex act while single in 1987, but now won’t perform it with you, is misguided IMO.

That's not quite what's happening here.

It was only a few months im the past when she loved doing those things and when she initiated the conversation that she had never done those things and never would.

The guy loved her so he was willing to sacrifice that aspect of sex bc she just didn't do those things. When he finds out different he felt emasculated and tricked. In his mind she'd do it with everyone but him. She just wasn't as into him as she was the other guys. And to top it off she did those things with his work authority figure which would always make him feel very inferior to his boss in a more personal non work hierarchy related way.

He felt that she married him bc he was a better candidate as a life partner, someone that would treat her better, never stray on her. But one look at him and she just knew she didn't want to do those things with him that she had done in every sexual encounter before him.

That was the original story.

I think the point being largely missed here is that when we choose a mate, we're looking for someone who shares our values and is on the same page as us emotionally, intellectually, sexually, etc. If my H was into kinky sex or had a florid history of treating sex casually when we met, he wouldn't be my husband because we wouldn't have had the same preferences. And given the biochemical nature of pair-bonding, I think it's an important issue to agree on. It's about compatibility.

In terms of the original post, the problem was obviously the lying. If there had been truth, perhaps the husband would have selected a different mate, but did he have the right to be the arbiter of whether or not compatibility was present before the marriage? Yes, I believe so. If someone chooses to proceed without asking for a sexual history, that's okay too. But if asked, the disclosure should be an honest one.

I don't see a "slut shaming" issue here. I see lies. And really, if it were turned around and it was the man who had lied about a florid sexual history, I'd say the same. The woman in the OP was obviously embarrassed enough by her sexual exploits to lie about them, and THAT is the problem. No matter what your preferences are sexually, or what kind of legal activities you enjoy, don't do things which cause you embarrassment. Pretty simple, really. Holds true for women. Holds true for men.

Judging things is how people make decisions. We judge food as tasty or not. We judge clothes as looking nice, being comfortable, or not. We judge every goddamn thing, all the goddamn time.

I’m not talking about this type of judgement, and I think you probably know that. If you decide you like a certain style of clothes and that’s comfortable for you, that’s one thing. Going around and saying your clothes are better than mine because I wear something different is being judgmental. To be clear, I’m not saying you said that, I’m showing the difference.

Chamomile, excellent lucid post. It seems like common sense and logic is slowly but steadily winning the day in this thread.

DragnHeart hit the nail on the head

Thank you for this.

The guy loved her so he was willing to sacrifice that aspect of sex bc she just didn't do those things.

That's on him then. If he was looking for a partner who wanted a kinky sex life, he shouldn't have settled for one who didn't. He should have kept looking until he found a compatible partner. He settled. It doesn't matter if she did those things in the past. What mattered was if her sexual preferences were in line with his at the time of the marriage. The fact that she lied about her history was wrong on her part, but if her actual preference is for non-kinky sex, he knew that going in and went in anyway.

You're constantly and on purpose misrepresenting what I am saying to try and make a point that simply can't stand. I have at NO POINT whatever said you should be doing such things, or expected to do such things. What I said is that if you having engaged in such things in the past, or refusing to engage in them now when you were willing in the past you should be upfront and honest about that with your partner. And if that is a deal-breaker for him or her. That isn't slut-shaming, it's their goddamn right to make such a decision for themselves. Not to force you into it, but to walk out on you.

You also said it’s a reflection of how much you value you current partner by not doing those things now, and I was ultimately responding to that.

Going around and saying your clothes are better than mine because I wear something different is being judgmental

If someone wants to do that it’s perfectly fine. They are making a value judgement. You don’t have to accept it. In fact people do this all the time.

For example, people insist a particular brand of car is better than another, etc. And of course certain brands of cars ARE superior to other cars. Certain types of clothing ARE superior to others. No one would try to argue that a burlap sack is a superior form of clothing to a silk robe. Or I suppose they could argue this but they would be in a distinct minority of burlap sack afficianadoes and most people would reject their aesthetic.

Is it being *judgmental* to say so out loud? Well, I suppose. But it’s also simply living in reality.

That's on him then. If he was looking for a partner who wanted a kinky sex life, he shouldn't have settled for one who didn't. He should have kept looking until he found a compatible partner. He settled. It doesn't matter if she did those things in the past. What mattered was if her sexual preferences were in line with his at the time of the marriage. The fact that she lied about her history was wrong on her part, but if her actual preference is for non-kinky sex, he knew that going in and went in anyway.

I agree to disagree with you.

Had he known she just wasn't sexually into him which was the real issue, he never would have married her. He thought she was into him, at least as sexually into him as she would get.

She misled him to get him to marry her. I don't see this being all that different from telling a guy you're pregnant with his baby when you know it's not his, but you're telling him this bc he'll make a better dad than the real one.

It strikes me that insisting a man’s surgically altered penis is the same as a biological woman’s vagina is a logical mistake that is known as an ontological category error.

It’s a logical fallacy in which two things (or even two ideas) which may have superficial resemblance to each other are conflated together as being exactly the same, when in fact they are two very different and distinct things.

Critical thinking and philosophical concepts are useful in such discussions.

The trans argument is a t/j, so I’m loath to contribute to it, but here I go:

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

That being said, a biological male or female on the basis of chromosomes is a biological fact. Transitional surgery alters the phenotype but not the genotype. I fully support a trans person’s right to surgically conform to their belief of their correct gender, but it does not alter their DNA-prescribed biological sex. You can argue all day long about gender as relates to the brain, but you cannot argue DNA as relates to what one inherently is on a molecular level.

Had he known she just wasn't sexually into him which was the real issue, he never would have married her. He thought she was into him, at least as sexually into him as she would get.

Rejecting kinky sex, even if you've participated in such acts before, is NOT an indicator of whether or not you find someone sexually attractive. I'm a fairly vanilla kind of gal, and that's what I looked for in a mate. He's sexy to me, while kinkier types are not. Preference.

In your OP, the woman LIED about her sexual history but she was truthful about her preferences going forward. Just because a person tried something out in the past, doesn't mean it's their continued desire to engage in that activity.

The man, while being honest about his sexual history, apparently LIED about his preferences going forward. So now, he feels like there's been some kind of bait and switch, when in reality, he's as guilty as she if he wasn't forthcoming about his sexual desires before marriage.

It's just so much easier all around if people are HONEST with one another before they make commitments. It's about compatibility.

[This message edited by ChamomileTea at 1:38 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

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