SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

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

I personally do. But I also believe that to some people it is very important and relevant to in the decision to make a long-term commitment. If I want people to respect and validate my beliefs; therefore, I must respect and validate their beliefs. I don’t believe in imposing my beliefs and values on others.

I like tattoos, I would never get any that could be visible in a business setting because I understand and accept it will hinder —whether or not it’s right or just—business prospects, which I value more.

I also believe through passive acceptance of others instead active imposition of our beliefs is how we actually implement the greatest influence to change things we perceive as “wrong.”

Blahblah - I was interested in Loukas's definition because in his prior posts on the subject, I got the impression he didn't believe slut-shaming was a real thing, but then a subsequent post indicated that the term was just being used incorrectly. I wanted to understand what he meant.

I've already set out my thoughts on the issue. I never said that I thought, sexual history was irrelevant. In most cases, distant past history likely is.

I don't really see many people advocating for hiding. I'm not sure where that is coming from. I certainly think lying is wrong. I don't really follow your "misandrist" logic so I wont comment.

[This message edited by emergent8 at 5:19 PM, November 29th, 2019 (Friday)]

If I am contemplating spending the rest of my life with someone, the pre-marriage dating period is an interview process, for both sides. Unapologetically, everything becomes my business. All questions are fair game if they related to things I may not be able to accept or live with. But that has nothing to do with shaming, it has to do with me. Maybe this person cheated on every person they have had a relationship with before me. That is critical. How would I know if I considered their history not relevant.

If the woman that was seriously considering me as her life partner found my inquiries to be unacceptable, that too becomes a part of the interview. There is no shaming in this. It is not a personal judgement. It is entirely what I could or would be willing to accept as it relates to my views and likes, it has nothing to do with branding the other person. I would expect that the one I was getting serious about would and should want to know all about me.

Everyone has a right to not choose a partner for any reason. Some people seek out people of certain race and avoid others. Some choose because they like one shape or another. Some would see an opposite political conviction in a prospective mate as undesirable for many obvious reasons. There is no prejudice or shaming involved. It is a huge decision, biggest of one's life. All questions are on the table. However, with that being said, no one has an obligation to answer questions if they don't want to. And then the other person is free to accept that or not.

These things are not personally judgemental on the other, they are part of the due diligence. Yes, I would ask the questions, many questions, and decide based on the answers, in conjunction with my day to day observations. I would hope that my partner would want to do the same for the same reasons. If my sexual past was going to be a problem for a potential spouse, way better to know that and move on before the legal commitment, than after. You can't fault anyone for the things they can't accept in their life.

How can one know the difference between 10 partners and 100 partners if there are no questions. 100 partners might just matter. Yes, there would be sexual history questions. Questions about foo issues. Questions about previous failed relationships. Lots of questions.

[This message edited by DIFM at 5:21 PM, November 29th, 2019 (Friday)]

Loukas, leaving aside whether slut-shaming in particular is right or wrong, one can “shame” another, for whatever, not in public. It doesn’t have to just be done in front of others to be shaming.

...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....

I can't speak for anyone but me, but if that's what a prospective mate wants.. he's not getting it here. It's not enough that I'm satisfied with my partner. He's got to be satisfied with me too. And that means that he's NOT going forward with me feeling like he's giving anything up by being with me. If his sexual tastes are already in line with mine, it's much less likely that we're going to run into problems later. Although, I honestly don't think most of us put that much conscious thought into it. I think it's a much more nebulous attraction, where people with similar values and tastes just gel.

If, while courting, I had found out, for example, that my prospective H was bisexual and had spent a summer abroad exploring his sexuality, I'd have sent him straight to the friend zone. And that wouldn't have been judging him as less of a person, it would have been judging him as "not right for me" because I would never have taken on the stress of worrying that I wasn't enough as I am.

[This message edited by ChamomileTea at 5:36 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

Chamomile, I’m not disagreeing. I think everyone has the right to reject someone as a potential partner for any reason or no reason at all. Same goes for breaking up once people are already coupled. It just seemed like there was confusion about what some people were arguing.

I also agree with those who said the main issue here is the lying, because it prevents one party from discerning if the other is a match.

Loukas, leaving aside whether slut-shaming in particular is right or wrong, one can “shame” another, for whatever, not in public. It doesn’t have to just be done in front of others to be shaming.

Absolutely. However, if there weren’t any public consequences the shaming wouldn’t have any impact, would it?

Well, sure it could, depending on 1.) the shamed party’s feelings about the opinion of the person doing the shaming and 2.) the extent to which the shamed party responds to and internalizes shame.

To me, one interesting thing to come out of this long thread is that people harbor some very strong feelings about what they do/do not find acceptable in terms of prior sexual history in a potential marriage partner. To me, this augurs strongly in favor of people fully disclosing this stuff before making a decision to get married.

The other piece for me is that I believe that, among the men on this thread, I'm in a minority in terms of being fine with a spouse who has enjoyed an active and varied sex life before me. In fact, I feel safer with such a spouse because I believe that, due to her experience, she has a pretty good idea of what she likes/doesn't like, and if she is deciding to commit to me, she must be pretty certain.

Ok, so you meet a nice single guy in his late 30's, who eventually confesses that he's still a virgin, works a lot and never had time for a social life while he did his job. You have your doubts about his virginity claim, but you see he has to work sometimes 7 day weeks, and has for years. Since 1. he's so quiet and shy, 2. so work-focused and 3. he's 100 pounds heavier than he should be, you think "I guess it's possible he could be a virgin - the last one in the Western world, perhaps - but okay...So you keep dating him. Neither of you are in a hurry to move it to the next level.

A couple years go by and you both decide to get engaged, married. Things work out well in bed and out of bed, to your relief. 3 happy years later, his interest in sex slows way down, but you tell yourself that's just normal "after the honeymoon wears off," plus you are going through the change of life so maybe THAT's it. You just turn him off?

Then, D-Day: you discover by doing some online research that he had cheated on you with an escort the same day you and he had sex...and incredulous, you start asking a LOT of questions...

Fast forward through years of TT mixed with "really sorry, want to fix the marriage, yada yada yada," and eventually it comes out that he NEVER had sex with anyone IN HIS LIFE besides a prostitute or YOU! He eventually confesses he lost his virginity to a prostitute at age 18, and kept hiring hookers the entire time you were dating. Body count, when he is pressed to give one, starts out at 50 but eventually, years later when it doesn't matter anymore, he confesses to at least 110 prostitutes. And you, lucky you.

OK: was this SO's sexual history any of my business? You bet it was.

No one is saying that you have to date anyone you don’t want to. Using inflammatory language and generalizations regarding specific groups of people will not be tolerated.

I’m hoping that in the future there won’t be, as another poster put it “consequences” for a woman’s sexual behaviour. That’s the stuff that’s rubbing me the wrong way.

Allow me to fix this for you. There are consequences for a HUMAN'S behavior. Sexual, non sexual, legal, illegal, moral, immoral. There are consequences for ALL behavior in society. Some rewarded, get good at sucking up, move up the corporate ladder. Get good at trading stocks, make a lot of money. And some are bad, shoot someone, spend your life in jail. Don't make much money as a man, accept that your choice in LTR's is limited. Gain a lot of weight, same thing, accept that you've limited your chances with the opposite sex.

And yes, gangbang the football team, accept that a lot of men aren't going to be OK with that. Sorry, but that is a foreseeable, reasonable, and common reaction to that type of behavior. Just like a man disclosing being "gay in the past", while not at all "wrong" or "bad" yeah, is going to greatly limit your dating/marriage/relationship pool. Sorry, but that's the way it is. And we can all sit and talk about how it should be, but, if that's the case, I'd like to start.. This site shouldn't exist because married partners shouldn't cheat on one another. But that's not the way IT ACTUALLY IS. And the important thing isn't spouting off the "it should be this way" message, yeah, we know, we all get that. The important this is "this is how it is" and then how to best alter your behavior to achieve the best possible outcomes. Pro tip? Don't bang the entire football team in an evening, don't get fat, make a lot of money and keep in shape. Sure, we can argue that none of those things should matter. But we'd be totally remiss to say "none of those things DO matter" because they do. A lot. To the point of "dealbreaker" for a lot of people.

Give me a f’ing break. It’s not even an excusable double standard, no matter how you try to spin it.

I agree with you. But, doesn't alter the facts one iota. It's a double standard that exists, is alive and well, and is something that is going to be important for a lot of potential partners. I've explained the "why" on it, and that why does make sense, so it's not a double standard without a reason, but sure, it's a double standard, without question.

There are so many more ways a partner shows commitment and valuing a partner than engaging in

anal.

Perhaps to you. Perhaps not to me. Perhaps to you a ring on the finger is a big deal. Or having children together. Or combining finances. Or something else entirely. I don't get to tell you what shows my commitment to you, YOU do. And, yeah, for me, anal is high on the list for "showing commitment", for a whole host of "good reasons" that I can justify in my head. But, it really doesn't matter what it is, only that you don't get to determine it for anyone else, including your partner. My wife might think that buying flowers 3X a week shows commitment, I think it shows financial irresponsibility and a really stupid preference in gifts. Neither of us is right/wrong. But if I want to keep her happy, guess what? The way to do it isn't to convince her that flowers are stupid and don't show commitment, even though I might deeply believe that.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 9:06 PM, November 29th (Friday)]

@ChamomileTea

That's on him then.

Respectfully disagree. His being okay with this was conditional. Based on the assumption that she simply did not do these things, past, present, and future. Which came about via lies and deception on her part. If she had been honest with him, his decision would've been vastly different. And there lies the issue.

If your future spouse is upfront and honest about these things, and you decide to marry them anyway, that's on you. If not, it's on them. And not marrying them/breaking up is a reasonable reaction.

@landclark

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.

No, I said that for me personally these are deal-breakers. And I won't be getting together with such a person. If I find out later they knowingly deceived me and lied to me, that makes things a whole lot worse. You guys were the ones who screamed that was "slut-shaming" and "seeing them as less of a person" because I would be unwilling to date/marry them.

@ChamomileTea

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

Hard disagree. He was completely fine with the situation, however, that was CONDITIONAL. It was based upon her telling him she simply didn't engage in these things, period. He accepted that she was that type of person and was content with it. That turned out to be a complete lie. No, she isn't required to keep performing these acts, however had she straight up told him that in the past she happily engaged in them, and much, much, much worse. He likely would not have been fine with the situation and never married her. The problem ultimately are still the lies and deceptions. Which was the starting point of this entire discussion. Lying and deceiving your partner in such a way takes away their agency and free choice and it's a very deliberate act because most people recognize that telling this straight up to prospective partners would have most eject (men and women).

He was completely fine with the situation, however, that was CONDITIONAL. It was based upon her telling him she simply didn't engage in these things, period. He accepted that she was that type of person and was content with it. That turned out to be a complete lie. No, she isn't required to keep performing these acts, however had she straight up told him that in the past she happily engaged in them, and much, much, much worse. He likely would not have been fine with the situation and never married her. The problem ultimately are still the lies and deceptions. Which was the starting point of this entire discussion. Lying and deceiving your partner in such a way takes away their agency and free choice and it's a very deliberate act because most people recognize that telling this straight up to prospective partners would have most eject (men and women).

I'm not following your logic. I see this as a two-part problem. The female is looking for a marriage which includes fairly vanilla sex. She doesn't disclose that kink was once on her menu because kinky no longer appeals to her. From what you guys have posted, the male is looking for a marriage which features kinky sex, but agrees to one without it based on his prospective bride's inexperience and disinterest. How are they BOTH not misleading the other?

Female X = Dishonest with sexual history.

Male Y = Honest with sexual history.

Female X = Honest with sexual agenda.

Male Y = Dishonest with sexual agenda.

I agree that everyone should just be honest with their history and agenda, but who's to say that if the male had made his own sexual agenda clear that it wouldn't have been female who begged off? She thought she was getting a vanilla guy. Turns out he wants to freak? She's got just as much right to cite "conditional" agreement as he does.

I'm not following your logic. I see this as a two-part problem. The female is looking for a marriage which includes fairly vanilla sex. She doesn't disclose that kink was once on her menu because kinky no longer appeals to her. From what you guys have posted, the male is looking for a marriage which features kinky sex, but agrees to one without it based on his prospective bride's inexperience and disinterest. How are they BOTH not misleading the other?

The female (or male, men do this stuff too, this was never a gendered issue) is looking for a fairly vanilla marriage. Wanting to settle down and leave their past behind. For this purpose, they're sanitizing their history and omitting crucial information. It's about as dishonest as you can get, and honestly the worst way to start any kind of relationship.

male is looking for a marriage which features kinky sex, but agrees to one without it based on his prospective bride's inexperience and disinterest.

The male (or female, once again not really a gendered issue beyond some folks trying to make it one), is looking for a prospective partner. Someone who shares their values, ideals, boundaries, deal-breakers, etc. Remember most guys don't want threesomes, oftentimes that's a deal-breaker right there.

They might like and enjoy some more kinky stuff. However, they're willing to CONDITIONALLY SACRIFICE THAT, because everything else aligns. In the end you can reduce this to a very simple equation. Where they're willing to sacrifice some things, to gain other things. This isn't deception, oftentimes partners will talk about this and tell the other side but then respect their boundaries and limitations.

The problem arises, they were lied to. The positives never existed and the sacrifices were entirely meaningless. They were never applied to anyone before. This blows the entire equation and basis of their relationship straight out of the water.

I believe that if you are in a healthy relationship that you are happy to discuss all your sexual history if your partner wants to know.

I don’t believe wanting to know that sexual history is slut shaming. I also dont believe that if your partner is not okay with things you have done in your past that it is slut shaming.

I think most people-not all and certainly not if it goes against religious beliefs, that if you say you have done certain acts in the past and didn’t enjoy it or no longer enjoy it that most people would be okay with that. If they aren’t it’s best that you know before the wedding.

I asked how many people my h had been with long before we got serious. I didn’t ask for specifics. Ie what he did with each specifically before we got married but after dday, I wanted to know every detail of his a and then out of no where I wanted to know what he had done with each of his girlfriends before we met. He felt uncomfortable telling me at that time but he answered my questions-hopefully honestly as much as he could remember.

I think it’s definitely your business if you want to know. There should be no secrets in a relationship. I’m not saying you just blurt out but if your current partner asks questions, you should be happy to answer them. To me, not wanting to answer is not trusting your partner.

I lgotta admit that I love this thread... it’s a brilliant clusterfuxk. Keep it going. I, and I’m sure others, need the turkey day weekend comic relief it provides.

Anyway, I love that “judgers” in this thread (i.e., slut shamers) do not like being called out for judging others by non-judgers (i.e , anti-slut shamers), thereby admitting that that they judge, while not liking being judged. Makes me laugh.

On the other hand, I also love that the “non-judging” crowd (i.e.,anti-slut shaking) crowd is willing to judge someone for their personal convictions. Wait, aren’t non-judging persons supposed to be anti-judgmental?

In other words, both sides are hypocritical. Keep it up though. We need some thnxgiving weekend comedy.

[This message edited by Drumstick at 1:25 AM, November 30th (Saturday)]

Anyway, I love that “judgers” in this thread (i.e., slut shamers) do not like being called out for judging others by non-judgers

Well, where do I fall? Since I would argue judging things, from food to clothes, to potential partners is completely normal. We judge thousands of things every day, it's how we make decisions.

They might like and enjoy some more kinky stuff. However, they're willing to CONDITIONALLY SACRIFICE THAT, because everything else aligns. In the end you can reduce this to a very simple equation. Where they're willing to sacrifice some things, to gain other things. This isn't deception, oftentimes partners will talk about this and tell the other side but then respect their boundaries and limitations.

Your premise presupposes that the person who is making a "conditional sacrifice" would be considered as an acceptable partner. If my husband had said to me, "I'd really like a partner who will engage in kinky sex acts with me, but I'll go ahead and settle with you since we have other things in common", I'd have said "thanks, but no thanks". I would want to know the facts and vote with my feet.

I don't think I'm alone in that either. I doubt very many people would like to believe that their mate was making some kind of grande sacrifice, rather than being honored to be with them. But it's not just an ego thing. There's something whiffy about a partner who keeps hidden contracts, something furtive and below board. I wouldn't find that to be acceptable or desired in a mate. It's dishonest.