SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Nothing hidden about any of this though. People ask their partner to explore, try out things, tell them what they like to do all the time. When the partner goes, "No, I don't do those things. I'd never do them. They're outside of my comfort zone.", most folks shrug and move on.

A lot of this feels like you're attempting to make out both sides as equally as bad, sinister, and deceptive. That's just dishonest and simply not true. People are fine with not doing a lot of these things, and foregoing exploring them. However, [/bold]most of the time being fine with that is what is conditional[/bold]. They're not hiding their desire to do these things either unless you think they should be constantly reminding their partner and pestering them about it.

It's not incumbent upon you to agree with me, but yes... I do believe it's deceptive if a person KNOWS going in that they want more than what has been agreed to. When considering marriage, I certainly would not have entered into a contract like that. I would not have considered myself to be cherished simply as I am, and... I'm just not attracted to guys like that.

There's been this premise during this thread that the "double standard" is acceptable to to most people, meaning the male is viewed as a stud and the female is viewed as a slut, leaving the "stud" marriageable and the "slut" less so. But I frankly just don't see the difference and while percentages might be low, I don't believe I'm alone in that.

I wanted someone who viewed sexual encounters as emotionally meaningful expressions of loving care, not casual exercise. I spent quite a bit of time settling on my husband, who made me a good partner for more than 30 years before he flaked. And when he did, it still wasn't about casual sex even though for all the world it looked like just exactly that. It was because he wasn't feeling the emotional connection anymore. He had allowed his inner critic to ride roughshod over him to the extent he couldn't believe he was loved anymore. In that respect, sex had lost meaning.

I wouldn't have been okay with the hidden contract or the "conditional" sacrifice. I wouldn't have agreed to that. I wouldn't have been attracted to a person who did. I knew what I wanted and why, and I searched until I found him. I deserve to be loved just as I am and without feeling either overtly or subtly pressured to be something I'm not. I would never have tolerated being settled on because most of what I have to offer is deemed good enough. That's object love.

It's wrong to lie. And it's wrong to mislead. Choosing a spouse leads to a lifelong commitment, and dishonesty leads almost inexorably to dissatisfaction with that commitment. In the original post, the male was lied to about the female's sexual history. But now, what I'm hearing is that he had a secret sexual agenda all along? Whether one can consider it to be "equally sinister" or not, it's still dishonest if it wasn't shared prior to the marriage.

People who want a kinky relationship should search until they find someone like-minded. It's on them when they fail to do that. Same thing with vanilla types. And I do think it's okay for people to experiment before deciding what they want, but they need to be really honest about it, because there is the propensity for old deeds to turn back up, as we've seen in this case. Once their decision has been reached though, it should be known and respected for the duration of the marriage, without qualifiers.

it should be known and respected for the duration of the marriage, without qualifiers.

But now we’re in new territory, because people do change, and in both directions. Formerly kinky might get tired of it and just prefer vanilla; formerly vanilla might become interested in kink. So then what, when it’s truly not a “bait and switch,” but nor is it what was signed up for in the beginning?

@cocoplus5nuts

You look at me and think, she is not worthy of marriage because she has had too many sexual partners or is too overweight. You are saying that my worth is less than because of those things. You are judging me as bad.

No, people are judging you as UNSUITABLE for THEM as a marriage partner. They do not think nobody should marry you.

see that you are judging me and say, "That's not ok. You don't know me."

I know all I need at that point to judge whether you'd make a suitable partner for me. As do others who think similarly. That does not mean you aren't worthy of marriage, I won't be attempting to dissuade anyone else from marrying you, nor scoff when you get married. I just don't want to be that person. And I don't have to be that person.

@slowlygoingcrazy

It’s the assertion by a few posters that someone who “banged the football team” isn’t wife material. That’s my issue. That’s slut shaming.

No such generalization has been made whatsoever. What they have said is they personally do not see such a person as a fitting marriage partner for themselves, and don't want to marry them! That's a big difference in what you are accusing them of her.

If you want to be judgmental and act like you’re better than somebody else because they’ve made different choices, then go nuts. Nobody is saying you can’t do that. Just don’t get all mad when people call you out on it. At least own it.

This is such a gross misrepresentation of what people are saying. At this point, you're just beating up a strawman. NOBODY AT ANY POINT SAID THEY'RE BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. STOP CLAIMING THAT. People said they judged their behavior and found them unsuitable as a partner for themselves. Bloody hell.

In your eyes, you may even see yourself as being better than them because of it, and that’s also fine

This increasingly seems like a you problem, where you are reading things nobody said and getting angry at stuff you made up.

wants to be called judgmental

Knock yourself out. Call me judgemental. Pot meet kettle. I don't give a damn. What I however dislike is the dishonest argument you're making that this somehow means they see them as "less of a person", "worthless", etc. Bullshit. They just don't want them as partners for themselves. If you'd marry someone else, I wouldn't bat an eye at that.

@landclark

However, it’s also my right to not accept their judgment

I certainly hope you do, if it's about them not wanting to date you. Because otherwise, that's scary.

I’m less than simply because that’s what they’re telling me I should believe. I

Who is "they", who is telling you that, where in this thread did anyone say that?

@ChamomileTea

I do believe it's deceptive if a person KNOWS going in that they want more than what has been agreed to.

People always want more, or would love to have more. Who wouldn't want to marry an attractive millionaire who is helplessly devoted to one. Doesn't mean that's realistic. People make sacrifices, they decide which things the prefer, what is important to them. And circumstances play a big role in that.

There's been this premise during this thread that the "double standard" is acceptable to to most people, meaning the male is viewed as a stud and the female is viewed as a slut, leaving the "stud" marriageable and the "slut" less so. But I frankly just don't see the difference and while percentages might be low, I don't believe I'm alone in that.

That's great, if you see a guy who did that as a slut/loose, guess what? That's your choice right there! You don't have to marry him, it's a completely reasonable deal breaker. The problem is, many women don't care about it. While men do. Just because you (possibly) and others don't care doesn't mean the guys don't get to care either!

I wouldn't have been okay with the hidden contract or the "conditional" sacrifice.

It's not hidden! Most people don't hide that stuff, they establish things they'd like to do as well as boundaries when they feel each other out, talk about these things, and thematize them. You keep pretending everyone is skulking around in the dark. Most people just flat out ask about these things.

If your boyfriend asks for anal, you get to say no. Hell, you even get to break up over it if it upsets you that much. At that point, it's established it's something he'd like to try, something you're not up to. Chances are, he'll be fine with that. Because it's something you simply don't like or want to do. Him being completely fine and happy with that is based on it being a complete no-go for you. However, when he later learns you used to be the anal home cumming queen of the high school, don't expect him to be particularly thrilled.

As far as I've ever been able to tell, the only difference between being judgmental vs. being principled vs. having boundaries is whether or not the person you're talking to shares your views.

This is maybe slightly off point, but a lot of what people think or want in marriage is not what they get in marriage, especially in a long marriage. One of those things may sex or sexually adventurous sex. This really feels to me to be a new expectation on marriages, frequently on women whose hormones and bodies often betray them over the course of a marriage. Just because a woman disrespected herself in her younger years (that is often the way we look back on risky sexual behavior) does not mean we want anything to do with that in marriage. And men wanting/believing long-term marital sex should look that way is putting tons more pressure on marriage. It used to be that getting sex was enough, but now due to porn and the impression it's giving men, just having sex (as our bodies literally dry up beginning in our 40s) isn't enough.

I recently read the proof that I was looking for on this. It was an article about skyrocketing anal cancer rates. The doctor said, "Due to changing sexual practices in the last decade or so, we are seeing anal cancer rates like we have never seen before." Just saying that what every bloody everyone wants in marriage is getting to be so ungodly unrealistic. It needs to stop. We're all holding people to standards of perfection that can never be obtained, I don't care what they said when they were newly in love and getting M. Reality looks nothing like perfect people who don't ever cheat in 60 years and offer adventurous sex multiple times a week while working, raising a family, contributing equally, and behaving in a not-too-clingy-or-too-detached manner, avoiding excess of drugs and alcohol, using solid boundaries, and being careful with finances.

We've turned our beliefs about marriage into some sort of new age Disney porn with perfect romance and perfect sex. No wonder everyone is "disappointed." It's our expectations of people, not people. They are always gonna be flawed human beings.

That is the point of many of us on this thread—why is it “disrespecting ourselves” to like these certain sex acts?? If it’s a mutually consensual, pleasurable thing, where is the “disrespect”?

If a man and a woman are dating and the man finds out that the woman has had sex with a lot of men and therefore decided she is not someone he wishes to marry, how is she not going to feel shame?

I think it is one thing of a guy has had few sexual partners and wishes to date spmmeone who has done the same, that is fine, though it's problematic if he aa es that convo for after sex.

It is hugely problematic if a guy has had a lot of sexual partners but wishes to marry someone with few. It is less problematic if he discusses this with women before sex, but it is still disturbing

My ex btw had sex with far more people than I had, which was fine. However it always made me uncomfortable how happy he was with his few people I'd had sex with. it wasnt a virtue and it creeps me out that it is indeed as such by some.

I think people should be honest with their wants and needs and to do their best not to judge others for theirs.

I also think women are judged for their sexuality in ways men aren't. It is ok to love sex with lots of people. It is also ok go love sex with one person. It is also ok to not love sex. We just need to be honest with ourselves and others

Same goes for men. You talk to enough women, you’ll find someone who’s interested in you. She just might not check all of your boxes. But sex, if that’s the goal, will happen.

Nope. Not true at all.

@OwningItNow

Just because a woman disrespected herself in her younger years (that is often the way we look back on risky sexual behavior) does not mean we want anything to do with that in marriage.

That's great, more power to you. That also means a guy is completely justified in NOT wanting to marry you and initiating a divorce when he finds out he was deceived.

It used to be that getting sex was enough, but now due to porn and the impression it's giving men, just having sex (as our bodies literally dry up beginning in our 40s) isn't enough.

It's not porn setting those expectations, it's people themselves via their past behaviour. Many guys will be completely happy and fine with sacrificing this if it's not something that crosses their girlfriends/wives' boundaries. Up until they learn that she used to do this stuff, a lot of it, with a lot of people. That's a game-changer.

Because at that point, what you're telling him is basically. "I did all these things, I had a lot of fun doing them anymore, now I don't want to do them anymore. Or at least not do them with you. You're simply here to marry me now that my wild times are over and I'm growing older. Shut up and accept that." And before anyone else screams, this is specific to OwningItNow, not the entire discussion!

@LLXC

how is she not going to feel shame?

Why does she feel shame? Because he does not see them as compatible and does not wish for a relationship with her? Because of the action, she has undertaken in the past which she herself might now regret yet expects others to accept the way OwningItNow seems to do?

Because she isn't owed a relationship or being seen as a suitable partner. If this is purely about rejection, what about the hundreds of guys who you likely rejected for all kinds of reasons. How did they no feel shame?

@GoldenR

Nope. Not true at all.

Dating for men and women is very, very different. There seems to be this assumption by some users here that it works the same for both genders for some reason.

Same goes for men. You talk to enough women, you’ll find someone who’s interested in you. She just might not check all of your boxes.

Nope. Not true at all.

Yes 100% true. It’s when men start discounting women based on appearance where they run into trouble. Open yourself to opportunities and they will be there.

Literally see it every day. Any guy can get sex if he tries.

If you need to be with the prom queen you might have some trouble.

@GoldenR:

“Nope. Not true at all.”

Yes, it is true. This is not 1950. Has everyone forgotten where you are posting. This is an infidelity forum. Every year we see hundreds and hundreds of threads from BW’s about their WH’s who have had very little trouble finding a woman to have sex with outside of the M. Neighbors, coworkers, women at the gym, bars, nightclubs, team parents, supervisors, old gf’s, Facebook friends, and the list goes on and on. And this is only the tip of the iceberg on one site. Are we trying to say that all of these men were innocent dupes forced to have sex and victims of evil predator women! That would be hilarious. These guys are out looking for sex and it isn’t very hard to find according to what we read here. And does anyone truly believe it is harder for single men to find sex if they are out looking. Not hardly. Maybe in 1950. I agree totally with:

“ Same goes for men. You talk to enough women, you’ll find someone who is interested in you. She just might not check all of your boxes. But sex, if that’s the goal, will happen.”

Hell, yes. This was true back when I was in college and in my single days, and I know it hasn’t changed.

[This message edited by fareast at 2:17 PM, November 30th (Saturday)]

Dating for men and women is very, very different.

True, but she didn’t say “dating.” She said “sex.”

Re shame:

Never ever forget that emotions come from within. If we feel shame, that's on us. We're letting our insecurities and, possibly, some external shithead affect us. External shitheads and thought processes that you disagree with ain't going away folks. Period. Learn to toughen the hell up or walk away. We ALWAYS have the option to override our insecurities and not feel the shame so many people are quick to blame as being foisted on them by external forces. Learn to cope with disappointing dissimilar life viewpoints better. If someone thinks your high PIV partner count is bad, you don't have to be all fucked up over it. Take personal responsibility for your reactions, otherwise you're setting a bad precedent.

So I'm still somewhere on page 11, but so far, here are my thoughts on this thread:

1) "Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember." ~Mark Twain (unless the quote attributers were lying). Lies = no bueno.

2) It's OK to have preferences.

3) It's how you speak about other people, in my opinion, that determines whether you're being judgmental or not. Especially if you're making assumptions. You can know yourself - you don't always know the other person's reality (I'm not talking about infidelity, pedophilia, sexual assault or abuse, or cases where there are obvious injured parties; I'm talking instead about the variety of choices people make in their sexual lives, for what are undoubtedly a variety of reasons, none of which we know anything about unless we ASK instead of generalize).

Out of curiosity, a question for the guys: do you think a man is marriage material if he's previously been in a 5-some with himself and four women? Does it depend at all on circumstances in your mind, or would it be a hard judgment either way? Would you be at all envious or congratulatory of him? Would you be disgusted? What would your opinion be of him?

4) I have to thank this thread. It's increased my overall misanthropy. What's the fastest ways to avoid all the assholes (of ALL genders) who are out there? Avoid everyone indiscriminately! Sure, you miss out on a lot of great people, but at least you don't have to deal with anyone who would harm you.

If I don't have any more sexual or romantic experiences ever again, then the only judgments I have to worry about are the people around who AREN'T having sex with me, who are instead judging me on my past. And then, I can either accuse them of being jealous (which might be as untruthful as their judgments) or I can tell them it doesn't matter, because their present personalities are a huge turn-off.

Yes, marriage partners are supposed to be open books with each other. We should feel safe having our spouse know everything.

But now we’re in new territory, because people do change, and in both directions. Formerly kinky might get tired of it and just prefer vanilla; formerly vanilla might become interested in kink. So then what, when it’s truly not a “bait and switch,” but nor is it what was signed up for in the beginning?

I just don't think it's typical for people to change that much. I think it's more probable that people get bored and that the boredom most likely stems from loss of attunement.

I do think it's normal for people to hear about something and maybe want to try it over the course of a long marriage. At that point they'll either add to their repertoire or not. But it seems unlikely that this would entail a completely different preference or attitude toward sex.

It's how you speak about other people, in my opinion, that determines whether you're being judgmental or not.

I hate throwing fuel on the gender dividing elements of these kinds of conversations, but this is classic "it's not what you said it's how you said it". In general, men are programmed to have an emotional reaction to the content and women are programmed to have an emotional reaction to the context. How many times have any of us said ourselves or heard from a romantic partner "Yeah you're right but you don't have to be an asshole about it"?

It's similar to how women's brains light up at certain body language indicators and men's brains don't. A guy's "power stance" could just mean that he's trying to find a comfortable position but might be misconstrued as "Oh he's confident and I think he's into me". Same with physical contact and men's brains lighting up. A woman puts her hand on your arm when she laughs and the guy might think she's totally into him where the woman is just very open with friendly physical contact that means jack shit besides she's comfortable with you.

Where we go wrong in these discussions is projecting our worldview and mental processes onto the other sex and think they're "stupid", "dense", or "assholes" for not following along. There are two important takeaways that everyone should have when sorting through these kinds of dialogues: 1) what is the other person actually saying and 2) how am I being hypocritical/unreasonable when I disagree with it.

Same goes for men. You talk to enough women, you’ll find someone who’s interested in you. She just might not check all of your boxes. But sex, if that’s the goal, will happen.

Nope. Not true at all.

Add aging into the equation and I guarantee you is easier for a man to to find a sexual partner than a woman. A man doesn't lose his 'worth' in the eyes of a good part the opposite sex just because he's reached a certain age. You only have to look at the number of men who won't even consider dating a woman their own age.

Why does she feel shame? Because he does not see them as compatible and does not wish for a relationship with her? Because of the action, she has undertaken in the past which she herself might now regret yet expects others to accept the way

She might not feel shame. But if she is rejected by a guy for actions that many in society deem shameful, it is possible she will internalize it

I don't understand. What is there to accept? She had sex with a lot of guys. I understand that being a deal breaker if you feel like a low sexual partners count is important in yourself and a partner. But how on Earth can a low partner count mean anything? It says absolutely nothing about a person. A person might have few partners because they believe that is the morally right thing to do. Ok. That mogfgt mean their morality lines up with yours. Bit what id someone slept with a lot of people and now believes in all their heart that sex should exist only within marriage, does that mean they are unfor for marriage?

The problem is that the amount or kind of sex someone has has no inherent meaning

If someone has few sexual partners because they believe sex should happen only in a monogamous relationship, great. But what if someone has a low number because they weren't attractive, or were shy, or whatever? It has absolutely no meaning in itself.

And btw. People can get into or out of a relationship for any reason. But some reasons make you look like an asshole.

I find it hard to believe that someone could think that amount or type of sex someone has is an indicator in itself of anything. It might indicate they don't value sex or they don't believe in monogamy. It might not.

There are two important takeaways that everyone should have when sorting through these kinds of dialogues: 1) what is the other person actually saying and 2) how am I being hypocritical/unreasonable when I disagree with it.

Pt 1 I agree with, and it's where I see a lot of exaggeration pop up in these threads (and I know I'm probably guilty of it myself). Person A says something, and it's probably based in part on their own experience. Person B reads what Person A says, only really hears part of it, and their own experience is blasting loudly in their own mind. Person B's response isn't quite in response to what Person A said, it's a response to part of it and a response to their own experiences and often a shout of frustration about something to do with society. This pattern continues, and some of it is normal and understandable (I'd imagine many of us here, if not the majority of us, suffer from varying forms and severities of PTSD, one common one of which is infidelity-related). But over time, emotions heighten, and fights break out. And many of us walk away more injured.

Pt 2 depends, imho.

Where we go wrong in these discussions is projecting our worldview and mental processes onto the other sex and think they're "stupid", "dense", or "assholes" for not following along.

I have an optimistic view. I don't think men are stupid, dense, etc. I think all human beings are stupid in their own individual ways!

In general, men are programmed to have an emotional reaction to the content and women are programmed to have an emotional reaction to the context.

Wouldn't know about the gender divide. That's above my paygrade. Might think about it more. But I think they're both important - content and context. It's important to be aware of BOTH of them, would be my takeaway, because an argument or miscommunication could stem from either of them, and you might be in agreement about one and in stark disagreement about the other. I appreciate you putting a vocabulary to this.