SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

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?

What do you hope to gain out asking this question, Silverhopes? And more importantly, do you view him as marriage material?

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.

Thank you LLXC!! I had more sexual partners and tried more acts (which have been deemed kinky and/or promiscuous by some on this thread) than my husband did. He had only had sex with two girlfriends (each with for roughly two years) before me. Guess which one of us cheated????? My WH, not me.

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.

How is it not hidden if it becomes a problem issue AFTER the marriage? If somebody is "sacrificing" their sexual preference in order to be married, they're NOT doing their spouse a favor. They're hiding who they are and what they want.

You seem to be laboring under the impression that all men are interested in kinky sexual acts. But it's just not true. A guy who isn't interested in kink is not going to suddenly become so after learning his wife at one point or another engaged in it. To counter your example, my husband isn't interested in assholes, full stop. If I had serviced an entire football team up the ass, it wouldn't make him change his opinion on shit or shit-related orifices. He's a no go. We are simpatico on this. Compatible.

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?

What do you hope to gain out asking this question, Silverhopes? And more importantly, do you view him as marriage material?

I don't think having a fivesome (or participating in an orgy) is an automatic disqualification for marriage material. I would be much more concerned with the type of person he is, how he treats others, is his kind/understanding/empathetic, is he intelligent/curious, do our senses of humors jive, how does he trait wait staff, does he lie/cheat, or is he honest even if it doesn't benefit him, etc. I wouldn't judge him for participating in an orgy once upon a time before we met and/or started dating. It would only matter to me IF he wanted to continue having orgies/group sex, and I did not. THEN it would be an issue.

[This message edited by ibonnie at 3:45 PM, November 30th (Saturday)]

silverhopes, I think you summed up the core of miscommunication expertly in your first paragraph. If our biases are a giant pie, some giant chunk is what is biologically programmed into us, another giant chunk is our individual experience, one is our insecurities, one is our short term emotional state, and so on, and everything someone else says is filtered through every single one of these pieces before it gets to the part of our brain that we hope and pray knows what the hell it's doing! It's especially easy to get twisted up here where, like you said, we're all coming into this with a specific type of PTSD or at minimum a set of emotional triggers.

Even when I'm trying to be mindful of all this, I'm still just as guilty of steamrolling over someone's views and clinging to my own rigid biases.

What do you hope to gain out asking this question, Silverhopes?

I've read a lot of opinions of what the guys here think of a woman in this situation (with 4 guys). I'm curious to know what they think of a guy in this situation. I just like knowing how people view it both ways.

And more importantly, do you view him as marriage material?

Why is how I view him more important than how other guys would view him? My opinion isn't important.

For the record: I'm less concerned about a person's sexual past (barring assault, STDs, cheating, and the like) and a LOT more concerned with whether he's sitting around waxing poetic about those past experiences, or whether he's comparing me to them or being less than fully present with me. Which, based not only on Mr Silver but the very few "lovers" I had before him, tends to be what happens: the guy in question won't shut up about his previous women, and I find that to be a huge turn-off. Hence part of why I'm going to try going without sex and romance for the rest of my life: my picker is obviously broken. Or I'm not cut out for the sex/romance stuff, if hearing about how much he loved fucking other women is a typical part of the whole sex and romance deal. I already know people like sex and that any guy I was with probably really, really enjoyed sex in the past (I would hope so!) - I don't want the anecdotes and the jealousy I would feel over them (which is completely MY responsibility) taking up too much real estate in my head.

Though to be fair, I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I knew a guy who had been with four women at once, or even two women at once, let alone that guy being sexually interested in me. So I don't really know my reaction to that, do I?

@silverhopes

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?

That's the woman's choice. The same goes for men. This isn't an "all men have to do this" thing. It's a personal boundary. If you think he's not marriage material, completely reasonable. If you want to marry him anyway, knock yourself out.

Would you be at all envious or congratulatory of him? Would you be disgusted? What would your opinion be of him?

The same way I am towards 99,98..% of the population. Completely and utterly indifferent. It's not like I'm looking to hitch my wagon to that guy. ¯\_(ツ_/¯

But if she is rejected by a guy for actions that many in society deem shameful, it is possible she will internalize it

So what? He should date her, despite this being against his own deal-breakers so she'll feel better about herself and won't have to suffer any consequences for her actions. Where does this stuff, debts, education level, employment, criminal record, incurable STDs?

Also, does this mean that you have to date ANY guy who shows an interest in you, lest he internalizes whatever reason you rejected him for?

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?

Just quoting this part but answering the entire thing. Past actions and behaviour is the best indicator for what you can expect going forward. That isn't even accounting for the increasingly arising correlation (yes, I am aware that does not necessarily mean causation) between marriage satisfaction, fidelity, risk of divorce, etc. Which tend to be disproportional to a rising partner count.

Also, people don't suddenly "change". A tiger doesn't change its stripes. Most certainly not without reason, such as "settling" for some guy or gal to marry. And I sure as hell am not going to be the one who that person is going to settle for to get that stable marriage life, support, etc.

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

That's not up to you to decide, and based on statistics, health records, etc also has a high likelihood of being untrue. Hell, it seems to even affect pair-bonding negatively. At the end of the day, all of this is a personal choice.

People should be free to sleep around, the same as they should be free not to do so. They should be free to pick their partner based on whatever metric they want.

My opinion isn't important.

To you, it's the only one that should matter. Hence the importance.

[This message edited by Loukas at 3:53 PM, November 30th (Saturday)]

Topic: Is your SO's sexual history any of your business?

The topic from OP is quoted above(also in the header of each page)

Let us remove all the attempts at diversion and false arguments from getting a simple answer and thus the truth.

IS YOUR SO SEXUAL HISTORY ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS

YES (apple) or NO (banana)

YES APPLE

See how easy it is. Just a nice easy binary response, with a serving of fruit of course.

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?

It might not be a question of morality though. For me, it would be a question of whether or not my prospective partner viewed sex as casual. A high body count might indicate that the prospective partner was indiscriminate and/or didn't attribute emotional meaning to the act. I'm not into casual or meaningless sex and I don't want to be treated casually or to be objectified as a means of getting off. It's not that I specifically object to people who are like that. But for a mate, I want a compatible view.

Being judgemental toward people, which is what we're really talking about here, is deciding whether or not other people are good or bad based on your personal, subjective standards.

I don't think that is at all what most are doing. It is not a personal judgement, good or bad. It has little to do with judging, much less shaming, someone. It is about what one person feels comfortable with or prefers or has an affinity for or has their own boundaries about that affect their preferences.

If a woman or man feels judged in terms of being a bad person simply because someone else feels that their choices or lifestyle or desires are not compatible with theirs, then maybe the person that interprets that as being judged may want to check their own sense of self worth and self confidence in their choices. If someone you are dating wants to end the relationship because they have a belief that too many partners signals a casual view that they are not comfortable with, who is to judge them for the right to have that view. TO judge someone for having a belief system or boundaries that impact their choices seems revers shaming.

Making choices about what you want and don't want in a partner is very personal and complex; if someone does not fit, they don't fit. It is not shaming it is making personal choices for reasons important to you.

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

Do you mean it has no meaning for you, or are you saying you cannot fathom a belief system one might have that may see too many partners as not compatible with their view of sex? Do you really not see that or is it just a frustrating concept to accept?

What about some with religious views. Are they to be shamed for holding those views and filtering potential partners based on those views?

[This message edited by DIFM at 4:23 PM, November 30th (Saturday)]

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

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

Marauder, either you enjoy taking things out of context to pick fights, or reading comprehension is really not your thing.

Marauder nobody is saying you have to date someone with a sexual past that you’re personally uncomfortable with.

The point is she’s not bad, or immoral, or more likely to cheat. She’s just had sex. You might not be comfortable with it though and you are very much free to tell her that you reserve sex for committed relationships. Fine.

It’s recognizing that this is your issue and not something lacking in her. You can’t wrap your head around it. That’s fine. You’re allowed. She might be upset, but if you approach it in a compassionate way that’s the best you can do really do.

However if you jumped into bed with her right away and then call her out for her past behaviour, that’s a pretty gross double standard. Expect some conflict.

Marauder nobody is saying you have to date someone with a sexual past that you’re personally uncomfortable with.

OK, so let's make this concrete and to the topic of the thread. What I'm reading here, yes, if you care, it's OK to make that part of "your business". And further, it's fine to drop someone like a hot potato who's sexual past includes things that you're not comfortable with. And you can do all that without "slut shaming" anyone, that behavior is OK, acceptable and defensible? If so, I've got nothing to argue about, I agree completely. However, I get the feeling that there are at least some posters who disagree with that wholeheartedly.

I want know for a somewhat different reason. I don't want to meet a man or shake his hand not knowing if they sex with my wife before. It doesn't change they way I would view or treat the guy, but by the same token, I don't want to be in the dark in case he tries to go alpha on me.

Going alpha is the least of my concerns, however not knowing he was a previous sex partner with my wife and not knowing would be a problem for me, as I couldn't protect myself from some of the gamesmanship some people play when they meet up with someone's former boy friend or girlfriend.

So what? He should date her, despite this being against his own deal-breakers so she'll feel better about herself and won't

I don't think I, or anyone, has said he should date her. I said not marrying someone solely because of their sexual history is a jackass move. Of course if you hold her last against her you shouldn't marry her, but by judging her negatively because of her sexual past, you are being a jerk.

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

That's not up to you to decide, and based on statistics, health records, etc also has a high likelihood of being untrue. Hell, it seems to even affect pair-bonding negatively. At the end of the day, all of this is a personal choice.

Of course it is not for me to decide. I just don't understand how a sexual past can have inherent meaning.

And yes, it is true, the more sexual partners one has, the more people one can catch an STD from. But...that's why people get tested, use condoms.

In regards to pair bonding, I believe those studies were finances by Christian organizations promoting abstinence before marriage. If those studies have been duplicated, then I will concede your point. However, even then, it is possible that people who've has more sex partners are less likely to settle, either because they have avoidant relational styles or because they are more likely to know what they are looking for.

For me, it would be a question of whether or not my prospective partner viewed sex as casual

You are proving my point though. Someone having a low number of sex partners may nhave a similar view of sex. But they may not. The number has no INHERENT meaning. It is one data point.

Do you mean it has no meaning for you, or are you saying you cannot fathom a belief system one might have that may see too many partners as not compatible with their view of sex? Do you really not see that or is it just a frustrating concept to accept

I cannot fathom a belief in which the number of sexual partners, by itself, determines if someone is marriageable

What about some with religious views. Are they to be shamed for holding those views and filtering potential partners based on those views?

I actually AM religious and have few sexual partners. I am talking about not marrying someone because of the number of sexual partners they have. That is problematic. You'll date them but won't marry them solely because of how many people they slept with? Furthermore, if issues with the number of sexual partners someone has is due to religious issues, then this would come up early - you won't date someone who isn't religious. This has nothing to do with sex. Plus. What about people who were not religious but became so? Then what?

Thought experiment:

Sex is about taking a risk and putting your body inside another, or having something put themselves inside your body, right? Let's talk about something else people put inside their bodies: food. I think it's fair to say that putting an apple in your body is FAR less significant than putting somebody's genitals in your body, not to mention there's a much smaller emotional component involved if you happen to put a "bad apple" inside yourself. With ag products, one such "stamp of approval" people glom onto is a big "Organic" sticker.

People can't follow a Granny Smith all the way from its orchard in Australia, through packing, through shipping to the port, through trans-Pacific shipping, through domestic shipping to a warehouse, and through shipping to the grocery store, so they opt to buy produce with a sticker on it that says "this thing here wasn't touched by what the government defines as synthetic pesticides" and for whatever reason, right or wrong, informed or ignorant, bullshit or not, those people feel more comfortable eating this marked fruit. They can't verify that this apple actually avoided synthetic pesticides, nor are they even scientifically literate enough to build a complex, sound argument as to why synthetic pesticides are bad. They have a gut feeling, the "Organic" sticker promises less risk, so they jump on it, end of story. Not to mention, the "Organic" sticker doesn't mean the apple wasn't touched by shit-covered hands or thrown around haphazardly or exposed to any number of other non-pesticide risks. It's one data point and people build their ENTIRE DIET around it.

Are these people assholes? Are they jerks for not putting non-Organic apples inside their bodies?

You'll date them but won't marry them solely because of how many people they slept with?

You realize some people date without having sex, right?

Furthermore, if issues with the number of sexual partners someone has is due to religious issues, then this would come up early

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.

- you won't date someone who isn't religious.

Untue

[This message edited by Loukas at 6:28 PM, November 30th (Saturday)]

@ LLXC

I don't think I, or anyone, has said he should date her. I said not marrying someone solely because of their sexual history is a jackass move. Of course if you hold her last against her you shouldn't marry her, but by judging her negatively because of her sexual past, you are being a jerk.

That is a very amusing piece of mental gymnastics. Here I'll untangle it, you're a (no)banana. She does whatever she wants and he has to accept/respect it otherwise he is "jerk".

Wow....just wow.