SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

@AbandonedGuy

You know the fruit analogy drives the SJW faction here somewhat...well apeshit.

Welcome to the fruitmongers.

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

What exactly is your point? Perhaps I was not clear - if you are willing to date someone long term but won't marry them solely because of how many people they've had sex with, that is problematic. If it is 2/3 dates, I think it is a little creepy, but I don't think it is so bad.

She does whatever she wants and he has to accept/respect it otherwise he is "jerk"

What mental gymnastics? If he is judging her SOLELY based on her sexual past, then yes, he is a jerk. If he does not accept it, he shouldn't date her, as it is not fair to either of them, but yes, judging someone just for their sexual past makes you a jerk.

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

This comparison makes zero sense. First if all, it is naive to think organic is truly organic, as farmers could 100% be lying. However I do not think this makes consumers jerks, just perhaps naive. The comparison nonetheless makes no sense. If you are worried about STDs, get tested. That is it.

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

Untrue

Most religious people I know won't date with intent to marry someone who isn't religious. Of course religious and non religious people marry. But if you are religious and care about someone's sexual past, it is highly unlikely you would think about marrying a non religious person. Also. If religiosity is important, it should come up early in the dating process.

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

I apologise. I misspoke. I should've said that if someone has issues with the number of sexual partners someone has due to religious reasons, then it is a really good idea for everyone involved to discuss these things early on. It should be discussed early on

[This message edited by LLXC at 7:19 PM, November 30th (Saturday)]

What exactly is your point? Perhaps I was not clear - if you are willing to date someone long term but won't marry them solely because of how many people they've had sex with, that is problematic. If it is 2/3 dates, I think it is a little creepy, but I don't think it is so bad.

Yup, you weren't clear. You didn't even hint at dating long term. Much less attaching a timeline of 2/3 dates as entering the creepy zone. But hey, that is your opinion.

Most religious people I know won't date with intent to marry someone who isn't religious. Of course religious and non religious people marry. But if you are religious and care about someone's sexual past, it is highly unlikely you would think about marrying a non religious person. Also. If religiosity is important, it should come up early in the dating process.

Ok, that's the religious people you know. Hardly all religious people.

you weren't clear. You didn't even hint at dating long term

Given that the whole premise of this conversation was a guy deeming a woman unfit for marriage solely because of the number of people she'd slept with, I thought long term was a given.

, that's the religious people you know. Hardly all religious people.

Of course not all religious people, and I didn't say all religious people. I've dated atheists, and I'm not that religious, but it was problematic for us. That's why most religious people I know don't date non religious people - because of these differences.

That is my point. These views on religiosity should come up really early, way before marriage comes up. A d if someone's religiosity means they care about how many people their partner has slept with, then this should come up really early, and this is an attitude that o think a lot of non religious, or even religious, might find problematic and so therefore should be discussed very early

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.

People may not marry for any reason whatsoever. Including sexual history. If someone wants to marry a virgin only, that is their right. Even if they are not virgins themselves. It is their choice.

Marrying someone is placing a special status from one individual to the other. For Christians, marrying anyone does not do one thing for salvation except keeping you from burning with passion. Lifelong celibates are just as saved as marrieds, and you are not married to your spouse or spouses in Heaven.

I have never heard of any theology requiring Christians to consider all people potential marriage partners.

I have several friends who were extremely promiscuous in high school and/or college. A couple of them ended up having abortions during this time, although they discussed this with no one. We found out in other indirect ways. These girls went on to meet very nice guys and marry them, guys who--without a single doubt in my mind--know nothing about their promscuity.

I still see these women decades later, still think they are fun and beautiful and hilarious, same as I did when they were young. They have kids in college now and have enjoyed 20 year marriages. I do not know if questions were asked, if sharing was done, if lies were told, or if any of it matters, but I do know that nobody thinks those men are fools. They think they are happy, lucky guys in satisfying marriages. Should people run up to them and discuss the lurid things we saw, the drunken or insecure escapades? Tell all the ugly details? No one would. Ever. Nobody mentions a word behind their backs, literally ever--they never have. My high school graduating class was about 750, and we were close. Nobody sees those incidences as revealing anything about who these women are today; they just love them.

I simply feel that these crazy, bizarre, almost obsessive hang ups related to a partner are the real problem, not what they did or with whom.

[This message edited by OwningItNow at 8:15 PM, November 30th (Saturday)]

Maybe there are cultural differences i am missing. (I am American fwiw). Also I am not Christian so I do not know the Christian rules of marriage

I guess I don't understand the argument here. No one is obliged to date anyone else. Nor is anyone obliged to marry anyone else.

But if you are in a serious enough relationship that you are taking of marriage and your sole reason for ending the relationship is their sexual past, that is a jerk move.

Regardless of that. If you are willing to date someone but won't marry them solely because of their sexual.past, jerk move.

Not wanting to go on a date solely because of their sexual past, while I think it is kind of stupid, is not a jerk move because there is no hypocrisy there

Let me be clear. If you choose not to date someone because they have a sexual past that you morally disagree with, this is creepy and judgmental. If you choose not to date someone because they have done a bunch of things that indicate moral incompatibility, including a sexual past you disagree with, there is nothing wrong with that.

Again, I dispute the concept that a sexual past, or lack thereof, has inherent moral value. Someone like have loads of sex with loads of people, loved every second of it, no regrets, and be kind monogamous and respectful. So what did that sexual.past tell you? Nothing. Another person could come from a religious family and wait until marriage for sex, and then regret they only have one sexual partner, and then cheat. So what did that last tell you? Nothing.

A sexual.past means nothing on its own. Only in combination with other factors can sexual.habits take on any meaning.

Example. I have two friends that are happily married. Both married to guys who had sex with lots of women before them. No problem. One of my friends has only had sex with her husband. The other, lots of sex. Both happily married. I know someone else, sex only with her husband, had an affair with his friend and is now with this other guy. So sexual past means nothing on its own

@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.

So, where do you draw the arbitrary line on that? Things that don't affect you, or just things that others could hold against you?

In regards to pair bonding, I believe those studies were finances by Christian organizations promoting abstinence before marriage.

No, this stuff is coming straight from the CDC for the US. You can find similar statistics in my home country and various other first-world nations. In fact, anyone attempting to look into this further is usually screamed down, crucified, and defunded. Because it goes against currently acceptable values and norms.

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

UNTRUE! You might argue that someone with a low count did not have the opportunity. While unlikely and even supported by the arguments made by others that everyone could easily get casual sex. You know 100% certain that someone with a high partner count, who engages in certain sexual practices such as threesomes, gangbangs, and orgies does not match up with you. While the former might turn out a dud for what one is looking for regardless, the latter is assured to!

I will write more tomorrow, as I am about to go to bed, and will definitely look into the CDX research. However. I wanted to reply to this:

You know 100% certain that someone with a high partner count, who engages in certain sexual practices such as threesomes, gangbangs, and orgies does not match up with you[

Why do you know this though? First, it's possible someone engaged in this activities not because they wanted to but to please a partner. Let's assume they did it because they loved it. How odes that prove they don't match up with your values? All it tells you is that on the past, their views on sex was different from yours, that most likely they did not view sex as a sacred act only to be done in a committed and monogamous relationship, perhaps only in marriage.

The fact that they did this on the past does not tell you whether this is their current belief.

I would also say this. What if someone is still thinks tjreespmes are cool but believes more strongly on a monogamous marriage? Does that mean that your values clash?

But that is more of an aside. My main point is that I thoroughly disagree with your statement that someone having three-ways in their past proves they are incompatible. It is only one data point. It proves nothing by itself. If you believe sex should only exist on marriage and they have had loads of sex with random strangers, then it os highly likely values are incompatible. But by itself, it doesn't have much meaning. Perhaps now they believe in monogamy, etc.

All you can know for sure is that their sexual values at the time they did those things were different from yours.

But I'd add this + sexual values are one component of values. If all values but sexual values add up, is that a reason to discount a relationship? To me, sexual values are not important. If someone places a high value on adventerous sex, what difference does that make of they place a higher premium on monogamy, and they listen, and are respectful and want to raise children with the same values?

So, where do you draw the arbitrary line on that? Things that don't affect you, or just things that others could hold against you[

I don't understand the question. A person can choose not to date me solely because of my sexual past. But of his solw reason for not dating me is that, then he is a jerk. I don't understand. What line is there to draw? If I wouldn't date a guy solely because of his sexual past, I would be a jerk too. The two nicest guys I've dated, who never cheated, who would never cheat, were huge sluts. If I'd refused to date them because of their past, I'd have missed out on dating truly good guys.

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.

Yep. That's what I'm seeing. Some of those participating in things thread are actually objecting to my right to disqualify a female as relationship material for me if I don't like that they participated in gang bangs.

[This message edited by GoldenR at 2:20 AM, December 1st (Sunday)]

If you choose not to date someone because they have a sexual past that you morally disagree with, this is creepy and judgmental. If you choose not to date someone because they have done a bunch of things that indicate moral incompatibility, including a sexual past you disagree with, there is nothing wrong with that

LLXC I don’t understand this. Can you explain?

If I chose not to date a person b/c of their sexual past - that’s judgmental? I met a few guys when I was dating who were players. Good looking smart guys who had a “love ‘em & leave ‘em” attitude towards women. I would not date them and chose not to date them b/c I refused to be used or treated like that.

So are you saying it’s wrong to be judgmental in that situation?

If I chose not to date a person b/c of their sexual past - that’s judgmental? I met a few guys when I was dating who were players. Good looking smart guys who had a “love ‘em & leave ‘em” attitude towards women. I would not date them and chose not to date them b/c I refused to be used or treated like that.

So are you saying it’s wrong to be judgmental in that situation?

That's what they're saying, yes. Unless the guy told you up front that he just wants one thing from you and then he's gone, you're being judgemental and wrong in turning them down.

[This message edited by GoldenR at 5:16 AM, December 1st (Sunday)]

Holy.

Shit.

I've read every single reply to this thread. Every single one. It's like... it's like watching Nascar. Round and round and round and round. I don't think anyone here is getting anywhere. It's both fascinating and somewhat... I don't know that intimidating is the right word. Demoralizing? Maybe a little.

My ex and I had 'body counts' of 0 when we got together. Immediately after our first night, we each had a 'body count' of one. I still have a 'body count' of one. She has a 'body count' of at least five. It is not the number that makes her unsuitable for a mate, it is the fact that it increased during our previously established to be mutually exclusive relationship. This is not a dealbreaker for her current relationship; they are 'open' or non-exclusive or whatever you want to call it. I find multiple aspects of this arrangement to be degenerate, but not the acts themselves. Oral, anal, or digital sex between two or more adult, mentally competent human beings with enthusiastic consent is not in and of itself an immoral (or moral, for that matter) act.

From what I am reading, it is ALWAYS the specifics that become problematic, and I am completely on board with that. The devil, as they say, is in the details. If my ex had done all of these things while operating within the boundaries of our relationship, then they would not have been a problem. She did not. She broke those boundaries and lied and omitted and trickle-truthed and on and on and on. She willingly caused pain and betrayal for her own gratification.

THAT is what makes her unsuitable for a mate for me. Some people might not have a problem with that, and that's whatever. They can have each other and break each other's boundaries and whatnot and it's not my problem anymore. I will STILL resent her for the BETRAYAL, but not specifically the ACTS.

For people who DO assign morals to the acts themselves and disqualify based on those factors, well, then yeah, the man or woman who has done those things is, in their eyes, unsuitable as a mate. And ya know what? Someone who would judge based on those factors is unsuitable as a mate for the person being judged. They can say,

"Oh, Judgy McJudgerson is judging me based on my sexual past and doesn't want to be with me because of it, what an ASSHOLE!"

and maybe they're right according to that point of view. However, Mr or Ms McJudgerson can also say

"They did these things that I am not comfortable with, and so I cannot be with them because it taints my view of who they are!"

and they are also completely within their rights. But the thing is, like I said in my original reply here, it's the -rejection- that hurts. NOBODY likes being rejected, because whether or not it makes sense or is logical or can be justified for or against, being rejected is being told that you aren't good enough, that something about you was a disqualifier and made you fail to rise up to the standards as set by [ARBITRARY INDIVIDUAL].

Maybe those standards are that sex CANNOT be seen as casual. Maybe those standards are that sex MUST be seen as casual. If these are the dealbreakers, well, then the deal is broken. It's in how we react to breaking that deal that makes us assholes or not. Are we compassionate and kind in how we communicate those dealbreakers?

For me, infidelity was (and is) a dealbreaker. You step outside our relationship and pursue sex acts and emotional bonding with relationship partners other than me, well, go piss on an electric railroad track, we're done. Soooo done. I gave a one-time circumstantial pass due to what ended up being a bullshit excuse because I wasn't strong enough to stand up for myself at that time. Perhaps that was dishonesty on my part; it was definitely weakness. That weakness ended up costing me five years of the only life I have, wasted on false reconciliation, so I've fucking paid for it in spades.

I am fully, 100% aware that just about any partner I would have, moving forward, is going to have a higher 'body count' than me, and yeah, I'm not gonna lie; that is going to be intimidating. I only have experience with ONE person, what SHE liked and didn't like and did and did not consent to, and I did not get to learn a lot of the techniques and acts that can blow a woman's mind in bed. I have almost no experience in that arena at this point, and I worry that I am going to be a shitty lay due to that lack of experience. In this way, my ex's rejections have affected my relationships going forward, yaknow, as relationships do. Her rejection of acts that she obviously was amenable to and wanted (oral sex, digital stimulation (fingerbanging), threesomes) has affected and will continue to affect my confidence and trust moving forward, and I am resentful for that, but not for the acts themselves. I don't think anyone on this thread, as far as I have read, is saying that the physical acts, in a situational vacuum, are immoral.

But NOTHING we do is in a vacuum. There is ALWAYS context applied. Every single time. I get the feeling that every single argument here is being presented from personal context and when that argument is scrutinized, we feel as though our personal experience and context are being scrutinized rather than the argument itself. And maybe it is. Lots of men have been called assholes in this thread, either directly or indirectly, which, yaknow, kinda sucks. A lot of women in this thread have been called loose, either directly or indirectly, and that also kinda sucks.

Emotions are running high and I'm seeing a lot of arguments being framed as from a place of logic, but being presented from a place of emotion, which is a symptom of being fuckin' human. I know that if/when I present my argument, it is definitely from a place of emotion, no matter the logic I stamp it with.

Nobody is saying that every woman has to give every man a chance because of not being judgemental.

Nobody is saying that every man must accept every kind of woman or else they are being judgemental.

Nobody is saying that every person must accept any sexual past or else they are slut shaming.

We ALL have criteria for rejection. We ALL have dealbreakers. We may or may not understand or agree or share the reasons for rejection or the dealbreakers, but we all have our own, one way or another (except y'all pansexuals, but I am convinced you're a bunch of aliens anyways (I'm teasing, put down the torches and pitchforks)). If those dealbreakers and rejection points clash with your own, hey, you know what that means?

It means that person is not a suitable mate. You may think that those points come from a place of prejudice or assholery. That's, well, that's fine. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. I personally wouldn't date, marry, or have sex with a transwoman. LOTS of reasons for that. I don't find transwomen generally distasteful, but I do not find them to be acceptable mates FOR ME. I could outline my physical, sexual, and emotional/psychological reasons, but they are utterly irrelevant. They are not suitable partners for me due to a lack of compatibility, and I am not suitable for them for the same reason. Bam. Done. Case closed, moving on.

We've established that the PROBLEM with the OP's initial example is the LYING that the wife/girlfriend/whatever engaged in, which resulted in a humiliating situation that the husband/boyfriend/whatever was subjected to. We can pick apart the resulting whirlwind all day long (and we have, apparently) and say that he is a douchebag for being upset by these acts, and that he was being dishonest by choosing to settle for a life WITHOUT those sex acts until he found out that his partner HAD engaged in (and enjoyed) them previously, but frankly, new information results in new calculations. This was new information. He recalculated. A new situation resulted. She, presumably, recalculated the relationship as well.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN TRAUMATIC CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH THIS VERY MUCH SO WAS, FOR BOTH PEOPLE INVOLVED. The woman was humiliated that her sex life was put on lurid display. The man was humiliated that he was retroactively cuckolded by insensitive people. Revenge porn was involved and it hurt BOTH people in that relationship.

End game, final points that, I think, we ALL agree on, are:

1: a person should not feel personally humiliated by the rejection of another, but it happens, and it sucks.

2: a person has a right to reject any partner for any reason.

3: nobody is required by anyone to begin, maintain, or continue a relationship that they do not wish to begin, maintain, or continue.

4: lying sucks.

5: cheating sucks.

6: sweet potatoes are fundamentally inferior to Idaho brown potatoes. I mean seriously, what the fuck even ARE sweet potatoes?

Go ahead and argue with me about point 6. I am willing to die on this hill.

[This message edited by Incarnate at 5:30 AM, December 1st (Sunday)]

Why do you know this though? First, it's possible someone engaged in this activities not because they wanted to but to please a partner. Let's assume they did it because they loved it. How odes that prove they don't match up with your values? All it tells you is that on the past, their views on sex was different from yours, that most likely they did not view sex as a sacred act only to be done in a committed and monogamous relationship, perhaps only in marriage.

The fact that they did this on the past does not tell you whether this is their current belief.

And even if it is just how they used to feel about sex, that's good enough for me to eliminate them.

This leads to something that I don't understand...

Why do you guys care so much about other people's dating/marriage "requirements" when it comes to sexual history?

If a guy doesn't want to date a girl that has had 10 sexual experiences, but her "number" is 40, why do you care?

My side of the argument neither takes away nor judges anyone's right to choose who they want to be with regardless of the reasons. You can't say that.

[This message edited by GoldenR at 5:31 AM, December 1st (Sunday)]

What mental gymnastics? If he is judging her SOLELY based on her sexual past, then yes, he is a jerk. If he does not accept it, he shouldn't date her, as it is not fair to either of them, but yes, judging someone just for their sexual past makes you a jerk.

It is becoming clear either there lack of intellect on your part (and others) and/or a deliberate attempt at a circular discussion to avoid the simple truth

Let us break this absurd point.

LLXC:

ERGO someone who does so is now defined as a "jerk" thus would be subject to societal corrective action (negative social consequences). Thusly this person does not have the right to this position in your SJW world.

However, you state said the person does have the right to make such a conclusion, hence the mental gymnastics.

Now lets further analyze your comment regarding 2-3 dates and the term you used "creepy". How could it be considered creepy to date someone 2-3 times and then to drop if one person discovered the sexual history is incompatible with their social mores. I was not aware that perspective mates wore special pins or publicly posted their unvarnished sexual history for review before "dating" someone.

ERGO: Unless I have missed the proverbial secret Eiffel Tower handshake/pin/sock/etc dating would be the only method for determination. I would also assume "pulling a train" is hardly dates 1-3 material.

I could continue ad nauseum to be honest disecting your arguments to expose them further, however I suspect it is now reasonably understood why I used the polite term "mental gymnastics" in my description of your perspectives/position.

I am beginning to see why there is so much discourse in the world today, simply fear of offense.

@LLXC

Why do you know this though? First, it's possible someone engaged in this activities not because they wanted to but to please a partner. Let's assume they did it because they loved it. How odes that prove they don't match up with your values? All it tells you is that on the past, their views on sex was different from yours, that most likely they did not view sex as a sacred act only to be done in a committed and monogamous relationship, perhaps only in marriage.

"How does them doing something you see as a deal-breaker prove they do things you see as a deal-breaker." Okay, I've got to ask, just to make certain. You're not just messing with me at this point, right?

And don't give me this whole "IT'S IN THE PAST" spiel. Past actions are the best indicator of future behaviour. Just because you haven't done something recently doesn't somehow wipe the slate clean.

My main point is that I thoroughly disagree with your statement that someone having three-ways in their past proves they are incompatible.

What the hell. If I say I see such a person as incompatible with me. Because it clearly shows me their view on sex, what morals, and values they have. Then they're incompatible. What the hell.

Perhaps now they believe in monogamy, etc.

That's very f*in convenient for them then. So they get to have their cake and eat it too and how dare anyone does not instantly jump at the chance to carry them on hands. The same argument could be made for literally ANY other thing anyone can do. If we follow this logic, we can never determine anything, come to any conclusion, hold anyone responsible for anything they've done ever, never make any decisions.

If all values but sexual values add up, is that a reason to discount a relationship?

Yes, because they don't exist in a vacuum. They all directly link to other values, characteristics, lifestyle choices, etc. Also, sex and intimacy are at the very core of a romantic relationship for crying out loud. This increasingly feels like you feel personally attacked because some men won't date you because of your past.

If you choose not to date someone because they have a sexual past that you morally disagree with, this is creepy and judgmental.

Sexuality does not exist in a vacuum. Also, you pretty much saying, everyone is "creepy", "judgemental", and insisting men should date a woman (you) anyway is a huge red flag and "creepy" in itself.

Seriously, you could be a billionaire virgin at this point and I'd run in the other direction screaming all the while flailing my arms around in distress.

I have several friends who were extremely promiscuous in high school and/or college. A couple of them ended up having abortions during this time, although they discussed this with no one. We found out in other indirect ways. These girls went on to meet very nice guys and marry them, guys who--without a single doubt in my mind--know nothing about their promscuity.

I still see these women decades later, still think they are fun and beautiful and hilarious, same as I did when they were young. They have kids in college now and have enjoyed 20 year marriages. I do not know if questions were asked, if sharing was done, if lies were told, or if any of it matters, but I do know that nobody thinks those men are fools. They think they are happy, lucky guys in satisfying marriages. Should people run up to them and discuss the lurid things we saw, the drunken or insecure escapades? Tell all the ugly details? No one would. Ever. Nobody mentions a word behind their backs, literally ever--they never have. My high school graduating class was about 750, and we were close. Nobody sees those incidences as revealing anything about who these women are today; they just love them.

there are many people in life that never have to

face their consequences as those girls

there are many husbands that never find out about

their wives past

many husbands that never found out their wife

was a WW

many husbands that never learn that the child

that he thought was his is the OM's

if their husbands learn the truth now I am sure

most of those husbands would have major problems

also it is a lot to assume that with such bad

decisions back then it is safe to assume that

some of them have not learn anything about poor

choices and may of had affairs

and they get away with it because people will not

talk because they do not want to get involved in

other peoples business and they are married to

clueless nice guys

The comparisons between single women who have had consensual sex to an OW, people who hide paternity, and fruit sprayed with pesticides (this one is just bizarre) are absolutely appalling.

I can assure you that while “most people” may have a problem with a woman’s sexuality, most educated people under the age of 40 do not. Probably why reddit users called out shaming, while SI went on a discriminatory rant.

So appalled by the misogyny on this site. I can’t take advice seriously when I know this is how so many posters really feel.

[This message edited by Slowlygoingcrazy at 8:27 AM, December 1st (Sunday)]

Slowlygoingcrazy -

It really upsets you that much that I didn't date girls that were known to participate in gang bangs when I was younger and if single I still wouldn't now either?