SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

No! I’ve said it at least 5 times now. Don’t date the gang bang girl if you don’t want to. You don’t participate in gang bangs, they make you uncomfortable, you can be uncomfortable with something.

She didn’t do anything wrong. You did by all of your posts that insinuate that she did something wrong. She didn’t. You’re just uncomfortable. Something isn’t bad just because you have insecurities.

I've never said it was wrong. I said that she doesn't place the same value on sex that I do.

Insecurities. Lol. That's one of the SJW's favorite words. Your "insecurities" are my "standards".

[This message edited by GoldenR at 8:51 AM, December 1st (Sunday)]

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.

Well, I have some pretty unfortunate news for you. I'd say in my circle of friends and acquaintances I'm the most "SJW aware" (or nearly) of all of them. A lot of it comes at the heels of my wife's affair, and, of course, my education in female viewpoints and experiences that came as a result. But, either way, if you could crawl into any of their heads, I think you'd find something that looks pretty much identical (to a whole lot worse) than what you're seeing on this thread.

If you hang out in SJW circles in person or online all day, yeah, I suspect this thread is a bit shocking. If you hang out on the manosphere sites/pick up artists/etc, this thread (and the posters in it) are wildly tame. So a lot of it depends on your frame of reference.

I work for (several) mega-corps that have adopted all the "new rules" in every aspect of their hiring/HR/etc practices. I can tell you universally, the disdain for the "new rules" is incredibly prevalent. Sure, you can make me say whatever it is I need to say to keep this job, but it doesn't change much in most people's heads. And yes, this applies to the younger generation too, I see a lot of wide eyed 20 year olds come in ready to follow SJW rule who, 6 months later, are swearing like sailors and chasing women in and out of the office.

Part of the reason that I weigh in on threads like this is because it really seems that a lot of people have no idea how at least some of the world operates. And in my experience, it's not some limited sliver of society, sure, the guys at work are worse because they are very wealthy and entitled. But my friends from high school, and even now, today, some of their adult children.. It's the same story; sure, we can put on a pretty mask, but I don't think we've changed much at all inside of even the younger generation. They are just quieter about it, get a few drinks in them, and well, I could be talking to my grandfather (who was perhaps the least PC person who ever lived). "PC" or "SJW" messages just aren't our natural state, sure, we can parrot it and we can pretend that this is "the way things work now" but, if you look deeper, it's not. And the moment someone gets to discard the mask of PC, the same old undertones of their gender come out.

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.

I'm not so sure of that. And it greatly depends on what you're talking about. I never "had a problem" with a woman's sexuality, in fact, when I was dating, I'd actively pursue the "known easy women". I didn't shame them for it, I liked them for it because it meant I had a better chance of having sex with them. But I honestly think, if you took a 25 year old man today and asked him if he'd be OK marrying a woman who had gangbangs with the football team as her most significant college activity.... Yeah, I think he'd have a problem with that. Maybe I'm wrong, but the criteria for "wife" and "girlfriend/ONS" in my mind were/are completely different.

She didn’t do anything wrong. You did by all of your posts that insinuate that she did something wrong. She didn’t. You’re just uncomfortable. Something isn’t bad just because you have insecurities.

If this is directed at me, no, I don't think she did anything "wrong". Anymore than redheads did something "wrong", I just don't want to date them/do not find them attractive (this is made up, BTW, I actually do like redheads). The only difference here is that someone gets to decide on this one, if you're a redhead, your gonna have freckles, no way around it. But you don't need to bang the football team. Or get fat. Or have children in highschool. Those are choice you made that would put you in the "not marrying material" category for me. And in some ways, it seems like that's even WORSE for some of the posters on here. If I said, "I just don't date redheads" I feel like that would be OK, but "I don't date heavy women" starts a sh(tstorm. Well, guess what, Miss Freckles has no choice in the matter, but the women who banged the football team actually CHOSE that for herself. She controls it, not some random throw of DNA. Ergo, it should be much more acceptable to reject someone as a partner for something they did rather than something they are (redhead).

[This message edited by Rideitout at 9:03 AM, December 1st (Sunday)]

Edited because I’m done.

I’m not arguing with someone who makes fun of HR rules that protect marginalized employees.

[This message edited by Slowlygoingcrazy at 9:24 AM, December 1st (Sunday)]

@slowlygoingcrazy

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.

Just to review you have demonstrated the following in just two small poorly written paragraphs:

Age shaming

Education shaming

Gender shaming

So, in the SJW code, would you need to self-flagellate or just shrug and avoid all responsibility that I see demonstrated by people such yourself on a near-weekly basis.

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.

Oddly, I find it challenging to believe that any curriculum even as diluted as they are would have produced such limited critical thinking skills as you just have written.

Words have power and you need to learn their true definitions and APPLICATION.

Bluntly, I'll place the pre and post-nominals of many of the posters here including myself against yours any day.

You guys,

Please stop twisting Slowlygoingcrazy’s words. You’re twisting what she’s saying and attacking her over it, and it’s clear that she’s uncomfortable. I’m uncomfortable just seeing this.

Please, let’s all just take a deep breath and come back to this thread when we’re all a lot calmer.

One of the things that is so valuable in these types of threads is you get to see how some people think. Including me! Lol! But this thread looked at in the proper light can so instructive. It gives the women reading here a glimpse into how to avoid pursuing a relationship with a male who defines you solely on the basis of your past sexual experiences.This thread has given you a roadmap on how to avoid even getting started in a relationship with a guy who will reject you as a partner because in the past you engaged in (gasp!) casual sex, because he believes it totally defines you as a person, your morals, your values, your worth as a possible romantic partner. They are totally entitled to their beliefs and to make that judgement. More power to them and I would never question their right to hold those beliefs and to act on them. It’s their life and their partner choices. And it is not slut shaming as I have seen it defined. Besides, as a woman you should never feel ashamed when you did nothing wrong. I would hope that women enjoy their sexual freedom as much as men. No apologies necessary. Of course it hurts to be rejected, but consider the source. It says so much more about them that they would reject you on that basis alone than it does about you as a woman.

The title to this thread: “Is your SO’s sexual history any of your business?” I would posit the question for women is: “How does your potential male partner view your sexual history?” Finding this out can save you a lot of effort and heartache. As we have seen here, it is worth it for a woman to find out if your potential partner thinks that your sexual history forever defines who you are as a person, your morals, values, and worth as a future partner. Nothing else about you matters. Not your commitment and devotion to the relationship, your connection or common interests, your compatibility, sexual and otherwise, in the relationship, or your life achievements, your willingness to support and sacrifice for a relationship, and on and on. None of that matters. Because you know there was that (gasp) casual sex in the past, and you know that means you could never be a good partner in a monogamous relationship moving forward. We know that a person’s views and beliefs on sex never change or evolve from the age of 18 to 70. You know the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior or some other bullshit shibboleth because you know no one ever changes. Right!

As you can tell I don’t put a lot of weight into a person’s past sexual history as defining them. I don’t give a rat’s ass. As far as I am concerned their sexual history tells me nothing about their views on morals, their values, now, in a relationship with me. I would be much more interested in how they view sex now in the context of a relationship with me, not what they did in the past. I would be more interested in our connection, shared interests, shared dreams for the future. Besides there is so much more to a person than their sex acts. But that’s just my opinion. Obviously for many men all they need to define a woman is knowing their prior sex acts. I guess it doesn’t take as much thought that way. But that is certainly their right, and I may be totally off base thinking that before judging a person’s suitability as partner I would consider so much more about them. To each his own. But for the women who were appalled by the opinions expressed here, take heart that so many men are honest and forthcoming on their views. It may come in handy in determining who you would want as a future partner. You ask first. If the potential male partner is honest and tells you that your suitability is solely defined by the sum of you past sexual experiences, it could be dealbreaker for you.

[This message edited by fareast at 11:17 AM, December 1st (Sunday)]

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.

I couldn't disagree more. Marriage is the most personal, subjective, and therefore judgmental thing a person can do. Feeling safe and comfortable making one's self that vulnerable involves an alchemy of millions of factors, many of which touch on an individual's deepest feelings of anxiety and insecurity.

In response to the allegations of misogyny, imagine you're a woman dating a man who seems like a dream come true. Successful, professional, courteous, kind, great in bed, thoughtful, romantic, handsome. You love his family and they love you. Then, at a holiday gathering, a drunken cousin confides in you: "You do know about that, ah, episode when he was in high school." You learn that he gave a girl a roofie, raped her and filmed himself doing it, but escaped criminal prosecution when his parents paid a handsome settlement to the girl's family, including paying for the abortion, and he did probation and community service for a couple of years.

You guys,

Please stop twisting Slowlygoingcrazy’s words.

Please show me where I did that. If anything, she twisted mine when she said I said that it was wrong for a female to engage in gangbangs.

Thank you fareast. Reading your response was incredibly cathartic.

Butforthegrace, I respect your opinions, but could I ask you maybe use a different example? A person having a consensual orgy is not comparable to slipping someone a roofie and raping them. Now, if the drunken cousin was referring to an incident where the groom-to-be slept with four girls at once... that would be more comparable.

I am curious: aside from one poster, I haven’t seen any other guys respond to my questions about if a man who participated in a 5-some with four women is marriage material. I am curious to know guys’ opinions and how they view another man with that background.

I am curious: aside from one poster, I haven’t seen any other guys respond to my questions about if a man who participated in a 5-some with four women is marriage material.

Its not a good question. I have no intention of every marrying a male. I'm sure he's marriage material for someone else though.

Fascinating thread. Came in with my mind made up, but reality has clashed with the ideal.

OIN wrote:

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.

Interestingly, I know quite a few that knew about their wive’s history (and knew a lot of the guys) and married them and stay married. They found a place of honesty to build on. Very cool. The coolest thing is nobody cares. Everybody knows life is hard enough as it is.

I wasn’t my wife’s first, and she wasn’t mine. I have a rough sense of her “body count” in terms of steady boyfriends, but no idea of ONS count. Never cared to know either. She’s never asked me about my past.

I’d like to think I wouldn’t care about sexual history, but that hypothesis never really got tested.

How is raping somebody even comparable to what has been discussed here? That’s not even close to the same as having consensual, unattached, casual sex.

Its not a good question. I have no intention of every marrying a male. I'm sure he's marriage material for someone else though.

So you're saying that you never judge people you have no intention of marrying?

You can still answer the question. If you were a girl in that situation, would you find him to be marriage material?

It's interesting to me that you say you're sure he's marriage material for someone else though. You've said you wouldn't want to marry a girl with a similar background, which is your prerogative - but you never did say you're sure she's marriage material for someone else.

I think the reason why this thread has vibes of shaming isn't about people choosing whether to marry someone or not - again, everyone has preferences. It's the way we talk about the people we choose not to marry. And you know there are nuances in what we say - saying you "have standards" implies that the girl who has had a certain past sexual experience isn't "up to your standards", which in turn implies that she's lower than you.

It's one thing to say, "she's not compatible with me". It's another thing to say or imply, "she's beneath me.". Are you seeing the distinction in what I'm saying? It's a tone difference.

[This message edited by silverhopes at 10:16 AM, December 1st (Sunday)]

So you're saying that you never judge people you have no intention of marrying?

For other things, sure. But we're talking about marriage material.

You can still answer the question. If you were a girl in that situation, would you find him to be marriage material?

No.

It's interesting to me that you say you're sure he's marriage material for someone else though. You've said you wouldn't want to marry a girl with a similar background, which is your prerogative - but you never did say you're sure she's marriage material for someone else.

Bc not everyone has the same values towards sex that I do. So yes, for someone else, yes.

Butforthegrace, I respect your opinions, but could I ask you maybe use a different example? A person having a consensual orgy is not comparable to slipping someone a roofie and raping them.

Yes, it's an extreme hypothetical, and an apples-to-oranges comparison. I use it, though, to illustrate that facts from one's past can, once known, alter present perceptions. You meet this guy in your 30's. The actions happened when he was 15. He swears he was young, spoiled, immature, and didn't understand the gravity of his actions, he has grown and matured and would never do anything remotely like that.

How do you, as an individual, react? Some people would marry the guy. For some, no matter how sincere and rehabilitated he seems, it would be a deal breaker.

My point is that the decision is subjective and personal to each person.

saying you "have standards" implies that the girl who has had a certain past sexual experience isn't "up to your standards", which in turn implies that she's lower than you.

It's one thing to say, "she's not compatible with me". It's another thing to say or imply, "she's beneath me.". Are you seeing the distinction in what I'm saying? It's a tone difference.

It's SJWs looking to take anything said and twisting it to meet their narrative.

Standards, values, requirements, prerequisites...you pick which word is acceptable.

For me, the glaring difference between the sides is I'm not trying to shame anyone for deciding not to date/marry someone for any reason. People 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. But me...I'm not trying to shame anyone for exercising their rights to do anything at all.

How is raping somebody even comparable to what has been discussed here? That’s not even close to the same as having consensual, unattached, casual sex.

It's similar in that he did it years ago, it's "no longer him" and he's moved on from being that person. Yes, what he did was illegal, and that does make it different, which is why I tried to draw the analogy to a guy who was gay and then, later in life, decided he wanted to marry a woman. Legal in all respects, but, I suspect (although no one will say it) that would be a huge red flag/turnoff to a lot of women. And, like it or not, there are good reasons why that SHOULD be a red flag to a woman looking to marry a previously gay man. There's a good chance he's going to get that desire again and he's just doing the marriage thing for the other benefits it provides rather than loving (in a carnal sense) his wife. It's a real concern, and, yes, I would tell my daughter that if she were considering marrying a formerly gay man.

However, if we look at the example as given, no, breaking the law is not the same as banging the football team, point conceded. But if he broke the law 20 years ago, paid the price for it, and now, today, he admits that he engaged in this kind of behavior in his past.. What then? Or what if he was raised in Reno and banged his way through hookers for 10 years before you met him? Not illegal (there), but... I strongly suspect, a WHOLE LOT of women would disqualify a man based on that past behavior. And they would be in the right, it shows a lack of regard for sex, perhaps some dislike for emotional intimacy and if you've used prostitutes once, you're dramatically more likely to use them again. Not illegal (at least not in my example), most would consider it immoral, and many consider it distasteful behavior. And yes, I'd expect a woman to judge that behavior, even if was 20 years ago, in weighing her decision for a LTR.

I am curious: aside from one poster, I haven’t seen any other guys respond to my questions about if a man who participated in a 5-some with four women is marriage material.

I suspect I was the one who answered it before, but that was days ago. I can't say if he would be marriage material or not, but I can say it's clearly different if a man does it vs a woman. It takes an incredible level of skill to talk 4 women into sex at one time. An incredibly high "value" that he must project to the opposite sex. He's rich, he's famous, he's impossibly good with women.. Something, without question is "special" about a guy that can pull off a 4-1 with women. The situation could not be more different for women, to have 4 guys and 1 girl just takes "asking" or "offering it up". 0 skill required and all it says about her, for a lot of people, is negative. Because it's so easy for women to have this experience if they want it, it doesn't convey value. What conveys value, in most people's eyes, is saying "No" to situations like this (self-control). Where for a man, what conveys value is being "hot enough" (which typically has nothing to do with looks) to have these experiences. The relevant comparison would be a guy who pays 4 prostitutes for a 5 way experience. Now it doesn't convey value anymore, anyone with some cash in their pocket can do that, and it's not saying "he's special" just that "he's got more money than brains".

It's SJWs looking to take anything said and twisting it to meet their narrative.

What is SJW?

I don't think I was twisting what you were saying. I was pointing out nuances in language and cautioning you that certain nuances can be more triggerific than others. The difference in tone that I was talking about. Tone can be difficult to get across when you're online. So, when in doubt, clarify. You clarified that you weren't shaming women for their pasts. You choose not to date one, as is your preference (understandable that you wouldn't want the mental movies taking up real estate in your head), but you weren't calling them names or assuming that they're lower morally than you. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

People 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.

I admit I hadn't seen that. I had seen people of all backgrounds here objecting to tone and to their own experiences feeling under attack.

Or perhaps the objection is to tone-policing? The thing is, tone can inform content. Instead of twisting a narrative, a person could well be hyperalert for signs of a previous abuse rearing its head again. And as much as people want to deny it, women have been on the receiving end of society-wide sexual shaming for far too long. Things might be changing now in terms of lifestyle, but that doesn't mean the shaming is gone, nor are its aftereffects. Please try to understand that it will still be a painful and sensitive topic with many of us here.

You weren't the one who answered, RIO. But I pretty much already knew your answer anyway. You answered exactly as I predicted you would - with double standards.