SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Y'know the old question about "is there any reason these two should not be married?" Maybe we should all pay more attention to that.

Is there ANY reason. Mine came down to my ex loving another guy more than me, using me to father children and provide resources. If my ex could not put her feelings away for the guy she left me for, she should not have married me. Because that guy was actually available to her at the time. That would have required sacrifice on her part, though. By using me, lying to me, she got everything she wanted, but only scummy people do what she did.

If a gay man marries, does not disclose he is gay, the marriage is impossible because he is gay, he is scummy. If the marriage takes place because one person lied or failed to disclose history that would be relevant to the other party, that's bad. I am even not fond of BS who know about pre-marriage affairs but decide to go through with the wedding anyway. Because they don't want to call things off. That is knowingly signing up for a big fat mess that doesn't have to be.

I would also put it down to a partner who KNOWS the history of the other partner, claims they don't care, then tries to bring it up years later. If the other partner actually knows, I really wonder if they have any right to bring it up after the fact. Like in the cheating scenarios. If you know someone cheated on you and marry them anyway, do you even have a right to bring it up again?

It is frankly much easier to back out of a relationship at that point than years later. After children are born. But that requires honesty and selflessness, which can often be in short supply in particular people.

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.

Nobody is twisting anything she's saying. She is straight-up saying these things, alongside being a hypocrite since she wants to force her own views and values upon others, while simultaneously shaming them for all kind of things.

And guess what? If you want to argue feeling. Quite a few people seem to be pretty uncomfortable with her accusations and behaviour too. Does that mean she should stop, as should you since you're making them even more uncomfortable?

@fareast

avoid even getting started in a relationship with a

So, basically what most guys here seem to have wanted all along? To avoid having a relationship with a person that's incompatible with them, which would only come to be because either side had gone out of their way to lie?

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.

Oh please. Your actions define who you are, they speak louder than words. You want people to selectively ignore your actions in the past. Actions show people exactly where your values, morales lie and what your COMPATIBILITY with them is.

The rest is just that much hot air, a list of things how you see yourself and claim you would act if you "met the right partner", but haven't shown in any way. You want them to ignore what you're doing and only listen to what you claim, even if it's contrary to your every action.

@Rideitout

It's similar in that he did it years ago, it's "no longer him"

It's a very crass example, but overall a decent one. It shows that this person is still responsible for their choices, even if they were in the past. An alcoholic is still an alcoholic even if they're not drinking, just a dry one. The whole argument that "they've changed" which usually just boils down that someone has gotten older and opportunities and energy has dried up so they spend their best time and youth on these things rather than building a relationship, can be used to excuse absolutely everything.

Let's use a really inflammatory one given where we are. @Ladies If a guy used to be a serial cheater, sleep around a lot, waste his money, used to leech off of his GFs, etc. I'm sure you could look beyond that, and not judge him, right? Because he's changed! It's now 3, 6, 12, months or whatever else arbitrary cut off point you want to set. He's marriage material if he tells you he's willing to be committed, to invest, to provide love and support, be there for you, etc. Right?! He's telling you that after all, just because he used to lie a lot and because of the other baggage doesn't mean you should judge him now, right?

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

You answered exactly as I predicted you would - with double standards.

Hey, at least I'm consistent.

Some double standards exist because of a bias or prejudice, some exist because there are really 2 different things and comparing 1-2 doesn't make any sense. A great example of this is in the military, the physical standards are different for women than men. Double standard? Without question. Reason for that double standard? Also, IMHO, without question.

As I tried to illustrate in my post, I'd never argue that this isn't a double standard, but it's a double standard that exists for a reason. And you can see this all over the place, but, the clearest example is prostitution, men pay, women provide. Double standard? Sure, of course it is. But it's one based in biology, not just that men "feel like" paying for sex. There's an intrinsic gap in desire for sexual activity between the sexes imposed by biology (my hypothesis) or society (another reasonable explanation). But, whatever it is, it exists, and the "market" shows us that. But we'd be about as effective arguing "That's not fair, women should pay men for sex too and have options for male prostitutes" as we will be arguing that men shouldn't gain "value" from sex and women lose it. Sure, OK, I agree with you, it sucks and it's a double standard, but it's one that's not going away in my (or probably any of our) lifetimes. It'll go away when men are the ones resisting constant sexual advances from women, then the "coveted status" will be being able to resist those advances (as it is for women) rather than what it is today (being successful in those advances).

Like it or not there are women who indulged in some of this behaviour not because they were independent and strong but because they were young and easily manipulated, you could say groomed. Once it happened it became the norm for them, how they viewed their worth to themselves and to the opposite sex.

I worked with girls like these for years, it was a long time ago but I doubt anything's really changed that much. Anytime they with 2 guys it wasn't because they wanted it but because they were told they had to do it, to prove their love for their SO by being shared by his friends! It took a lot of work to get these girls where they could see sex in any relationship in a healthy way, something to value (even if casual).

Obviously sex was just one facet of behaviour that was looked at and worked on and I've only mentioned girls because I have no personal experience working with boys or young men with similar issues.

What gets to me is that after all the hard work these women did to break free of their past they could still be judged so easily. I'm not talking about recent actions here so not sex acts that were carried out with recent partners but truly in the past.

I get that everyone has a choice in who they date but would hope that people still see others as individuals too. As for the have sex with them but don't turn it into a relationship brigade, my only hope is you set out that clear boundary from the start and keep it clear!

Like it or not there are women who indulged in some of this behaviour not because they were independent and strong but because they were young and easily manipulated, you could say groomed.

My wife was "easily manipulated" into an affair, and, yes, "groomed" as an AP. Should I provide her a pass as well for her behavior?

I do get what you're saying, and that's sad. But it doesn't change anything. What percentage of people sitting in jail for murder were "manipulated" into doing it? I'd guess "a lot" (gangs) is a reasonable answer. It doesn't matter why (outside of overt force), just a question of "did you do it or not". And frankly, that's the right standard. How many people don't have a "reason" for why they did something awful in the past? Very few. Bad childhood, peer pressure, drunk, didn't know the laws. And a LOT of those reasons are, in fact, true. My wife had a lot of "reasons" just like this for why she had the affair. I don't care, you don't care, none of us care. It's not a question of "why" it's simply a statutory thing, did you do it or not (outside of overt force, of course, if someone puts a gun to your head and tells you shoot someone or be shot, that's a totally different thing, as is rape).

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

As in, if you choose not to date someone solely because they've slept with 50 people, that is creepy. Of you choose not to date someone because they've slept with 50 people and they lied about it and they cheated on a past partner, then this indicates they are not sound partners. The 50 partners in itself indicates nothing.

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

But their sexual past isn't why you're choosing not to date them. They treated women like shit. Maybe they've changed, maybe not. I have never said we should ignore partners' pasts. I am saying ending a relationship solely due to their sexual past is very creepy.

Pit of another way. If a guy ends a relationship because he found out his gf slept with 50 guys, that seems very creepy. If he breaks up with her because she slept with 50 guys and lied go every one of them to make it happen, this shows bad character on her part and it makes sense to end the relationship

Also. The premise of this was deciding someone is not a suitable marriage partner because of how many people that person slept with. If you haven't started to date someone yet, then you know nothing about their character. I just do not think how many people someone has slept with is an indicator of value or character on its pwn

There's an intrinsic gap in desire for sexual activity between the sexes imposed by biology (my hypothesis) or society (another

If the gap in desire is imposed by society, then it is not an intrinsic gap. This would mean that as society changes, women's libidos change, so there is nothing intrinsic about it.

And you are right. There is a double standard? How is that not creepy as fuck? How does that not enrage you?

[This message edited by LLXC at 12:00 PM, December 1st (Sunday)]

What is SJW

?

Silver its social justice warrior penned by the redpillers.

What gets to me is that after all the hard work these women did to break free of their past they could still be judged so easily. I'm not talking about recent actions here so not sex acts that were carried out with recent partners but truly in the past.

I get that everyone has a choice in who they date but would hope that people still see others as individuals too. As for the have sex with them but don't turn it into a relationship brigade, my only hope is you set out that clear boundary from the start and keep it clear!

From my perspective, this is one of the reasons that it's so important to know early on what you're dealing with. Because we're not just marrying or engaging in relationships with individuals, but also the baggage they carry. All of that baggage is going to burn emotional resources that could be spent elsewhere.

I've got my own baggage. I'm not going to be able to conduct a relationship going forward that isn't wary of betrayal. It's unfair to a prospective partner who hasn't ever betrayed a spouse, and I need to be up front with them that there are going to be challenges of trust that they didn't earn, but that they will be signing on for if they want to be in a relationship with me.

By the same token, if I elect to choose them, I elect to choose their baggage, and it's helpful if I have a sense of what that's going to look like before I decide to take on that challenge.

Fair or not, I have a set of hard stops based on my past experience. Childhood sexual abuse is one of them. Why? Because it didn't work out well for me. I'm not going to double down and hope it works out better this time. I'm sure there are tons of people out there who have navigated CSAB, gotten the appropriate healing and therapy...but honestly, I'm just not willing to wade into that morass again and hope for the best. I already gave up 25 years of my life to someone who kept going back to that well.

But also note...not of that is judging that person as a victim of CSAB *for* being a victim. It's about my willingness to go there again. I just don't have the energy for it, no matter how wonderful the rest of the person might be.

Regarding this:

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.

I don't think people do this just about sex. It's literally the core of every rejection: you're not worthy of me as I perceive myself. I deserve better. We play word games to soften that ("it's not you, it's me") but ultimately, we're all attempting to choose someone we consider to be "good enough" for us.

(Which isn't to say that they're not "good enough" for anyone. Just not for us.)

And this:

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 know that guy. All of his relationships have worked out about how you'd expect to people who thought they could change his default settings.

So, yeah, he actually factors into my personal calculations about the "sorts of people" who engage in various behaviors. Because I don't think woman are any better are setting aside those sorts of presets than men are.

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.[/quote

Actually, the point I was trying to make was slightly different. My point is that each of us has triggers -- things that make us feel anxious, or insecure, or vulnerable, or unsafe. If we learn a fact from the history of somebody with whom we are contemplating marriage, and that fact is one of our personal triggers, then it may be best to not marry that person. It doesn't matter how much the person may be rehabilitated, or "moved on", or "no longer that person". Triggers are triggers.

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.

Please tell me this is a joke. Are you seriously comparing a person's sexual past with their criminal history?

I agree with you that marriage is a huge decision. And I agree that one should feel safe but if their sexual history makes you feel unsafe, that is on you, not on them. That is your insecurities, not turn.

Obviously if your partners sexual history makes you feel unsafe, leave the relationship, I just think sexual history, by itself, is nothing to feel insecure about

this is one of the reasons that it's so important to know early on what you're dealing with.

Omg.

"Know early on"?

"Dealing with"?

She's not an awkward FedEx package; she's supposedly someone you love.

Comments like these make me think, "Ladies, fight fire with fire. If ye are going to be judged like a FedEx package, lie, lie, lie like a FedEx package."

Sorry, but look up the causes of lying. "Harsh judgment causes lying." Truth hurts, but there it is. Rail, rail, rail against women who would do this, but can you blame them? Fightin' fire with fire.

If you don't want lies, try being more accepting. Seek to understand, not judge.

Eta: women who are ashamed of what they did but felt forced or insecure will absolutely lie when dating a guy they know frowns on "women like that." It's just true--always has been.

And one more eta: if you don't want to experience buyer's remorse, don't view women as objects you are purchasing.

[This message edited by OwningItNow at 12:22 PM, December 1st (Sunday)]

I don't think people do this just about sex. It's literally the core of every rejection: you're not worthy of me as I perceive myself. I deserve better. We play word games to soften that ("it's not you, it's me") but ultimately, we're all attempting to choose someone we consider to be "good enough" for us.

Exactly. I'm sure I've been "nexted" by plenty of women because they didn't like my shoes, or that I'm not 6'5". Is it fair? I can't make myself taller you know! And maybe some did "next" me because of my sexual history, I have no idea, but it wouldn't shock me, I was promiscuous and, guess what, while it's a MUCH lower price I pay for that behavior, there's still a price. It is what it is, nothing is without consequence. And some are worse for men, some are worse for women. Lose you job/income as a man, watch your prospects dry up, where, as a woman, men generally won't care very much. Get fat, either sex, but especially women, watch your options get limited. Have children from another relationship; again, limited options.

It's not unique to women at all. And, as I've said many times, it does make sense; sex with a lot of men as a woman shows a lack of restraint, where sex with a lot of women as a man shows skill with women. Right, wrong, good, bad... It's just what it is.

Please tell me this is a joke. Are you seriously comparing a person's sexual past with their criminal history?

I didn't write it, but, to me, no it's not a joke. Criminal history isn't the best example though, what if someone used to be a drug addict? Or spent a few months in a psychiatric hospital for a suicide attempt? It's in in the past, but you are a fool if you don't consider it in your choice of mate.

Sorry, but look up the causes of lying. "Harsh judgment causes lying." Truth hurts, but there it is. Rail, rail, rail against women who would do this, but can you blame them? Fightin' fire with fire.

You sound like a criminal defense attorney. Instead of lying, you could take a different tact though; best summed up by Jim Carey in Liar, Liar; "Stop breaking the law asshole". If you don't want to be judged for doing sexually outlandish stuff, well.. Don't do sexually outlandish stuff. This conversation is like someone getting a face tattoo, or a woman wearing a 4" skirt out and being annoyed that "everyone is looking at me". Ugh... Perhaps you should have thought of that before you went all Mike Tyson. It's not on other people to accept you, its on you to make yourself accepted. Don't want to be? Fine, and welcome, I'm one of those people too. But you don't get to play both sides, I can't sit here with my full face tattoo and whine about how people can't see the real me and won't give me a chance. I did it to myself.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 12:26 PM, December 1st (Sunday)]

Omg.

"Know early on"?

"Dealing with"?

She's not an awkward FedEx package; she's supposedly someone you love.

What are you talking about? Dating is an audition for compatibility. Love comes later. I'd apply the same standard if they told me they had a $40k/yr job and $25k in credit card debt plus $60k in student loans. Do I want to assume that debt against future marital assets?

Maybe. But thinking through that is part of any basic due diligence.

Well, if nothing else, OIN’s post shows just how differently folks can interpret something. To read such a well thought out post and get that out of it, is a little baffling. More proof that folks will never agree on everything, I suppose.

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.nothing wrong.

Could not agree more. I'd also add that women should avoid relationships with men who laud their sexual inexperience - as of that is a good thing.

It is neither good nor bad. Same as with a lot of sexual experience. It is neither good nor bad on its face.

Here is what is fucked up. I was traumatized by certain things when I was very young. My reaction was to avoidlike the plague. I have friends who experienced similar trauma bit their reaction was to have sex with lots of men.

Some guys "valued" that inexperience. That was creepy as hell. I did not like it. Some guys were critical. Most did not care. For my friend, most did not care but some disparaged her. A few thought it was cool. All of it is creepy

This thread is like rubber necking. You just can’t look away. Posting is like paying too much attention to the 5 car pileup that you rear end the car in front of you. So consider me a glutton for punishment.

I couldn’t let this go.

If a guy ends a relationship because he found out his gf slept with 50 guys, that seems very creepy.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read on this thread, and that my friends, is saying something. There are so many reasons why finding out the person you’re dating slept with 50 guys is a legitimate reason to not want to continue your relationship. Maybe saving yourself for marriage is important to you? Maybe it illustrates that you have different views on sex and relationships. Maybe it’s an insecurity / jealousy thing. The thing is it doesn’t matter. People are complex and we take into account hundreds of different pieces of information when deciding who want to marry. Previous sexual history is one of those factors. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not shaming or being judgmental. It’s what you’re compatible with.

...if you choose not to date someone solely because they've slept with 50 people, that is creepy.

Why is that "creepy"?

Let's say I'm a divorcee in my 30's. I've had a few serious relationships, a couple of previous boyfriends and one ex-husband who I divorced due to his infidelity. I'm relatively new to the dating scene again, but I meet a charming man and we've gone out on a few dates. I'm looking for companionship and a relationship which can grow into something more.

Now, let's say after a few drinks, the conversation turns toward previous relationships and sexual encounters... the dreaded "body count", all in good fun and part of the "getting to know you process". Charming Guy can't really remember how many women he's had. It's more than 50 and less than 100. He's never been married. Hasn't had a serious girlfriend since college.

What have I learned?

I've learned that, per his history, this guy most likely is NOT looking for the same things I'm looking for. He's telling me that he's bedded more than 50 women but hasn't found a single one which resulted in a long term commitment. I can extrapolate from this information that his attitude toward sex is much more casual than mine, because in more than 50 gos, he hasn't caught feelings enough to form a relationship. So... I can either bow out now, being reasonably certain that we wouldn't be compatible in the long run. Or, I can allow my mind to explore his potential. Maybe he's changed? Maybe he's looking for something more? Maybe I'm The One who will turn out to be special enough for him to make a commitment (after more than 50 women have been there and done that).

How am I "creepy" for drawing the most likely conclusion and sparing myself the mindfuck of "what's his potential"? Should I take his word for it if he promises he's done with his casual sex lifestyle and looking for more, or should I consider his history? (Again, that's more than 50 women who didn't induce pair-bonding.)

It's possible that this guy is truly ready for a new lifestyle. It's possible that he might make a fine husband one day. But if I'm a divorcee in my 30's whose already been burned, who knows what I'm looking for, how does noticing the red flags, totting up the odds, and deciding to move on make me "creepy"???

Criminal history isn't the best example though, what if someone used to be a drug addict? Or spent a few months in a psychiatric hospital for a suicide attempt? It's in in the past, but you are a fool if you don't consider it in your choice of mate

But those are bad examples, too, though for different reasons. What if the person relapses? Same with suicide - what of they attempt it again?

With a sexual past - what is there to worry about?

Now, if you are worried because suicide might mean unaddressed trauma, addiction might mean unaddressed trauma, promiscuity might mean unaddressed trauma, then fine.

If there is trauma in someone's past and you know you can't cope, that is fine.

But it also makes my point - the sexual past in itself is not am issue, it is the unaddressed trauma.

I do not believe that making a decision to no longer date someone and then ending things respectfully is shaming. No matter what the reason is, within reason. No one is entitled to continued dates. It isn’t being a “jerk” to decide that you no longer want to date someone nor to want to marry them based upon one, two, or ten qualities. It might be closed-minded and immature. Or it might be simply having very firm boundaries and understanding what one can and cannot accept. Or it could be a combination of these. Or it might be something else entirely. But to declare such a person a “jerk” merely because you don’t like their reasoning for not wanting to marry someone isn’t right.

I think one of the problems in this thread (beyond emotions flying and projections that are leading to general misunderstanding of others’ state perspectives) is that some people posting here are applying a very limited (and in my opinion, largely inaccurate) view to how and when “marriage material” screening occurs within the context of dating.

I think some people are under the impression that the scenario happens like this: there is a couple that is very serious about one another, has been dating exclusively for an extended period of time and practically everything about them seems to be a “match.” This couple is on the verge of becoming engaged. Then one party learns of their partner’s sexual past, is displeased, declares their partner to not be “marriage material,” and disappears.

(Perhaps as they prepare to depart they also call the person names intended to insult or harm them for their sexual acts in the past, which is absolutely “slut-shaming” IMHO and a complete jerk move.)

Let’s presume here that neither party lied or hid their sexual past prior to that moment. Maybe it was never discussed for whatever reason.

In this example (removing the slut-shaming sentence in parentheses from the equation), one can sympathize with the party being dumped as a result of their past and find it unfair and sad that past actions are being deemed as carrying more value than their present actions.

We might think that both individuals “dodged a bullet” because clearly the couple must not have been as compatible as they believed as a result of this factor. We might dislike the choice that was made and find it irrational, harsh, or cruel.

Or we might sympathize with that person too, because clearly they were really “into” the other person before learning about their past, and even though they were the one who chose to end it, they probably wish this wasn’t the case. We might try to give them the benefit of the doubt that this must be a deeply important issue for that person to dump someone they clearly care for deeply over it.

All of this could be the case. However,

I DO NOT believe that this is how the scenario typically plays out at all in most couples. So I think people are allowing themselves to get overly emotional and frustrated over something that is generally not even reality.

I believe that in many cases disclosure about sexual matters of importance occurs far earlier than in the hypothetical scenario I described. It occurs when a couple is casually dating, perhaps not even exclusively at that point. It occurs at a time when the couple (who might not yet even technically be considered an official “couple” at that point, but I will continue to use that term for brevity) is still “feeling one another out” and learning about one another. Figuring out if they are compatible in various ways and determining where things might go.

Dating at this point might be little more than still being in the “screening” process. There are no promises, no guarantees, and no one is entitled to a second, third, fifth, tenth, or twentieth date regardless of how “well” things might seem to be going.

If you apply for a job and get an interview and “ace” that interview, you might get called in for a second interview. And maybe then a third. You might be perceived as a top candidate for the position. But you are not guaranteed to be offered the position. One of the interviewers might find another candidate more suitable for the position than you. That doesn’t mean you’re a terrible candidate for a position elsewhere. In fact, I’d argue that you are probably a damn good candidate because otherwise why would they have even interviewed you to begin with? For many who apply and meet the known initial criteria (or appear to, anyway) are never even interviewed.

Now, there are legal protections in place where I live (the United States) that are designed to prevent employers from discriminating against potential job candidates based upon certain criteria. Although this is not foolproof, it helps to make things a bit more equal (in theory - it’s not that simple in reality). However, that just gets you in the “door” to be interviewed. It doesn’t guarantee you will be hired. For someone might go with another candidate over you because they felt more favorably about their alma mater, or because they felt they were a better fit for that particular work environment.

Or maybe they never say it, but they go with another candidate over you because of something arbitrary, i.e. that candidate mentioned casually in their interview that they are a talented golfer, and that small detail is something the interviewer really liked. You, on the other hand, do not know how to golf. And that seemingly insignificant thing might be the difference between you getting the job or not even if you are a quality candidate. There’s nothing against the law (to my knowledge) in this morning instance.

That employer has the right to choose the candidate they want even if their reasoning seems silly. It might be silly. But it might not be silly. Maybe being good at golf is helpful in that particular role with regard to being able to network with existing and/or potential clients. So while it is not technically something you have to have to be eligible for that job, it might be a dealbreaker.

Fair? No. It’s crap. But rather than bemoan the fact that you weren’t hired by this company, go apply and interview elsewhere. THEY don’t want you, but countless others will. Go find a job that pays more and had better benefits where your lack of golf ability doesn’t matter. That doesn’t make the company who didn’t hire you evil. It wasn’t a good fit for them, and ultimately it wasn’t going to be a food fit for you either.

This thread is like a proxy marital fight. When the name calling and subject matter changing comes in to WIN AT ALL COSTS, that's when I get triggered as fuck. I will still read every word because this thing is like a microcosm that we can learn from.