SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

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.

First, if person A thinks saving oneself for marriage is important but hasn't saved him or herself, that is kind of fucked up. But if person A is saving him or herself for marriage and wants to be with spmeone who is the same, fine. That conversation should come up way sooner then "should I marry this person"

If it is because of insecurity, then yes, it is absolutely kind of creepy.

And maybe it illustrates a different point of view on relationships? THAT OS MY WHOLE POINT. If it means you have different views of relationships, fine. Bit different sexual pasts do not inherently mean different views on relationships.

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

But what if he's had a few serious girlfriends and when they ended he coped by sleeping with lots of women? What of he married straight out of college and when that marriage ended he decided to have lots of sex?

Would that change your point of view?

O am saying the amount of people someone's had sex with has no INHERENT meaning. Of COURSE if a guy has slept with lots of women but never married - he is maybe not the best match. But again, maybe he slept with 100 women in between serious relationships, is that dangerous?

Furthermore, the entire premise was a guy deeming someone unmarriageable because of her sexual past. This would mean that he found their values, personalities, morals compatible enough that they are discussing marriage.

Another point I would like to add.

IMO, if a person views a woman who in the past had foursomes or fivesomes (is that a word, fivesome?) as “not marriage material” than I believe that they should also view a man who did these same things as “not marriage material” either. If a woman who did so is (insert whatever descriptive term here) then a man who did so is the same. Actually, he might be more eo, because he is likely very aware of the double standards in society that makes engaging in such sexual acts less stigmatizing for him than it would be for the woman in question who is part of the act - and yet he chooses to do it anyway despite probably having at least some awareness that in the future she might “pay” a “higher price” for this night of fun than he will.

To be clear, I am not stating that I think a man (or a woman) who does these things should or should not be viewed in any particular way. I am just pointing out that she cannot be a “slut” while he is a “stud” IMO. Either they’re both “sluts” or they’re both “studs” because they both did the same thing.

Or maybe they’re both just “people.” Maybe people whose sexual choices you don’t agree with. Maybe people whose sexual choices you do agree with. Maybe people whose sexual choices don’t matter to you one way or another. But they’re people nonetheless.

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

Would you like a list?

Reduced pair bonding/importance of sex to the individual.

Increased risk of STDs.

Increased risk (near certain at some number) that you're not going to be the "best", in fact, you might be number 25 on the list of "best lovers". yes, I'm aware this is a personal insecurity, but, since you asked.

Inability to try "new" together, by partner 100, you've probably already done it all.

And, while I'm not sure I believe this, lots of people have kind of said:

Mental issues, unaddressed FOO, etc where sleeping with the college football team is a proxy to try to heal some unaddressed wound.

There are a lot of reasons to next someone for a colorful sexual history. I'm sure some women heard my number and thought "that's disgusting" and just moved on. So be it. But, no, to another posters response, I wasn't going to lie about it (in a LTR.. Can't say the same for a ONS). I told my W my best guess "number" early on. She wasn't happy. But not much I can/could do about it at that point except prove to her that she was "the one" and she mattered more than those that came before her. If she'd nexted me, I would have understood. Frankly, I would have understood it a LOT better than nexting me for not being 6'5" tall. It was my personal choices that would have been her issue, things I decided to do for my own personal gain. I decided to sleep with those women, and no, I wasn't damaged or broken, I was just horny and indiscriminate. She would have been totally within her rights to move on, and I would have been upset, but understood.

Actions have consequences people. So much of this thread reads like "I should be able to do whatever the f**k I want and everyone needs to accept it". Well, no, they don't. Dye your hair purple, guess what, you get a lot of stares and I'd "next" you before sitting down at the bar. Might be a great person, but I just don't want to date someone with purple hair when there are plenty of brunettes walking by. Your right to dye your hair and your right to bang the football team. My right to next you and move on to someone else based on that information. See how that works, we both have autonomy and personal choice there, no shaming, no "it should be this way".. Nope, just simple actions and consequences.

I am just pointing out that she cannot be a “slut” while he is a “stud” IMO. Either they’re both “sluts” or they’re both “studs” because they both did the same thing.

Shouldn't be? Sure, I agree. But, reality doesn't agree with either of us. We both know that the reality is a guy sleeping with 5 women at once will be considered a stud, and a woman doing the same will get a negative label. I've explained why, and it does make sense, but of course it's not "fair". Life isn't fair. It's not fair that my wife could walk out the door right now and have a "fivesome" before dinner time and I'd almost certainly have to pay a lot of money to have the same experience. Fair? Nope, not at all, why should she have so much more sexual access than I do?! Reality? Darn right it is.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 1:24 PM, December 1st (Sunday)]

Furthermore, the entire premise was a guy deeming someone unmarriageable because of her sexual past. This would mean that he found their values, personalities, morals compatible enough that they are discussing marriage.

Well the entire premise was ‘Is your SO’s sexual history any of your business?’ But yeah, that’s kinda been threadjacked.

Anyway, have you considered that some folks might go straight into a first date with marriage on their mind? It doesn’t have to be a discussion. If my goal is to find a wife, I could be considering that long before I even know if we’re compatible.

^ And that right there, ManishsDad’s last post, is my “dog in this fight”, ultimately. I fucking hate double standards. And sex in general, both the enjoyment of it and the oft-conditional inconsistently-applied demoralization of its participants, always draws my interest.

I agree with every word of ManishsDad’s last post.

Who, besides RIO, has expressed that double standard?

@Silverhops

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.

Am I to understand that you're now self appointing yourself the "tone police"? What shall this Ministry of Thought and Tone be called? Have you cleared it with Mr. Orwell?

You are attempted (poorly) to manipulate a false flag narrative to shame posters from calling out lies and misrepresentations. I have dealt in my past with a world-class manipulator , do expect to be challenged for such actions.

You demand people to account for YOUR issues based upon 6000-10000 years of perceived female oppression and after-effects. Apologies, I had no idea you had experienced such a long life of hardship enduring those long centuries.

Everyone has been shamed/embarrassed/ hurt call it what you shall. Grow up.....just grow up.

These are your issues they are yours to bear, not the collective of society. The world will not tiptoe around your sensibilities nor shall I.

That’s just it, Loukas. I couldn’t tell if my perceptions were based on word triggers or if there was truth to what I was seeing.

The few guys who answered my questions, except for RIO, clarified that they don’t have that double standard - they’ll either judge or not judge men who have done that the same as they would women.

That particular bit of information brings me comfort. I’m glad the guys who answered don’t have that double standard.

I was trying to understand things better and was talking through them in what I thought was a respectful tone, not shame or manipulate false flags (what does that even mean?) or plan some other dastardly think as you seem to think. I would apologize for my delivery or if I’ve shamed anyone, but I gather you’ve already made up your mind about me. So, if that’s how you view me, then you should know... I wear the adjective “nefarious” quite well.

Muahahahaha

The few guys who answered my questions, except for RIO, clarified that they don’t have that double standard - they’ll either judge or not judge men who have done that the same as they would women.

OK, I'll be the heel here, but, I am certainly not alone. Look up "stud" and then "slut" in Google. You'll find they are nearly the same definition but with sexes reversed. Sure, some guys, I'm sure, do look down on men who sleep with lots of women. That has not been my personal experience at all though, most men are somewhere between envious and accepting of other men's sexual exploits.

So, yeah, I'm sure there are men out there who, sitting down for beers with friends would be horrified to hear "RIO slept with 2 women last night". I'm sure that man does exist, perhaps we have some here. But, having had experiences just like that, I can tell you, the "general reception" isn't horror, it's a "Good for you man!".

Would you like a list?

Reduced pair bonding/importance of sex to the individual.

Increased risk of STDs.

Increased risk (near certain at some number) that you're not going to be the "best", in fact, you might be number 25 on the list of "best lovers". yes, I'm aware this is a personal insecurity, but, since you asked.

Inability to try "new" together, by partner 100, you've probably already done it all

The increased risk of STDs - that makes no sense. Get tested. If either partner has an STI, proceed from there.

As for the rest. I think maybe some people view sex really differently, and that viewpoint could mean two people are really incompatible.

I can't fathom wondering if I'm someone's best. I cannot. If someone is choosing to have sex with me on a consistent basis I assume they like it.

I don't particularly want to experience something "new" with someone, both because it is not important but also because I'd want at least one of us to know what we're doing.

I gotta investigate the pair bonding.

I think this conversation reveals different values, and those differing values could definitely indicate incompatibility.

Btw. I do not mean that in a judgmental way. I think I was raised a certain way, most of my friends were raised similarly, so I am used to that outlook

Silver its social justice warrior penned by the redpillers

Lord....it has nothing to do with "redpillers". Butt nice attempt at throwing a "trigger" word at the other side.

That’s just it, Loukas. I couldn’t tell if my perceptions were based on word triggers or if there was truth to what I was seeing.

That’s really what’s been at the heart of this thread, hasn’t it? Take slut shaming out of the original post, this thread goes to 8 pages with the she did for him, not for me crowd. But unfortunately, word triggers and assumptions have brought us all the way here. And it didn’t even have to be another one of these gender wars, because early on, both men and women said sexual history was or wasn’t their business.

The few guys who answered my questions, except for RIO, clarified that they don’t have that double standard - they’ll either judge or not judge men who have done that the same as they would women.

That particular bit of information brings me comfort. I’m glad the guys who answered don’t have that double standard.

I intentionally did not answer your question, because I intentionally never expressed my thoughts on the one woman four guys situation either. I just don’t see a need for it.

have you considered that some folks might go straight into a first date with marriage on their mind? It doesn’t have to be a discussion. If my goal is to find a wife, I could be considering that long before I even know if we’re compatible

Of purse plenty of people date with marriage as their goal. They want to find a spouse. If you are dating with marrisge in mind, then you are looking for shared values, goals. Then you find out if you are compatible. If you are just dating, then you first find people you are compatible with, and if you fall in love and want a future, then you find out of you have shared values.

Either way, it is having different or :similar: shared values that make or break a relationship. People with different values can not stay together for the Long haul

And I fail to see how ones sexual.past, in itself, can tell anyone about that person's values. It can be indicative of values, but in itself, no way.

So threesomes are ok? It’s just more than 3 that is a problem? Is it ok if a woman had a threesome n her past with only women? Or would that be against your rules? Are bisexual women outlawed? I’m just curious what the men here think about that?

I was trying to understand things better and was talking through them in what I thought was a respectful tone, not shame or manipulate false flags (what does that even mean?) or plan some other dastardly think as you seem to think. I would apologize for my delivery or if I’ve shamed anyone, but I gather you’ve already made up your mind about me. So, if that’s how you view me, then you should know... I wear the adjective “nefarious” quite well.

Muahahahaha

Fine, I'll bite.

In my opinion, everyone should aggressively defend their position but only to the point of truth.

Throwing out now infamous "Poster X is uncomfortable" when Poster X behavior is beyond hypocritical to the Nth. Well imho Poster X should be uncomfortable and frankly embarrassed regardless of her gender (there are no free passes for being a woman in my book).

The baggage that is carried is unnecessary weight, I've read your other posts and to use your words "your dog in the fight is a double standard".

Where did any of us (history counts group) outside of one poster claim even a facsimile of a double standard? Yet you saw them everywhere.

I'll make it direct, EVERYONES history counts PERIOD, if I wanted to sleep with everyone in town I would still be with my first wife. If were woman I couldn't possibly see how my opinion would be any different.

It is time to being afraid of offending people and calling people out for the offense. Its time to actually be willing to judge people for their actions and be judged for mine/yours etc.

I'm off my soapbox now.

Oh and nefarious, sorry, my profile reeks of it.

[This message edited by blahblahblahe at 2:27 PM, December 1st (Sunday)]

And I fail to see how ones sexual.past, in itself, can tell anyone about that person's values. It can be indicative of values, but in itself, no way.

You aren’t seeing it because you don’t want to. But even in your own words you say it can be indicative. Sexual past doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

And I fail to see how ones sexual.past, in itself, can tell anyone about that person's values. It can be indicative of values, but in itself, no way.

It tells us how they value sex itself.

But even in your own words you say it can be indicative. Sexual past doesn’t exist in a vacuum even in your own words you say it can be indicative. Sexual past doesn’t exist in a vacuum

That. Is. Precisely. My. Point. How can you choose to not marry someone solely because of their sexual past? Nothing exists in a vacuum. Did he or she have lots of sex with lots of people and has been strictly monogamous for awhile? Maybe someone was a virgin because of untreated childhood sex abuse. Maybe someone had a bunch of tjreespmes and loved it but never wants to do it again. Or maybe they regret it.

As you said, if spent exist in a vacuum. Which is why it doesn't make sense to dismiss someone just because of their past.

Though thinking more about it I am guessing you mean that if someone has a "sordid" sexual past, this is indicative of something negative and therefore is probably unmarriageable.

I understand that, but I find it hard to imagine. If someone did s threesome in college while drink and deeply regrets it, is that indicative of compatibility? Of values? Or what of they loved it but decided monogamy was more important?

Also. Back to the vacuum. Someone decided to wait until marriage for ses. What of it is because they are afraid of sex? Or maybe it is because that is their religious belief.

Either way, all you know initially is they are virgins. It means nothing on its face.

But what if he's had a few serious girlfriends and when they ended he coped by sleeping with lots of women? What of he married straight out of college and when that marriage ended he decided to have lots of sex?

Would that change your point of view?

No. In fact, continuing with my earlier example, it would increase my resolve to move on. At that point, he's shown a history of coping with loss by distracting himself with other people's genitalia. So, you see how further explanation of the body count has indeed provided more insight, but has not changed my first impression.

O am saying the amount of people someone's had sex with has no INHERENT meaning. Of COURSE if a guy has slept with lots of women but never married - he is maybe not the best match. But again, maybe he slept with 100 women in between serious relationships, is that dangerous?

Furthermore, the entire premise was a guy deeming someone unmarriageable because of her sexual past. This would mean that he found their values, personalities, morals compatible enough that they are discussing marriage.

You can say that there's "no inherent meaning" until you turn blue, but that's not going to change the fact that actions do have meaning. People don't expend energy without purpose. Sometimes we might not fully understand that purpose. Sometimes that purpose might be hedonistic or frivolous. But actions require energy, hence purpose, hence meaning.

And actions have consequences. Like it or lump it. And sometimes those consequences are disagreeable. But it's not incumbent upon anyone to suss out every possible meaning or explanation for another person's behavior. We only owe civility, that is, if we want a civilized society. We don't owe deference, particularly not when it's against our own best interests or personal agenda.

[This message edited by ChamomileTea at 2:55 PM, December 1st (Sunday)]