SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

How can you choose to not marry someone solely because of their sexual past?

How? It was very easy to do. I found out that a week before we became exclusive that she had sex with 3 guys (individually) in about an 8 hour period. I didn't shame her for it. Just told her I wasn't feeling it anymore and broke up with her.

It tells us how they value sex itself

No it doesn't. If someone is waiting for marriage to have sex, it could mean they value sex so highly they believe it should be reserved for a spouse. Or it could mean that is what their parents taught them and they've never thought about it. Or maybe they are terrified of sex. Could be any of those things

If someone has slept with 100 people, had three-ways, it could mean they take sex lightly. It could also mean they took sex lightly in their past but now view it as sacred It could also mean they view sex as a way to understand themselves. It could mean many things

But how someone values sex itself, does that really matter? I think what matters is: are you monogamous, are you respectful? Someone who takes sex lightly but is very monogamous, that matters just as much as someone who thinks sex is sacred and values monogamy, more so than people who view sex as sacred but cheat on their spouses

The people I know who view monogamy the most are the ones who've slept around a lot. They are the ones who've never cheated, who treat their partners with respect.

But how someone values sex itself, does that really matter? I think what matters is: are you monogamous, are you respectful? Someone who takes sex lightly but is very monogamous, that matters just as much as someone who thinks sex is sacred and values monogamy, more so than people who view sex as sacred but cheat on their spouses

And that's fine. That's what you think. I have no objections to that. You, however, are really bothered by my feelings on the matter.

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

Wow. I mean, just wow.

In 4 years I’ve read thread after thread here, and dealt with my own situation, regarding concerns by the BS on whether their WS compares them to the AP. Was he bigger, better in bed, more muscular, full head of hair, etc.? Was she willing to do things? Was she thinner, younger, prettier, better figure, etc.? And many BS’s are insecure about those types comparisons. And you dismiss those legitimate feelings out of hand and call them creepy?

It does not matter one iota that infidelity is involved. It is normal for some people to be uncomfortable or insecure about the idea that their partner may have had multiple partners and possibly compare them to you. Others might be totally fine with it. Neither one is wrong or bad. But to say that people don’t have a right to feel that way?

The marginalizing of people with these feelings and dismissing them out of hand via name calling on a site where folks deal with this very real issue on a daily basis is so callous it’s mind boggling.

Man! It always blows my mind when threads like this make it to 20 pages!

Look, when it comes to this topic (and a whole lot of others that tend to blow up here) there are only exactly two fucking people who’s opinions about this shit matter: you and whomever you are considering being in a relationship with. And if those two people can’t agree on the fucking subject they probably shouldn’t be in a relationship. There. Fucking problem solved itself.

I don’t see what the point is of trying to change anyone else’s mind on the matter. Unless it just so you can feel you have some majority opinion on your side so you can be ”right”. In which case, fine, you are all right. You win.

Here's a sticker:

Can we move on now?

It looks like this discussion is divided along gender lines, with most of the men saying sexual past is important and most women saying it shouldn't be.

As a woman, I will 100% say that I would like to know my SO's sexual history. It is my business. And my decision to marry or not would be based on that.

Marrying someone is one of the biggest decisions in life. How can the past not be important? Our past is what makes our future. Every action we take, every choice we make defines and shapes who we are.

Even in business mergers one would do full due diligence about a company's past. How can that not apply to a life partner?

Someone who has a new sexual partner every week does not have strong physical boundaries and is less discriminating about sexual partners and intimate physical contact. Just as someone who tells every one about their inner most thoughts and feelings has weak emotional boundaries and is not likely to understand privacy of thought. I would not want either of those as a husband. Not because they are immoral, but because their concept of privacy and boundaries does not align with mine.

You don't see the actions in a vacuum, but you still consider those actions in your decision making. How my potential life partner sees sex is my business and how he has treated sex in the past will influence my decision.

The people I know who view monogamy the most are the ones who've slept around a lot. They are the ones who've never cheated, who treat their partners with respect

.

I value monogamy. I have never cheated. I treat my partner with respect. And no, I have never slept around!!!

If my daughter came home and told she just took part in a five person gang bang, I would be tremendously concerned.

If my son came home and told me he was number 6 in line to a girl sexually servicing the football team, i would be tremdously concerned.

If my future boyfriend came home home and told me he now loves only me and is giving up prostitutes, S & M clubs and glory holes going forward, I would run like hell.

Some people don’t believe those are healthy activities, both mentally and physically.

I have my sexual standards. Everyone is free to have their own.

Honestly, it’s pretty judgmental to judge me, or anyone, for personal standards.

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.

It absolutely is straight redpill verbiage. I now see how you view things too thanks!

I can find no ref anywhere of it originating with redpillers.

"Social justice warrior" (SJW) is an informal, derogatory noun referring to people who hold socially progressive views, while pursuing personal validation in place of deep-seated conviction and engaging in disingenuous arguments. It has been associated with being "woke" and call-out culture.

while pursuing personal validation in place of deep-seated conviction and engaging in disingenuous arguments.

It seems "it's not important crowd" continues with the misrepresentations. The BOLDFACE excerpt speaks volumes.

The collective creditability (its not important crowd) is quite low to virtually nonexistent at this point.

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

So you believe that people who engage in casual sex, multiple encounters, multiple partners, gangbangs, etc, all wait until everyone involved gets tested, and gets those results back, before having any form of sex with everyone involved?

So you believe that people who engage in casual sex, multiple encounters, multiple partners, gangbangs, etc, all wait until everyone involved gets tested, and gets those results back, before having any form of sex with everyone involved?

Given that I used to live this kind of life, and have exactly 0 times in my life been "required" or even asked to get an STD test, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say "it's not very common" to "unicorn".

Man! It always blows my mind when threads like this make it to 20 pages!

It used to. Now I've seen it enough, and I really do feel this issue is at the heart of the issue, generally, between men and women. It's just so different, the experience of sex, the social constructs around it, the expectations, the desire, the ramifications (both personally and socially) we may as well be arguing between an antelope and elephant. We just have no reasonable way to describe or convince one another, both sides are talking about the same thing, but coming at it from a completely different frame of reference. I kind of feel it's like asking a deaf person what his/her favorite song is, there's just no frame, even though they might hear music in their head, it's entirely different than the music that I hear.

I like threads like this because I learn from them, how different people think, and how my experiences are both commonly shared and wildly different. I engage in them a lot more than the typical "affair" thread because, in a lot of ways, we're all saying the same thing there. There's not a lot of dissent, and without dissent, it becomes an echo chamber. That's not to say it's not valuable, I think that those "echos" helped me immensely when I first got here; but now, striving for the deeper understanding, it's the threads like this that really let me see how similar and different I am from other people. If nothing else, they are interesting.

To say that the STD concern makes no sense, just blows my mind.

Well, that's not surprising, the entire basis of some of this discussion makes nearly 0 sense. ;)

I edited to add, not only was I never "required" to get my STD test before any of this stuff went down, but, almost never were condoms involved. It's your standard fare "fantasy experience", nobody has anything, nobody gets pregnant, and nobody is worried about anything... In a lot of ways, very similar to an affair, just with a whole lot less damage and no unwilling participants.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 5:08 PM, December 1st (Sunday)]

That's what I figured, RIO.

To say that the STD concern makes no sense, just blows my mind.

Yes, it’s my business. That would definitely play a part in my decision on whether I was with someone or not. I know people say the past is the past, but I prefer the past predicts the future. To each their own.

As someone who spends too much time on the Internet, I can confirm without a doubt that "SJW" gained a lot of traction during the whole "Gamergate" bullshit that took up way too much of people's time (much like this thread) and way too much website bandwidth. I'm not even a gamer or young enough to have given a shit, but it was unavoidable at the time if you so much as casually browsed the non-social media Internet. Saying "SJW" is a "redpiller" term is like saying anyone who uses the term "problematic" is an SJW even though that word has been around since *goes to Webster* at least 1609. Like everything on the Internet, whether you realize it or not, teenagers propagate cultural vernacular and we adults pick up on it and use it for our own purposes afterward. It's easy to lose sight of that nowadays since we don't see the faces of the people pushing forward these terms. Such is anonymity in the digital age.

Also, I'm surprised with all the people vehemently arguing for knowledge of sexual history, nobody threw, even facetiously, a very simple phrase in the faces of the opposition:

MY BODY MY CHOICE

Anyway, the only reason I'm jumping in at all is because "creepy" is 100% name-calling bullshit and frankly the "C-word" that gets levied at men when somebody wants to ruffle feathers rather than offer their own complex argument or concede any ground at all costs. It would be like the men here in this conversation referring to highly sexually active women as "sluts"--except the latter isn't even being touched by a 10-foot pole. Let that sink in for a second. Nobody's changing any minds by name-calling. I'm well versed on having to deal day in and day out with someone who utilized dirty argument tactics just to win rather than viewing a debate as an opportunity for two people to learn about differing perspectives. That person shit all over my heart and tried to destroy my life, so I see these tactics and I have 'Nam flashbacks.

The same type of 'Nam flashbacks I assume many women here feel when somebody even gently suggests their sexual history might have a bearing on their appeal to a prospective partner. I picture them picturing a host of men pointing and calling them "whores" and the anger brewing. Maybe there's a particular guy in their past who did them dirty in this very way. And I get it, that fucking sucks and seems unfair and in many cases IT IS. The world is full of bullshit double standards like this, double standards which we ALL face, and that ain't going away anytime soon. And goddamn does it grinds our gears. But that's the world: a constant blast in the face by societal skunk juice. If there's any anonymous folks on the Internet who are worthy of your civility and patient understand, it's got to be your fellow betrayed saps.

I will recess back into the shrubs to continue monitoring this shitshow.

We did discuss prior relationships because we didn’t want anything Popping up later to make us feel uncomfortable because it will.

No it doesn't. If someone is waiting for marriage to have sex, it could mean they value sex so highly they believe it should be reserved for a spouse. Or it could mean that is what their parents taught them and they've never thought about it. Or maybe they are terrified of sex. Could be any of those things

If someone has slept with 100 people, had three-ways, it could mean they take sex lightly. It could also mean they took sex lightly in their past but now view it as sacred It could also mean they view sex as a way to understand themselves. It could mean many things

But how someone values sex itself, does that really matter? I think what matters is: are you monogamous, are you respectful? Someone who takes sex lightly but is very monogamous, that matters just as much as someone who thinks sex is sacred and values monogamy, more so than people who view sex as sacred but cheat on their spouses

The people I know who view monogamy the most are the ones who've slept around a lot. They are the ones who've never cheated, who treat their partners with respect.

You bring up excellent scenarios and many complex possibilities for the "why" of sex. In keeping with the theme of the thread, aren't all those "not in a vacuum" variables exactly what some would want to know, not only how many, but maybe more importantly, the explanations to your reasonable thoughts on the circumstances and evolving views.

You can only know the things you raise through asking the questions. Then, of course, as with all things in life, making a decision about how you feel about those circumstances and answers. As you say, it may not be the 3 or 50 partners that is the deal breaker, it may be the details and scenarios surrounding those experiences that is the deal breaker for some. And, reasonably so if they feel it is.

Sweet potatoes are the best potato.

Sweet potatoes are the best potato.

For sex?

LOUKAS

I prefer purple potatoes.