SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

On creepy...I don't really understand that term associated with being picky regarding a potential partner's sexual history.

Wouldn't creepy be if I only dated females with sky high numbers that everyone knew participated in gang bangs bc I know I'll get laid easier?

Wouldn't creepy be if I only dated females with sky high numbers that everyone knew participated in gang bangs bc I know I'll get laid easier?

You're making an assumpyion that just because a woman has participated in a gang bang, you have an easier chance to get laid. She might not want to sleep with you.

As you can see from my number, I'm a long-time member. I've seen over these many years a few of these threads. I'm old, anyone asks me for a rundown of my sexual history - I'd have no problem telling him to get f'd and that would be the end of that.

You're making an assumpyion that just because a woman has participated in a gang bang, you have an easier chance to get laid. She might not want to sleep with you.

That's not what my point was. My point was that to me, that would be more in the creepy category than the previous situation where the word was used.

Since this thread has come back to life, I figured some folks might appreciate a quick recap of descriptors that were offered up to those who consider sexual history in a mate.

Most of these were directed solely at men. Some were directed at men and women. Surprisingly, the vast majority of women who said sexual history was important them, didn’t receive replies and none of those replies were by men using these words.

Some of these words were repeated by many posters. Some only by one. Some were repeated numerous times. Some only used once.

Really disgusting example of slut shaming

Judgemental

Intolerant

Slut shaming

Sanctimonious

Ignorant

Misogynist

Presumptuous

Offensive

Holier than thou

Mr. Judgy Judgerton

Mr. Wonderful

Discriminatory

Problematic

Disturbing

Jerk

Creepy

Stupid

Uneducated

Over 40

Insecure

Then there was that one guy that shit on dudes for a few hundred words a handful of pages ago.

Anyway. Considering it was shaming that set this thread off, I found this interesting.

[This message edited by Loukas at 1:42 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

Over 40

As someone in his early 30s, I find this very offensive. Shame on whoever said that.

If your past is a deal breaker for some people, why hide it. If they don't want to be with you because of it, you likely won't want to be with them for thinking that way. That's fine, dating is to see if you're compatible with someone. Find someone who doesn't care. You don't have to shame the person with a bunch of buzzwords.

If your past is a deal breaker for some people, why hide it. If they don't want to be with you because of it, you likely won't want to be with them for thinking that way. That's fine, dating is to see if you're compatible with someone. Find someone who doesn't care.

Zoom has distilled the thousands of words in this thread into a simple, no drama recommendation and gives props to men and women who are strong enough to not shame themselves over someone else's preferences.

Accept who you are. Own your choices in life. Have the strength of your convictions about what you find acceptable or desirable. Don't conflate someone else's opinions on what they prefer or don't, into an exercise in self shaming. Allow others to have opinions that may be counter to yours.

If you have had many partners or sexual experiences and see that as normal and healthy, don't let someone else's views cause a shame reaction. Move on to someone that shares your views.

[This message edited by DIFM at 6:09 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

I said it a dozen or so pages ago: we choose to feel shame. It's not something forced on us, WE opted to feel it rather than ignore or accept and move on from whatever created it. Anyone even kinda sorta into preaching self-empowerment should already understand this.

If your past is a deal breaker for some people, why hide it. If they don't want to be with you because of it, you likely won't want to be with them for thinking that way. That's fine, dating is to see if you're compatible with someone. Find someone who doesn't care. You don't have to shame the person with a bunch of buzzwords.

Zoom has distilled the thousands of words in this thread into a simple, no drama recommendation and gives props to men and women who are strong enough to not shame themselves over someone else's preferences.

Accept who you are. Own your choices in life. Have the strength of your convictions about what you find acceptable or desirable. Don't conflate someone else's opinions on what they prefer or don't, into an exercise in self shaming. Allow others to have opinions that may be counter to yours.

If you have had many partners or sexual experiences and see that as normal and healthy, don't let someone else's views cause a shame reaction. Move on to someone that shares your views.

I said it a dozen or so pages ago: we choose to feel shame. It's not something forced on us, WE opted to feel it rather than ignore or accept and move on from whatever created it. Anyone even kinda sorta into preaching self-empowerment should already understand this.

There we go. That wasn't so hard was it...and it only took 23 pages!

Wouldn't creepy be if I only dated females with sky high numbers that everyone knew participated in gang bangs bc I know I'll get laid easier?

I discussed this thread with my WH and asked his take on it. He is not known for his sexual discernment or sexual finesse, I believe “get in and get out” was his catch phrase. I wouldn’t date him when I was 18 because I hadn’t even had my first kiss yet (busy with university etc. Had no time for relationships) and he was too promiscuous for me.

Anyway, his reaction to the whole scenario was “at least you know she is a goer” 😳

And honestly I don’t actually have an issue with the number of women he has been with, it is his lack of care in choosing them and general attitude of disrespect . He still refers to a woman who he had booty calls with in his teens as “Hockey Puck” like that is her name. And she is now a well respected professional!

Anyway, I think sex like religion and politics is too much of a minefield subject with the potential to trigger and cause real conflict. Especially on a site where sexual betrayal is the experience of all the participants (on both sides). Why don’t we just agree to disagree and everyone have a lovely day. 😬

[This message edited by NorthernMSB at 6:38 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

Anyway. Considering it was shaming that set this thread off, I found this interesting.

It's kind of the "new PC". Anything that you don't like, shame it, anything that you do like and someone else doesn't agree with, said or not, is the "other kind of shame" that is unacceptable. It's kind of interesting that there are pages upon pages of "your a creep if you care" and "your a pig if you drop someone for this reason" and I don't recall a single poster on the other side of saying anything about "shaming" an unsuitable partner for their past sexual history at all. I think we all agree that a woman disclosing her past and you saying "your a slut and I don't date sluts" would be wrong; and THAT is "shaming" her. Choosing not to date her because of things in her past that you cannot/do not accept, sexual or not, is NOT shaming her, that's just actions coupled with consequences for past behavior. Right or wrong, "shame" isn't the goal, or even a secondary goal, when someone does this, it's simply deciding what's right for them. Might it cause shame? Or course. Is that the goal? No, I can't see a situation where "shame" is the goal and that's the way you go about it. Shaming, to me, would be telling your friends "She's an easy lay", calling her a slut, or some other action that's not a direct consequence of his/her past.

Shame is the heart of most of the "new world", it's the number 1 weapon of the social justice warrior. Your "shaming me" by not dating me because I'm overweight, you misogynistic pig, I'm telling all my friends. Well, no, I wasn't shaming you, I was making decisions for myself and I don't find that attractive. But what you are doing is ACTUALLY the shaming part, you are shaming me for my preferences in body size (or color, or gender, or anything else). There was a poster many pages back talking about dating a trans individual, if you read those posts, there are, over and over, inferences to the "shaming" that the trans individual would feel because a lot of people responded that they would not date someone who's trans. But, funny thing is, not a single person ACTUALLY shamed a trans person! It was shaming for perceived shame. And that sentence, that's the heart of it; it's like "precrime" (Minority Report), arrested because you hypothetically might do something. Thing is, none of us actually DID anything, and a lot of us were Shamed (capital S!) relentlessly for saying that we only wanted to date those of the opposite gender.

The crux of many an argument like this can really be summed up nicely by a book that I'm sure many of us have read:

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

Anyway, his reaction to the whole scenario was “at least you know she is a goer” 😳

Your husband should be applauded for his honesty (at least in this case). Now, if you care to ask him, would he consider seriously dating/marrying that person? Or would he be good with it for some fun, but not OK with it for a LTR?

I think the thing that's saddest about this, because of this now being socially unacceptable to say in public, a ton of people, if you asked them in person, would probably say something like "No, of course not, I'd be fine with it" because that's the "only right answer" to the question. Anything else risks getting (yes, shamed) labeled a misogynist/creep/Boomer/etc. So if you polled 100 guys in person, I suspect you'd get a wildly different answer than if you polled those same 100 guys totally anonymously. The unfortunate thing, because of all the lying, people are making decisions based on that perceived "it's fine with every guy I know" when, in fact, it's almost certainly not the case. When there's only one right answer, it's not really worth asking the question (which is why I like your H's answer so much, he didn't give the right answer). Tying this back to infidelity for a moment, it's like asking "How was the AP in bed?". Well, I can promise you, some are "incredible/best ever" and some are "awful", but very, very few people, true or not, will give the first answer (unless they are already D'ed or exiting the relationship). The truth? Who knows, but there's little reason to even ask because we all know what the answer will be.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 6:48 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

Most of these were directed solely at men.

Great observation, but that’s usually the way it is. If you’re a man and you try to make a series of logical observations you’re going to get bombarded with this kind of thing. You’re “old” “judgmental” “sanctimonious” “creepy” “insecure” etc.

What’s really striking is it sounds a lot like what WW’s say to BH’s to try to bully them and gaslight them.

My attitude is ZFG.

Anything else risks getting (yes, shamed) labeled a misogynist/creep/Boomer/etc. So if you polled 100 guys in person, I suspect you'd get a wildly different answer than if you polled those same 100 guys totally anonymously. The unfortunate thing, because of all the lying, people are making decisions based on that perceived "it's fine with every guy I know" when, in fact, it's almost certainly not the case.

Correct! This is why I called out the shaming of men in this thread earlier as having totalitarian motivations. It doesn’t matter in the end, though: Samizdat gets the word around.

Rideitout: He would have no problem marrying her. And again, I know he has a "sex number" in the hundreds and honestly, I still married him. I might have been a late bloomer sexually but I have more experience with respect to perhaps what people would consider to be more outlandish sexual acts. If it is consensual and doesn't include anything illegal then why not try it once? I have done things in the heat of the moment, all actually within the boundaries of committed monogamous relationships, that after the fact thought it wasn't my thing.

My husband might have had hundreds of encounters but they certainly contained no finesse or in most cases anything beyond get in and get out. Lets just say, in our marriage all his sexual experimentation has happened with me and for at least 10 years and maybe more I CONSTANTLY had to point out the important erogenous zones on my body...yes, he did NOT know his way

around female anatomy. It is not a turn on to hear "Is this it?" all the time! lol

Anyway, he would not have an issue marrying a trans woman, a woman with TONS of sexual experience, a woman with no sexual experience, as long as he got off and they were not fat. (his characterization)

[This message edited by NorthernMSB at 7:52 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

we choose to feel shame

Absolutely! We choose to feel whatever we feel.

However, for me, it's not about what I feel. It's about the implication of someone else's judgement of me. Long history of assault and rape based on slut shaming. She's had lots of sexual partners. She must always be up for it with anyone. I'll have a go with her. She doesn't really mean, No. It's an issue of physical safety for women. I don't understand why some men are so reluctant to even consider that.

I don't feel shame for anything I've done. If someone judges me for anything, I don't want him or her in my life. My feelings aren't going to protect me from being assaulted by someone who has decided I'm easy based on my (possible) sexual history.

They’re risk takers and have high impulsive characteristics

And new research seems to suggest they have difficulty forming long term pair bonds, particularly women who had higher partner counts. The reasons why have not been pinned down yet scientifically, but it probably has something to do with a “weakening” of the reinforcing nature of pair bonding hormones.

If you’re a man and you try to make a series of logical observations you’re going to get bombarded with this kind of thing. You’re “old” “judgmental” “sanctimonious” “creepy” “insecure” etc.

Exactly what is that "logical observation?"

The assumption that because a person (usually the woman in these threads) had a lot of sexual partners in the past means they are more likely to be unfaithful?

Guess what? One has NOTHING. ZERO. ZIP. NADA to do with the other.

That's exactly what these threads are about - trying to figure out what future partners will/will not be unfaithful.

If you are over 30, and most people who have been married and divorced are, let alone in your 40s or 50s, and you think you are going to find someone who's only had one, or no, sexual partners, good luck. You might try your local nunnery.

ETA: Well, look at that...exactly what I was saying about said, logical observation.

And new research seems to suggest they have difficulty forming long term pair bonds, particularly women who had higher partner counts. The reasons why have not been pinned down yet scientifically, but it probably has something to do with a “weakening” of the reinforcing nature of pair bonding hormones.

Nice move there.

[This message edited by WornDown at 8:02 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

I find it fascinating that those who are so against shaming someone, and being judgemental, have spent a lot of time on this thread shaming people and judging them.

Exactly what is that "logical observation?"

Here’s a basic logical observation that has been repeatedly derided in this thread:

Anyone has a right to ask. Anyone has a right to say I’m not going to answer that. The person who asked can simply move on to someone who shares their values and who is prepared to be honest and transparent.

Now that’s not hard to understand. It is common sense. No one’s rights have been violated in that formulation. No one has been slut shamed. No one has been “judgmental.”

But the simple statement of this basic formulation has repeatedly elicited shrieks of despair, wailing, donning of sack cloth, gnashing of teeth, wild-eyed accusations of misogyny, and implicit critiques of so-called “toxic masculinity.”

[This message edited by Thumos at 8:07 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]