SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

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.

Does the research hurt your feelings?

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?

I never said that or inferred it.

I said I wanted someone who valued sex like I did.

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?

Perhaps not more likely to be unfaithful but certainly unhappy and less capable of forming stable pair bonds.

Two years ago a widely reported study from the University of Denver that was conducted for a long-term project at the University of Virginia concluded that people -- especially women -- who have multiple sexual parters before tying the knot, report unhappier marriages down the line.

I didn’t make up the study and it was conducted at two major academic institutions. I’m sure there are other studies just like it. And it’s not surprising at all.

I think DevastatedDee and KatyaCA have definitely whittled down the gist of this thread to less than 40 words. In fact to one word.

If as a woman you meet a potential male partner who would reject a woman as unworthy of being in a relationship with him based only on her sexual history, so be it, no hard feelings. Weed these guys out early, never look back and

RUN!

[This message edited by fareast at 8:35 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

If as a woman you meet a potential male partner who would reject a woman as unworthy of being in a relationship with him based only on her sexual history, so be it, no hard feelings. Weed these guys out early, never look back and

RUN!

And if you’re a man or woman who would like to know and someone tries to shame you for asking, screeches at you and launches into ad hominem, RUN! They are likely not a suitable life partner, they are projecting and they are threatened by honesty and transparency. Weed out these men and women early and never look back.

I really don't get it.

I think if you are going to marry someone, you have the right to select whatever criteria you want for it. Add to the fact this question is being asked primarily of Betrayed Spouses, and it's a hard combination.

Then you get a bunch of people piling on about all the other things they don't find acceptable for marrying (fat? One day your spouse is going to hit a different age with different hormones, their body will change, they will get wrinkles, then what? your dick won't work any more? Please. I bet it will work just fine.) I just don't see what any of bringing that all up has to do with anything.

And, then you get men complaining that we are saying shaming/misogyny. I get that men have to deal with that gender issue and "creepy" is triggery for a reason. But, please recognize that women grow up with all these restrictions on what "being a lady" means. Many have been raped, sexually abused, and we have our own issues with being judged based on whether we like sex or do not like sex. If we like it and have tried a lot of things...slut. If we don't love sex then we are sexual gatekeepers. There is no winning that battle either. And, I think that it's easy to look at this thread from a male standpoint and come away with this gender shaming feeling, but fail to see the ways it goes just as deep for the women on the other end. And, really vice versa. Both sexes have a lot of generalizations they have to overcome in order to be an individual just trying to live their own life the best they can. So, let's put a cease fire on that, because when it comes to gender "shaming", men have been put in that circumstance a whole lot shorter of a time. You didn't have to have a "sexual revolution", it's really been in recent times that women were even seen as having sexual needs or having an ability to orgasm.

With the same token, we are living in an age which is hard and really dangerous for males when you have a "me too" movement in which anyone can name you as doing anything and it's automatically seen as true.

Recognize both sexes have their own disadvantages in this arena and stop making it a contest.

And, how many people get it in their head that they missed out on sowing their wild oats that they turn around and cheat later? That's just ask risky it seems like to me. We have lots of firsts and onlies on here in this situation. It doesn't make the cheating right, but it does show that people being virgins when they got together doesn't insure faithfulness. People cheat in happy marriages, people cheat in sucky marriages, people cheat when they have had a lot of partners, and they cheat when they have only had one partner. There is no study that shows any correlation to any of that.

Instead, why don't we just say that we marry based on our own preferences and there is nothing wrong with that? I wouldn't want to marry someone who had sexist beliefs or was hypocritical. If that person had 50+ partners but expected me to have no more than 2. Well, he can just keep looking, can't he? There is no problem there, because his sensibilities are never going to match mine. I don't care if GoldenR doesn't want to be with someone who did a gang bang. I haven't been in a gang bang, but I would have an equal right to say I wouldn't want to date someone who says that stuff. No offense to GoldenR, seeing how we are both married to other people who obviously share our view points more.

I think sexual history should be open for discussion to whatever extent the two people want it to be. And it can play however large of a role in deciding to be with someone. Having similar sensibilities is part of being compatible. This shouldn't be a male/female stand off. I want to know my partner's history to a certain extent, and I have been free and open always in sharing mine. It's individual, it's sacred, and I don't see how it can even be a debate as to what is right for each and every individual represented here. Find a virgin if that's what you need to feel safe. Find a lady who enjoys crazy monkey sex, if you want crazy monkey sex. It's individual, so it can't even be placed as a group decision which is what is happening here.

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.

HAHA! Yep. Very true.

I don't care if GoldenR doesn't want to be with someone who did a gang bang. I haven't been in a gang bang, but I would have an equal right to say I wouldn't want to date someone who says that stuff.

Damn...I guess I'll go return the ring.

[This message edited by GoldenR at 8:44 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

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.

Funny thing; I am active in my local tabletop gaming community (DnD), and my favorite character to play has a thing for nuns. It's played for constant comedy relief. I am over 30 (I turn 35 in about a month) and I've only had one consensual partner.

So, I suppose, off to the nunnery with me, lol

I had more to say, mostly in response to hikingout, but I am out of time. Gotta get the kids up and off to school, then get in to work. Perhaps I'll respond again this evening.

Does the research hurt your feelings?

Care to cite said "research?"

Just claiming "new research" doesn't make your point valid or correct.

Two years ago a widely reported study from the University of Denver that was conducted for a long-term project at the University of Virginia concluded that people -- especially women -- who have multiple sexual parters before tying the knot, report unhappier marriages down the line.

Ah...This is from the Institute for Family Studies.

Which is a conservative think tank. Do you think they would be all for premarital sex or against it? Hmm....

All of their "reports" are not peer reviewed, and are just published on their website (or books). Funny how they all say, don't have premartial sex with anyone other than your future spouse, stay married (to raise more healthy kids), published the book "Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys".

Everything screams Christian Conservative.

Oh, and they don't disclose who funds them.

Not exactly an unbiased source of "research."

Oh, and go look at their other website: (No soliciting)

Lots of "divorce is not great" stuff on there. Not, out and out, "don't ever divorce," but it leans heavily to - Divorce is Bad.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 12:53 PM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

Funny thing; I am active in my local tabletop gaming community (DnD), and my favorite character to play has a thing for nuns. It's played for constant comedy relief. I am over 30 (I turn 35 in about a month) and I've only had one consensual partner.

Funny thing for me, too. I just started playing D&D again for the first time in 20 years, and am enjoying it immensely. There's an "acting out" element that I find very therapeutic.

sorry, once again it hung up while posting. Sorry.

[This message edited by KingofNothing at 9:24 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

Jumping back in after calming down a bit.

To answer the question in the title, I think discussion of sexual history is totally fine. If it matters to you, ask. They don't have to tell you, but you can choose to walk away from the relationship. Personally I'd rather my partner know about my history. If it's going to be an issue for them I don't want to waste my time.

My reactions were to some posters devaluing women. I'm sorry, but you can't compare finding out your partner participated in group sex and finding out that your partner is a rapist. Those are two very different things. She's also not a criminal, a drug addict, or a cheater. A woman who has had sex is just a woman who has had sex. She hasn't hurt anyone. Her intrinsic value as a human being isn't less than that someone who has had less sex. She could be a wonderful person who would make an excellent partner.

Big but here, she doesn't have to be your partner. You're not bad for not wanting to date her. It comes down to what you are personally comfortable with. Some people are uncomfortable with casual sex. Some people have been hurt in the past and it affects what they need to feel safe in future relationships. That's totally fine.

In my opinion it's the approach that matters. Some posters stating as fact that most men see women with a high number of sexual partners as undesirable. This is where I brought up age. Many younger people do not have that attitude. There's a shift towards destigmatizing sexual behavior. That doesn't mean dating someone if you're uncomfortable with their past. It means recognizing that they're fine, but you are uncomfortable. Mind movies, insecurities, anxieties about future behavior, those happen. It's just not the other person's fault.

Call it SJW, but it's the way society is going. I personally think it's a huge positive for so many reasons.

^^^ I agree with that. Just because you (general “you”) are uncomfortable with a behavior doesn’t mean it’s the behavior that is bad. It doesn’t mean you being uncomfortable is bad either but I think that’s the perception given by some of the responses here—that it’s the sex acts, and thereby the person engaging in them, that are bad and thus justifying being uncomfortable. Nobody has to justify being uncomfortable, but nor should women who like sex in certain ways or with multiple partners etc. feel they have to justify their behavior either. It’s just a mismatch and better to find that out early.

I dont think any of my posts said anything like what you guys are talking about.

I dont think any of my posts said anything like what you guys are talking about.

Don't take it personally. At this point with 25 pages, there are lots of others who are making that point - directly or implied.

Example:

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?

Perhaps not more likely to be unfaithful but certainly unhappy and less capable of forming stable pair bonds.

Not to mention the many previous incarnations of this topic.

And, it's in General, so not necessarily everything is directed at you.

WD, I don’t think the ladies need saving here. They’ve fought their own battle up until now. Also, I’m in my thirties, found many women with low sexual partners, not one came from a nunnery. Turns out, some women prefer men with lower sexual partners as well. Who’da thunk it.

I just want to say that I didn’t feel like anyone was talking down to me as a woman, or shaming me or anything like that. I also don’t think GoldenR said or implied anything like that. I didn’t get that takeaway from any of his posts.

The way I read some of these posts is that everyone has their own personal view and can make their own decisions about who they want as their life partner. Basically, live and let live. No one is bad or unworthy for having done or not having done things and no one is bad for wanting someone different.

I wasn't aware that the University of Virginia or University of Denver were "Christian Conservative" institutions, but I guess I'll take your word for it. It's my understanding that there've been other studies on pair bonding and the impact on hormones from multiple partners, but I'm not going to GTS that for you. There's plenty of info out there. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together and realize that our brains' own "Dr. Feelgood" chemicals would have a weakened impact over time if the brain gets inured to them from over-exposure. In fact, this seems to be the case with other research on how porn affects men's brains and how Facebook "like" buttons cause depression and so on. Wouldn't most women like to know if a man has a rabid porn habit? Wouldn't that tell a woman something about a man's suitability as a life partner? In fact, this is the subject of many JFO threads, if I'm not mistaken.

[This message edited by Thumos at 10:09 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

From the very first page:

Edit, also "slut-shaming" is just that much hot air. It's pretty much just a dog whistle for "don't judge me for my behaviour no matter what I did, even though I myself know it was bad".

"Bad" is quite a strong judgment to make, isn't it? I might even say it matches the definition of slut-shaming.

Then the many examples making comparisons between a girl consensually participating in a gangbang and a guy roofying and raping someone, or going to jail, or any other unlawful thing, well... That's pretty much painting a girl in a gangbang in a criminal light, isn't it?

Again, as I've said before, everyone has preferences. There is nothing wrong with having preferences. It's how we talk about the people we don't prefer. And making such judgments on a forum where you know at least some posters have had a sexual past like the one you're describing as "bad" or implying is on par with criminal activities... Well that's rather provocative, isn't it?