SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

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.

Thank you for saying this. Common sense.

My anectodal observation of women with higher sexual partner counts is that they are mostly women who enjoy males, and enjoy sex, but are focused and driven and don't have time for the bullshit that many men will bring. So they opt for more casual entanglements with men, such as FWB or ONS type encounters.

Thanks Thumos. While I can understand a little bit about what you are saying about pair bonding, we always have a plethora of first and onlies in the forum. I can't say it doesn't decrease the risk, I can only stay it doesn't insure there isn't a risk.

I would think that it probably goes beyond hormones too, there are many who hold religious beliefs that made the first and only an important aspect to their relationship. And, that religious background MAY have a future effect on infidelity. No idea. The AP in my situation claimed to be a strong Christian and made references to God and other aspects of his beliefs on a daily basis.

I thought I should clarify that aspect of what I was saying because I can't claim to know what the risk factors may be. For some, cheating in the background might be an increase. There may be a day that I am single and I have to disclose that I committed adultery in my past. In my view, the lessons surrounding that and the work I have done on myself makes me feel that there was a decreased risk than prior to my infidelity before. But, that will be open for interpretation, and I am certain if that person has been betrayed in the past, it makes the chances of a relationship moving forward to be less likely.

It's all calculations is all I am saying. There is always going to be risks when it comes to matters of the heart.

[This message edited by hikingout at 10:23 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

HO, there was a lot of good stuff in your post. A lot of things folks have expressed over and over. What I don’t get, is the need to include this.

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.

Really, why? How is it even an argument to justify this?

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

And these weren’t even implied. They were literally stated.

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

Actually according to HuffPo (not exactly a right wing website) the study came via the National Marriage Project, which is no way a conservative think tank.

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.

What you said isn't SJW at all. It's just a statement of fact (correct, IMHO). The SJW part of is is when we shift to "and you're a pig for being upset/offended/dropping her because of her past sexual behavior". By all means, go, participate in gangbangs. Get a face tattoo. Shave you head paint the skin purple. IDC at all. But guess what; I'm not going to decide to date a woman with her shaved head painted purple. No moral judgement at all, in fact, I might smile and be happy that we, as a society, are allowed to decide things like this for ourselves (and think about what my head would look like painted purple). But it's not going to change the fact that, when looking for a wife, that's going to be a dealbreaker for me, it's just not something that I want in a partner. And, unless you (not you personally) are saying "It's not OK to next someone for a purple painted skull, you need to accept them for who they are and their choices", you aren't in the SJW camp. A SJW would tell me that I'm in the wrong for nexting someone based on that, or based on them being trans, or based on them having a body count in the 100's. That's what separates the two, at least in my mind.

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.

I would profoundly disagree with this in my own case. Consensual sex with people hasn't turned me into a freak. Infidelity, however, likely will make it very difficult for me to form a long term pair bond.

I mentioned earlier that I haven't had many relationships. That isn't because I've been incapable. It's because I don't need a man. I have never needed a man for the sake of having a man. Therefore, I could be choosy. I don't feel lonely when I'm single and am therefore not desperate and clinging to any guy who shows me affection. I don't have to have a serious relationship with every man who has been interested in me because I really and truly can live without being in an LTR.

Now, one can call that "difficulty in forming pair-bonds" or one can call that independence. Up to you.

Loukos,

Well, the reason is because when things are in a larger part of history they become a larger part of social programming. As a man, you may not understand how that relates to the societal programming of women.

My mother didn't even know women could have an orgasm until she was almost 40, when it happened to her ACCIDENTALLY. She taught from a standpoint of "it's your wifely duty". She didn't understand why any woman would have recreational sex. When she found out that I was having sex with my boyfriend when I was 17 (who I had been dating for two years, and eventually actually married) she was devastated. She also happened to already be emotionally abusive and she slut shamed me, and said a lot of things that I took and carried into long term shame.

Now, that is one experience, of course, and I could belabor this by all the other things that I was told was not what ladies should think or do, and they are visceral, full of hatred, and confusing. We hide our rapes, our sexual abuse because we are made to feel responsible for it. Our sexuality is often literally formed with shame around it.

My point was that this has been passed down from generation to generation and inherently and fervently taught. I know there are men on this board who received training on "when girls say no they mean no" and all sorts of things like that. But we are not so far out with men and boundaries and what is conditioned as what women are. When you look at the men of the me too movement, so much of this happened in the 80s and 90s when things were of a different acceptance level.

No aspect of me that hates any man or thinks that all men or creepy, or even a man having a preference over who he choses to date. I am not at all saying any of it with judgment. I am just saying that the length of time women have had this engrained is longer, and therefore there are more mixed messages, more abusive stories that have been passed down.

There is a lot that is triggered in some of these contexts where it's fine for a man to fuck whoever he wants and however he wants, but the same is not said for a woman. And, there are quite a few posts in this thread that blatantly say that. There were literally people comparing a woman having consensual group sex with a former rapist. On what planet is that the same thing?

I still don't care if you judge me not good to date. Anything that eliminates compatibility is okay. I don't think it has to be about gender. But, part of the point I was making in my post is it's easy for you to make a list as a man and ignore that some of the things being said to the women were just as inflammatory and elicited some of that reaction. Add it to their long term societal conditioning and you have kindling for a big fire. That's all.

I can recognize that the men of this board are triggered because they are not creepy, but what was being said can be triggering for women too. I don't think that you as a man should be shamed for feeling offended, but I don't think the women should be either. Your post only concentrates on one side of a fence, I could make an equal one that is on the other. But, that's not going to get either of us anywhere. You are not creepy for having your preferences. And, woman can be of quality moral fiber and still enjoy sex, even on a recreational level.

[This message edited by hikingout at 11:11 AM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

Make the other list, HO. Keep in mind, my examples weren’t implied but stated for no other reason than wanting to know sexual history. They were directed specifically at members posting, Will your list say the same?

Also, I don’t need a history lesson. I know it well. I also know that there’s a lot of rewriting that happens. You still haven’t proved how shaming some is acceptable while shaming others isn’t.

And, unless you (not you personally) are saying "It's not OK to next someone for a purple painted skull, you need to accept them for who they are and their choices", you aren't in the SJW camp. A SJW would tell me that I'm in the wrong for nexting someone based on that, or based on them being trans, or based on them having a body count in the 100's. That's what separates the two, at least in my mind.

To some degree I am saying that you should accept them for who they are and their choices, but you don't have to date them.

This is where I'm talking about approach. There's a big difference between nexting someone because you can't wrap your head around one of their choices (maybe not the best wording) and nexting someone while making them out to be bad because of those choices.

Purple hair girl might be great, but you're not into extreme hair. Fine. If you were to say something negative about her as a person because of her hair I would argue that's shaming.

There was slut-shaming on the very first page of this thread:

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?

It wasn't all in my head or in other posters' heads. There is slut-shaming on this thread. And please reread Hikingout's post about the very deeply ingrained history many of us women have with sex-shaming. This is a real thing.

We can acknowledge that slut-shaming is present against women and is not OK, without turning it into an attack against men. We can also acknowledge that for a lot of guys, "creepy" is a trigger word, and we can unpack that more, without turning it into an attack against women. We can leave trans people the hell alone and stop bringing them into this discussion as an example to toss around to make whatever point. We can listen to each other. Speaking personally, I know I could probably stand to listen better.

Also, I don’t need a history lesson. I know it well. I also know that there’s a lot of rewriting that happens. You still haven’t proved how shaming some is acceptable while shaming others isn’t.

I haven't proved that because I don't believe it to be true.

The basis of everything I am saying is that the men shouldn't be shaming the women, and the women shouldn't be shaming the men. We have different experiences and challenges under our own genders. That was my whole point.

You asked me why I would state what I did, I explained it. That's it. Then you say don't give you a history lesson. If you understood it, why would you ask me to explain it?

I’m not going to justify that posters words. They were his. Beyond that I’ve seen countless post opposing slut shaming, by the very people my list targeted. Just because slut shaming is a thing, doesn’t give a right to the extensive shaming done to those who simple care to know a partners sexual past. As you can see, it went well beyond calling someone creepy.

I don’t know if you remember this, silver, but in one these never ending gender war threads you asked me to give examples of sexism here on SI. Well, here’s one.

Pretty sure we're saying the same thing, Loukas. The difference being you're saying only the women here are being sexist. I'm saying that I see it going both ways.

Ok, how about this, HO. What were your intentions by stating men haven’t suffered as long as women have with gender shaming?

"We can acknowledge that slut-shaming is present against women and is not OK, without turning it into an attack against men. We can also acknowledge that for a lot of guys, "creepy" is a trigger word, and we can unpack that more, without turning it into an attack against women. We can leave trans people the hell alone and stop bringing them into this discussion as an example to toss around to make whatever point. We can listen to each other. Speaking personally, I know I could probably stand to listen better."

I very much agree with this.

"The difference being you're saying only the women here are being sexist. I'm saying that I see it going both ways." I agree with this also.

This is where I'm talking about approach. There's a big difference between nexting someone because you can't wrap your head around one of their choices (maybe not the best wording) and nexting someone while making them out to be bad because of those choices.

I'd argue, absent other action, there's absolutely NO difference between them. Nexting her for purple hair, because she enjoys group sex, because I'm insecure, because I'm heading off to the Army. None of it matters, because, the action is the thing, and, end of the day, she's been "nexted". Now, where I can get on board is then telling your friends "she a slut" would be unacceptable (but truthfully, does happen a lot). But, turning it around a little, "RIO, why did you break up with your last GF?" to which I answer "She had sex with over 100 guys, I'm not good with that".. That's just an honest answer. Might it "shame her"? I suppose it might, but that's NOT my fault, I'm being honest, both with her (can't deal with your number) and my friend (couldn't deal with her number). No judgements, no "shaming" from me, it's just not my thing. And while I've never been privy to that conversation, I have been privy to a few "I broke up with her because she put on too much weight". Is that fat shaming? Or is that just telling the truth?

Well, not much more I can say there. Like I said way back when, it’s hard to see, because it’s so acceptable. But stamping sexism on an overall theme because of assumptions and one guys post hardly compares to the bs that was launched at men for valuing sexual past. No, silver, we truly aren’t saying the same thing.

RIO, would you date a woman whose number was equal to your own?

I suppose we aren't then, Loukas, which is really too bad. I was trying to reach out to you and find common ground. It seems you don't want to. I'm not sure why you don't want to. Don't posters work better together than against each other?

Also, I haven't reread all the pages, but exactly how many different individual posters were using the vocabulary on your list? Was it everyone, every woman here, saying those things on your list? Was it two or three, and you're using that to paint every woman on this thread with the same brush? You say that you won't justify that one poster's words who I mentioned, and call it "one poster" (though that's partially because I haven't gone through and compiled a list of other slut-shaming commentary). So why do you expect all women here to somehow be standing for shaming guys for having preferences?

Many of us have said, repeatedly, that we aren't shaming guys (or anyone!) for having preferences. Were those voices invisible to you?