SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Aah, I can sense the tone lightening and I feel that proxy marital argument catharsis. It's funny, despite being in the Single and Lovin It zen state (for now), my brain (and other parts, lets be real) still craves all that relationship stuff, even argument resolution.

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. 

This is an excellent point and one which IMO effectively counterbalances the "high sex partners = cheaters" argument. My friend, who cheated, did so for this very reason.

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.

Like I said, the old "its not what you said its how you said it", a fundamental communication chasm that exists between the sexes. One which is very difficult to bridge without a lengthy tete a tete and airing of grievances if both sides (or even just one) are emotional about the subject.

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

Actually, funny enough, I would. My argument here isn't about ME feeling that women with high numbers are damaged goods, it's that people have a RIGHT to feel that way and act accordingly.

Now, that said, date and marry are two different things. No doubt, I'd date someone with a number as high/higher than mine, I'm sure I have (I never asked very much, really didn't care). But, for marriage, I'd be a bit more wary. Not saying I wouldn't, but I do think, as others have said, it's a "risk factor", much like watching too much porn or being a recovering alcoholic is a "risk factor" going into marriage. Not saying it would be a "full stop", but it's something I'd have to weigh against other evidence and yes, it would weigh on the "negative" side of the table (as I suspect my number did for my wife).

My argument here isn't about ME feeling that women with high numbers are damaged goods, it's that people have a RIGHT to feel that way and act accordingly.

Wait a minute. So all this time, when we've been saying that we understand that everyone has preferences, the reason why this went in one ear and out the other is because the "correct" answer really is - we're supposed to say that everyone has the right to slut-shame?

Have I been completely missing the point? We're supposed to be saying that it's totally OK that one person (on this thread, it's often guys) views another (in this case, women) as damaged goods because they've slept with a lot of people. In other words, we shouldn't be shaming guys for seeing girls as damaged goods. Has that been the whole point of this thread?

I am not asking to be facetious. I am genuinely alarmed to realize that this might have been the whole point.

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.

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.

Written by Galena K. Rhoades and Scott M. Stanley; The Director of the National Marriage Project is Brad Wilcox.

Stanley is a Research Fellow with Institute for Family Studies; Wilcox is a Senior Fellow; Rhoades writes for them as well.

So, just because they are at a university, it doesn't mean they aren't biased.

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.

Classic - "I'm not going to defend my position, but take a shot at you for "not understanding."

When making an assertion - it's up to you to prove that assertion is correct, not up to me to prove I'm wrong.

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.

Actually, it does take a scientist to "put two and two together" and realize whatever it is you are postulating.

That's called science. What you are doing is called conjecture.

Written by Galena K. Rhoades and Scott M. Stanley; The Director of the National Marriage Project is Brad Wilcox.

Stanley is a Research Fellow with Institute for Family Studies; Wilcox is a Senior Fellow; Rhoades writes for them as well.

So, just because they are at a university, it doesn't mean they aren't biased.

Fair enough. But your entire assertion here is is a version of a logical fallacy known as the genetic fallacy. If you can actually prove bias, I guess that's something. Otherwise, you're just playing to the crowd here. For example, Jonathan Haidt is open about having liberal political opinions, but his research is top-notch and no one would accuse his research of being flawed because of is own personal opinions. He is respected by liberals and conservatives alike. I don't know why we'd go along with your assertion that the research is biased unless you've got empirical reasons to say that.

Classic - "I'm not going to defend my position, but take a shot at you for "not understanding."

When making an assertion - it's up to you to prove that assertion is correct, not up to me to prove I'm wrong.

I think I've been pretty careful to make it clear I'm postulating and not asserting - but in case I've used assertion-style language I'll be clear here that I'm not making an assertion. I'm making opinionated observations based on modal intuition. The studies on porn and Facebook are well-documented. So are studies on pair bonding hormones. The jury's still out and there's more to learn. But it seems pretty clear at this stage that certain activities can dampen the impact of feel-good hormones or even make them backfire.

Anyway the idea that having a high partner count might make a man or woman more prone to being unhappy in a long-term relationship is actually really not rocket science. It's common sense. I can hold that opinion confidently.

If you choose otherwise, what a great country we live in!

Have I been completely missing the point? We're supposed to be saying that it's totally OK that one person (on this thread, it's often guys) views another (in this case, women) as damaged goods because they've slept with a lot of people. In other words, we shouldn't be shaming guys for seeing girls as damaged goods.

Well, I won't speak for everyone, but, yes, I'd say that I would support what you've said above. Nor should we be shaming guys for preferring blondes. Or women for preferring tall guys. We should not be shaming ANYONE for any of their sexual preferences (violent or pedo stuff, of course, excluded). Stupid, well justified/reasoned, open minded, close minded. None of it is ANY of my business. I wouldn't shame a woman for nexting a guy who's too short, I might think that's really stupid and "he's a great guy", but, you know what? That's her right (and, unlike racking up a high "number" it's also totally out of the guys control). I wouldn't shame a guy for saying he only like black women, or white women; again, his choice. Only like thin or thick women.. None of this is ANY of my (or our, IMHO) business.

Now, where I think this rubs people the wrong way, there are some commonly held preferences in both sexes. Guys generally like thin women, for example, which grates on heavier women. Women generally like taller men, which grates on shorter men. And that's understandable, in both cases, why people are upset. But it's not my/our right/duty or, in fact, any of our business to "shame" the guy into liking heavy women or the girl into liking short men. That's ridiculous. And the same thing exists for a high "number". It's none of my business if a guy nexts a girl, or vice versa for a high number. No "protected class" exists for people who've slept with 1, 10, or 100 partners. It's just a personal preference. And, again, I think the reasons this bothers people is because they feel like it restricts their choice or makes them "less datable". Well, it does, for some people, no doubt about it. As do LOTS of other things, in many cases, a LOT more than their number.

The studies on porn and Facebook are well-documented.

And everyone seems to be able to "find" that research when we discuss porn, but many lose their "googlefu" when it comes to the effects of lots of partners on pair bonding. Yes, it's a thing, and yes, in a lot of ways, it does make sense. But it's a statistical likelihood, not a preordained outcome! Yes, sleeping with a lot of people does seem to have an impact on marital happiness. But I can give you a perfect counterpoint, I've slept with lots of people, my W didn't, and she had the affair. See, your research is WRONG! Well, no, it doesn't work that way, a single example doesn't define the trend. Statistics define the trend, and, in the case of partner count the statistics do seem to indicate that "high" is less likely to lead to lasting marriage, and, probably the reason people's "GoogleFu" appears to be broken, "high" appears to be more impactful for women than it is for men (in their martial satisfaction/likelihood of D). And people don't like that at all, because it indicates there is a "difference" between sex for men and sex for women. Which completely goes against the current narrative in society.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 12:44 PM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

Silver, that isn’t even remotely what he said. And I’ve got to admit, for RIO, I was actually shocked by his wording. I really figured that was going to be a nuke.

So does WD object to the study or the people who published it? I haven't read the study so I don't know if I object to it or not but just throwing it away because, "I don't like that one guys politics," doesn't seem very scientific either, attacking the source rather than content.

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.

The way I read that, and concur with what AbandonedGuy has been saying, was that you can only feel shame for something you think is already bad.

If I accidentally cut a guy off in traffic, I would probably be ashamed because I accept that as bad.

If my kids teacher got onto to me about pulling my kid out of school for to long because of a family death, I'd feel no shame because I don't see that as bad.

I think maybe you might be assuming a judgement that wasn't made. Maybe not though, just throwing it out there.

Haha, nvm

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

My point was what I explained. That it's difficult for you, as a man, to understand how ingrained it is and how far reaching it goes, so when something looks inoffensive to you it may not to someone else. But, it goes back generations to even start to trace in every way that women deal with it. That was it.

There wasn't anything malicious or sexist in my intent. I stated something factual, to provide context. Just like I provided something factual for men - that we are in a time where things are getting dangerous for them in a different way. In generations to come, we will have to be careful not to carry down those same shaming of sexuality concepts to men. But, you are making my points way bigger and different than they were intended.

So when you keep telling us "there are studies" that prove what you are saying, but then say this:

I'm making opinionated observations based on modal intuition.

Anyway the idea that having a high partner count might make a man or woman more prone to being unhappy in a long-term relationship is actually really not rocket science. It's common sense. I can hold that opinion confidently.

You are really just giving us your opinion that you THINK this is true, but you don't have any real studies that back up your assertion, yes?

And, btw, what you are doing is called "Appeal to authority."

I don't know why we'd go along with your assertion that the research is biased unless you've got empirical reasons to say that.

Go look at Wilcox's CV. Most of his published (peer reviewed) work is centered marriage, family and how important religion is to those.

So, a guy who is all about family and religion and is a Senior Fellow for a think tank that espouses "family values," isn't biased against extra-martial sex? Shit, they even espouse living together will result in a bad marriage.

It’s really not difficult to understand. It’s actually quite easy, if a person is willing. My gender shouldn’t matter. But for some reason, we need to sit down and have the women are oppressed talk every time this shit fires up.

ETA:Also I suggest being cautious when using the term factual. RIO does that a lot too...

[This message edited by Loukas at 12:52 PM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

without a lengthy tete a tete and airing of grievances

Festivus isn't for another three weeks.

My argument here isn't about ME feeling that women with high numbers are damaged goods, it's that people have a RIGHT to feel that way and act accordingly.

There's a world of difference between saying being with someone who slept with a lot of people creeps you out versus saying those with a high number are more likely to cheat.

The most adamant people against the high partner count are making the latter argument.

So does WD object to the study or the people who published it? I haven't read the study so I don't know if I object to it or not but just throwing it away because, "I don't like that one guys politics," doesn't seem very scientific either, attacking the source rather than content.

When every article from them supports their position that religion and family and marriage are the most important things and that if you have sex outside of marriage your (future) marriage is doomed, well...You have to take their "findings" with a grain of salt.

It's like believing the tobacco companies when they told you that smoking was perfectly healthy. Or PETA putting out a "study" that meat is bad and will give you cancer.

There's a reason medical journals (generally) require the authors to list who/where their funding comes from when people publish articles.

They are funded by an organization has has a clear agenda, and all of their writing support that agenda.

And people don't like that at all, because it indicates there is a "difference" between sex for men and sex for women.

I guess my question is why is this the belief? That it's okay for men to have sex with however many women they want, how they want to do it, etc. But, not women? Where does this double standard originate? And why?

I do think for many this is an antiquated notion. I am under the belief that my husband is older than you, and would not really have a problem with many women's backgrounds sexually. You might find *something* he would object to about something they might share, but I would be pressed to even be able to tell you what that would be. It would have to be pretty out there, I can tell you that.

I know men who would hold the same opinion as you, and I don't fault them for it as it's just part of their own conditioning to hold such a belief. But, even the ones who come to mind would say "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" because they too are sexually conservative, and would want a partner to match that conservative nature. Their numbers are low, and they would want that from the female. I don't see that as a double standard. Rather, it's just a standard, and it's equal.

But, from you Rio - you are kind of the king of trying to bed all sorts of women in your youth. But, you would not accept a woman who had done that as well? You think you can change and become monogamous but they can not? And, have you ever thought of the idea that marrying a woman like that might yield you many sexual experiences that you claim you would die to have? It's kind of Madonna/whore complex sounding, I have to be honest.

[This message edited by hikingout at 1:09 PM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

It’s really not difficult to understand. It’s actually quite easy, if a person is willing. My gender shouldn’t matter. But for some reason, we need to sit down and have the women are oppressed talk every time this shit fires up.

It's because we have been oppressed, Loukas. It isn't because we enjoy making that argument or facing that reality. "Yay, my sexual choices are judged differently from a man's sexual choices. What fun!". No.

It isn't about man-hating or SJW or whatever. It's just the truth.

It's common sense. I can hold that opinion confidently.

I know heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. It's common sense. I can hold that opinion confidently.

There are lots of good reasons for developing an opinion, but common sense may is often not the best support.

[This message edited by sisoon at 1:07 PM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

ETA:Also I suggest being cautious when using the term factual. RIO does that a lot too..

You said that you were aware of the history. It is factual information that women throughout history have been expected to be chaste. I am not spouting off statistics or anything like that. I am not on some feminist train saying this is okay for women, but not for men. That men can't do this, only women can do that. It's not my agenda at all.

I think gender does come into play. I do not have a full idea what it's like for a man. You are a man and you do not have a full idea what it's like for a woman. You are experiencing this thread as a man. So, as a man, you see the things that offend you as a man. If you were looking at this thread through a woman's eyes you would have seen the ways it was offensive for a women. I have no idea on why any of that bothers you, but maybe it's because I am not experiencing this thread as a man.

But, from you Rio - you are kind of the king of trying to bed all sorts of women in your youth. But, you would not accept a woman who had done that as well? You think you can change and become monogamous but they can not? And, have you ever thought of the idea that marrying a woman like that might yield you many sexual experiences that you claim you would die to have? It's kind of Madonna/whore complex sounding, I have to be honest.

Yeah. That. There's a lot of Madonna/whore complex out in the world. Even the idiot I married suffered from it, though why on earth he put me in the Madonna role is beyond me. Maybe he got confused and thought they meant the famous singer.