SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Ellie, I'm gonna go way out on a limb and say that even on this epic shitshow of a thread, a guy who cheated on his wife for ten years with ten different women can officially be judged "wrong."

Exactly. Who so effectively cowed so many people here that you're afraid to make obvious value judgments? If you're the betrayed spouse in an infidelity situation, you're even more qualified to make value judgments because you've seen what actual sinful behavior nearly every society has warned about for millennia looks like up close and personal. You understand on a visceral level why this has been anathema for nearly every human civilization ever. I don't understand the weird reluctance to call it what it is. It feels very postmodern relativist to me. I think it's sad.

Thumos honey my post was tooooootally tongue in cheek...

Just my rambling roundabout way stating my point that your SO's sexual history is important, but having the context of that history is also necessary.

LMAO - epic shitshow indeed

Thumos honey my post was tooooootally tongue in cheek...

Oh.

[This message edited by Greeneyesbluezy at 10:51 PM, December 3rd (Tuesday)]

This thread's posters seem to be resisting the idea that we, as a society, can hold multiple beliefs.

1. I have personally had very few sexual partners (4). I like it that way and have never felt drawn to casual sex.

2. I don't want others to be judged by their number though, as I feel that the rush to judgment potentially taints what could otherwise be great relationships between people of differing partner levels.

3. I would never tell someone to accept my standards or beliefs for making their own personal decisions. Choosing a mate is and should be an autonomous choice. I would not want it any other way.

4. Just because I wish people would be more open-minded to differences doesn't mean I would insist they follow my belief system. I simply think more people would find happiness.

Then there's . . .

5. Women have been much more harshly controlled through physical and sexual judgement in all directions--too little, too much, too vanilla, too wild.

6. But men are catching up in the "we are constantly judged" race, a race they do not want to win.

I can hold all of these beliefs at the same time! And I think most of you make good points that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And the popcorn was delicious.

I would never tell someone to accept my standards or beliefs for making their own personal decisions. Choosing a mate is and should be an autonomous choice. I would not want it any other way.

You’re in good company. We’ve said this repeatedly. Where the dividing line seems to lie is between some people who really seem to have a totalitarian mindset that if a man reserves for himself a free will decision that he has a standard about sexual partners and doesn’t wish a partner with a high count this means he is somehow a slut shaming misogynist for having this standard as a free soul endowed with natural rights.

Because I’m a sucker for punishment...

I figured I’d go back and take a good look at a couple posts. Posts that have been used as examples of slut shaming. I do want to make it clear that I’m not speaking for these posters, just what my interpretations are, because it can be a fun exercise...

Silver, I’m not targeting this post at you, just the examples you brought up for discussion.

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". Because if one wouldn't think so, one wouldn't have an issue with admitting to it straight up.

So my understanding is that he doesn’t really put much stock in the idea of slut shaming. That slut shaming is used as an excuse to hide from behaviour that someone isn’t comfortable with about themselves. This is implied because if someone was comfortable with what they did, they wouldn’t need to hide.

I would like to stress, that when I was first provided the quote, the last sentence wasn’t included. That sentence is crucial in understanding the “ bad”.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything in the post, but I really don’t see any slut shaming in it. Really, I got the impression that it was a call to be truthful more than anything.

Next.

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).

Yes he would date someone with his number. He’s saying it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks, we all have a right to view someone as unsuitable and get to choose what we do with that knowledge.

As I understand there would be different condition between dating and marrying someone with numbers similar to his. The only difference is he’d be more mindful, because there is more risk in a marriage and he’d be cautious in who he’d settle with. He believes a higher number would be a negative, but could be outweighed with more knowledge of this person.

Just another caveat, damaged goods isn’t exactly the best word. However, if you believe in the idea that some people truly are sexual damaged, and that’s not to mean irredeemable, just that maybe they still haven’t faced their battle then this might not be as offensive. If you are determined that no one acts out sexually, well, I’ve got nothing for you. But I will concede, damaged goods is a shitty word.

Once again, I don’t see slut shaming. I see a guy who was asked his opinion and shared it honestly. To say it is misogynistic would be to ignore that he also figures his wife might have seen him the same way he described.

So yeah, these were just my interpretations, not my presumptions, nothing more nothing less. Have fun with them, I suppose.

OMG reading some of the comments in this post and this thing is dangerous. I could end up saying some things that would get me in a lot of trouble. I don't know how any of you can be civil with some of the things being said here.

Oh and maybe this will be the threadkiller...

Ha! That’s thinking highly of myself.

Of all the posts objecting to folks who felt sexual history was in fact their business, I really don’t remember one post asking any of these folks their reasons for feeling the way they do. An interesting observation of miscommunication?

Some simply stated why they held their beliefs though. And I know there was one poster early on asking why sexual past mattered, but it was directed more towards her past than the person who held the beliefs reasons.

Civil? This thread?

ETA: fuck, I killed my own threadkiller!

[This message edited by Loukas at 12:57 AM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

*me at work trying to monitor this thread*

So... honestly... I'm not able to keep up at this point. I'm brainfried by selling phones and taking manufacturer trainings all day, and Black Friday and Cyber Monday kicked my ass.

But Bouncing Baby Buddha on a Crucifix Pogo Stick, this thread got derailed worse than a freight train with a million pennies on the tracks.

So.

SO.

What have we established?

Sexual Partner Numbers are neither a high score nor a negative value indicator of intrinsic personality. Check. No problems.

People (Men, Women, Transmen, Transwomen, agender, whatever) have the intrinsic right to deny or accept anyone on any criteria whatsoever. Check. No problems.

Sexual history matters as much as it matters. Sometimes it's a lot. Sometimes it's a little. Sometimes it's contextual. Check. No problems.

RIO was promiscuous and is super down with that fact. Banged lots of ladies and is proud. Check. No problems.

Now, what is being contended?

Whether or not women have an easier time getting a sexual partner than men.

Whether or not certain actions, positions, or philosophies amount to Slut Shaming.

Whether or not women are judged more harshly for their sexual experience.

Whether or not men should work in fear if a woman is a part of their workforce (never alone with a woman syndrome).

Whether misogyny or misandry is being employed.

Whether or not [X] study that supports [X] stance is biased.

Probably a whole lot more, I started skimming at page 25. My eyes were glassing over.

Damn, y'all. I need a drink. Maybe we all need a drink. I wonder, would we be talking to and about each other like this if we were all sitting in the same room, face to face, a cocktail in our hand?

[This message edited by Incarnate at 1:22 AM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

Some sweet potato fries would be better than the popcorn...justsayin

Some sweet potato fries would be better than the popcorn...justsayin

You just go straight to hell.

Sweet potato fries are wonderful. Just sayin.

Don't like 'em? Cool, more for me.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything in the post, but I really don’t see any slut shaming in it. Really, I got the impression that it was a call to be truthful more than anything.

Your explanations makes sense, Loukas, and I see how I could have read them out of context or gotten a mistaken message from them. I'm going to go with your interpretations, simply because I'd rather give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they weren't being unkind.

The following isn't directed at you, Loukas, this is me thinking "aloud":

Still trying to decipher what, exactly, is bothering me... Perhaps in my case, I'm oversensitive to word choice. There was, from my own perspective, a lot of loaded language. "Dog whistle" was the first, ironically enough, followed by (in no particular order) "pity sex", "highly promiscuous", "grievance studies lingo", "sexual gatekeeper", "consequences", "faux outrage", "orbiting", "sharing a female with another man", "the kind of woman", "the type of woman", "cake and eat it too", "avoiding responsibility", "promiscuity", "values", "morals", "buzzwords" ... All words with (for me) certain previously established contexts, especially in discussions around women, men's rights, and feminism. And those were just the first four pages and I didn't even include everything that set me on edge, because that would take too fucking long and involve way too much over-explaining on my part.

Maybe that's my problem. My own over-sensitivities. In which case, it will be my own work to unpack those.

Funnily enough, the only use of "misogynist pig" I saw was a guy imitating an argument he could see two people having. He was introducing that particular "buzzword" into this conversation.

Then of course there were the comparisons between having an active sex life while single with everyone consenting, to cheating, being an OW/OM, doing illegal things like running up debt or roofying someone... Those comparisons bothered me. But I've already mentioned that before.

You might also notice that none of those words I mentioned above have anything to do with lying - almost everyone was in agreement that lies are bad. The language I noticed were all descriptors of a woman's sexual choices, or words commonly used to shut down discussions.

And then there was one poster disclosing her sexual history, only for the very next poster to bluntly say that if his own wife had that particular history, that would be a dealbreaker. Yeah, he was being honest. But was that really a good idea to say that after a poster disclosed that about herself? Why wouldn't she read that as a personal judgment? It would be like a poster disclosing that his wife had made him feel self-conscious about the size of his cock, and then the very next poster saying she would "next!" a guy if his cock was too small. Sure, we could all say she was just stating her preference... but would we really? Or would we call her out on the insensitivity of her comment, knowing that the previous poster disclosed something incredibly vulnerable about himself?

(Anyone who tries to twist my words into accusing me of being a cock-shamer will be pelted with sweet potato fries. Just DON'T.)

And then, there were the posters who began flinging "SJW" around. I certainly wasn't meaning to be one. And I felt badly when I was called it and then found out what I was being called. It was meant as an insult to me, and I wasn't trying to be insulting to the posters who called me that.

Anyway, because I brought up some of the language that was bothering me, I fully anticipate being called "overly sensitive" or "tone policing" or "SJWing" or whatever. Even though I'm more thinking out loud and trying to talk through and figure out what's making me uncomfortable. I gather it's easier to slap the blanket term "SJW" on someone (the same way it's easier to slap "misogynist" on someone, or "creepy", or "man-hating feminist") in an effort to shut them down, than to try to communicate human to human. Meh. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone calls me. Mr Silver called me a bitch enough times (as well as some other words), and I accept that one. I *am* a bitch. Just that, no other descriptors needed.

I really need to find out what to do with my anger.

Heh. I am probably going to regret posting this. Prove me right, SI!

Damn, y'all. I need a drink. Maybe we all need a drink. I wonder, would we be talking to and about each other like this if we were all sitting in the same room, face to face, a cocktail in our hand?

Yes please! I agree we'd all be a hell of a lot mellower.

...If anyone lush-shames me tomorrow for this *side-eyes everyone*...

[This message edited by silverhopes at 2:38 AM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

Ya know, this thread can be summed up (in my warped mind) by two lines from “The Life of Brian” that applies to all sides and genders alike:

Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

Reg: It is symbolic of his struggle against reality

Oh - and a heartfelt thank you to all who have participated in this thread. This has been, without a doubt, one of the best, weirdest, most entertaining threads we’ve had in a long while.

Of course it’s also been a massive time suck too and my productivity has gone straight to hell.

Curse you GoldenR!!! *raises fist in the air* Curse you!!!

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.

It's not just new research. This whole thing shows in a bunch of statistics across the board. Which is in itself quite sad, because it means a lot of modern values we're instilled with lead directly to the opposite of what they are supposed to give us. Happiness. There are very few studies looking into this because it's usually shut down, screamed down, and labeled all kinds of nasty things. Because it goes against the established views.

That isn't even factoring in that these people are risk-takers. That they show they'll jump at opportunities to indulge themselves, mostly thinking in the short term, etc.

So my understanding is that he doesn’t really put much stock in the idea of slut shaming. That slut shaming is used as an excuse to hide from behaviour that someone isn’t comfortable with about themselves. This is implied because if someone was comfortable with what they did, they wouldn’t need to hide.

That's my quote. I'd love to know who quoted this by taking things out of context. Because that's incredibly dishonest and disgusting behavior.

And you're pretty much spot on. Slut-shaming is used as an excuse to hide behavior and defend it once discovered, that prospective partners might not find attractive or acceptable. Further, if someone themselves wouldn't judge their own past as negative and judge themselves, they would feel no need to even hide it. They'd just straight out be honest, which one should be about these things.

The visceral reaction to this, at times, feels like it's happening because this hits a nerve.

[This message edited by Marauder at 5:42 AM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

What you are suggesting is that because of women like this one, women might as well get our bitch asses back into the kitchen.

Not at all what I'm suggesting. I'm actually not suggesting anything, I'm observing that the workplace climate is very different today than it was in the past, some ways better, some ways worse. If anything, the furthest I would go is "innocent until proven guilty" is what I'd like to see returned to the HR/corporate landscape and quite/deliberate/well intentioned (not driven by external/PC motivations) investigations into these things with a default position of "he didn't do it" instead of a default position of "fire him, figure it out later". And before you get upset, that default position "he/she didn't do it" is the standard that we apply everywhere for defendants or the accused, it's only in "workplace poker" that the accusation itself is the conviction.

Then of course there were the comparisons between having an active sex life while single with everyone consenting, to cheating, being an OW/OM, doing illegal things like running up debt or roofying someone

I agree, which is why I tried to take it away from the illegal things. The closest legal comparison would be a guy who flew out to Reno a few times a year to have sex with prostitutes. Legal, yes. Likely to be an issue for a woman looking to date/marry him? Also yes. And that's OK in my book, don't want to marry a guy who sees pros on a regular basis, I don't feel shamed at all. I feel like that's a reasonable response to past history and actions. No laws broken, no "damage" done to the man in this hypothetical, but you'd be well within your rights to decide that this was just something that you didn't want in a partner. Either because you disagree personally with prostitution, because you worry that the guy might not "pair bond" as well after 100 professionals, that you might not "compare well" with professionals, or just that you think it's dirty and don't like it. In fact, you can disagree with it because you don't like prostitutes because they are from plant Zokon and have 3 heads, it doesn't matter at all WHY you don't like it/want it in your relationship, you just don't, and that's OK.

And then there was one poster disclosing her sexual history, only for the very next poster to bluntly say that if his own wife had that particular history, that would be a dealbreaker. Yeah, he was being honest. But was that really a good idea to say that after a poster disclosed that about herself? Why wouldn't she read that as a personal judgment? It would be like a poster disclosing that his wife had made him feel self-conscious about the size of his cock, and then the very next poster saying she would "next!" a guy if his cock was too small.

I live/breathe and hope every day for this kind of honesty. I've said this before, but if we're all just going to give the "PC" answers here, and nobody is going to share how they REALLY feel, well, we maybe should all just pack up and go home. We all (yes, even me) KNOW what the right answer to this question is supposed to be "No, it doesn't matter to me, her body, her choice, and I'd be fine with it". That in no way advances the conversation and it does a disservice to those people who actually want to know "does it matter". The real answer is "yes, it does, between very much so and not all that much, depending on the person". But yeah, you run up a triple digit number and are honest with it, some guys are going to be put off by that and not date you. And that's OK. Stuff like this always makes me think, do you want the REAL answer or the RIGHT answer? Because, in this case (and a lot of others), they are completely opposed to one another. You brought up penis size, which I think is a great proxy for this. Why do you think that men, even after hearing it 10,000 times, are still concerned about it? Because we know, deep down, that it does matter, at least some, to at least some women. And because there's no honesty around it (in general, not from any specific poster), it's impossible to tell if your getting the real answer from the girl telling you, "No, RIO, it doesn't matter that your so small". It might not matter at all to her. It might matter a great deal. But you'll never know because there's only one "right answer".