SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Thank you abandoned guy. Well said.

And also damn,now I want those potatoes. I haven’t had those in a while.

Oh and thanks for some fries silver! I am hungry!

[This message edited by hikingout at 11:09 AM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

RIO, "that's just how it is" isn't sufficient. Nothing about society would ever change if that's how we all thought. Challenge that stuff and call it out when it's bullshit.

Honestly, why I should give a fuck about adhering to some double-standard that I'm on the wrong end of is beyond me, so I don't really care how society "values" my sexuality. It's mine and I will do as I wish with it. Love it, hate it, that's cool, but it's not anyone else's body but mine. I would FAR rather live the way I wish to live than try and adhere to some kind of rules that I don't believe in in order to please some phantom man who may one day come along and judge me as unworthy.

And sweet potatoes are an abomination.

The way I always made them was to slice them super, super thin and pan fry them in corn oil, dust them with either garlic salt or chicken Ramen noodle seasoning packets, and serve hot. The big brown potatoes were best for that; the red ones didn't fry right and stayed mushy. Sweet potatoes were just horrifying. Bake or mash red potatoes; the brown ones are for frying.

I don't think there's anything more of substance I can add to the thread discussion. I've made my feelings plain, and they were not really argued with, so I assume they were generally well received.

Except my hatred of sweet potatoes.

I feel like someone should represent how great red potatoes are in mashed potatoes. 3 lb of red potatoes mashed with a brick of cream cheese and half a stick of butter, some garlic, and additional spices. I'm kissing my fingertips just thinking about it. Hand mash it, too, you want it to be a little thick.

AG - I am drooooooling. That sounds delicious!!

Also fwiw, I love all potatoes except for sweet potatoes.

RIO, "that's just how it is" isn't sufficient. Nothing about society would ever change if that's how we all thought. Challenge that stuff and call it out when it's bullshit.

It IS bullshit. I've never claimed otherwise. There are biological reasons for it is as close to I come at justifying it. But it's bullshit, absolutely no question about it.

Let's try a different exercise. Let's say little RIO comes up to me and asks "Hey Dad, I'd like to marry a supermodel one day!". OK, I now have two options.

Feel good option:

1) You can do anything you want Little RIO, and people will love you for who you are. Continue playing video games all day, eating potato chips and not doing well in school and someday, you too will marry a supermodel.

or the "real world" option:

2) Well little RIO, supermodels are in extremely high demand, and they typically only marry men who are very wealthy and take very good physical care of themselves. So, yes, you can marry a supermodel, but you better hit the books, put down the chips and get a gym membership and work towards a high paying job.

Now is it right that supermodels almost exclusively marry rich and handsome men? In my eyes, sure it is, and if you too want to marry a supermodel, you should make plans to be the "kind of guy" that most other supermodels marry. No, it probably wouldn't make little RIO feel good to know that there was a lot of sacrifice and work involved in marrying a supermodel, he'd probably like the "You can be an astronaut too!" answer a lot better. But that answer is NOT reality. And I don't do "unreality/feel good but wholly ineffective" answers, I just don't. Certainly not with adults, and not even children once they reach an age old enough to actually understand; I'm gonna give the realest answer that I can find. And, in this particular topic, yes, for men and women, being promiscuous IS/DOES have an effect on your future dating options. And yes, that effect is much more significant for women than it is for men. And no, that's not "fair". But that's the way it is, perhaps not how it SHOULD BE, but is. And I much prefer to deal in the "is" rather than the "would like it to be".

So, sure Dee, it's bullshit that guys do this, just like it's bullshit that women select men based on income, height and a full head of hair. All bullshit. Now what? What has my "admission" of bullshit done/how has it changed anything (which, BTW, you'll notice if you read back, I've so much as called it bullshit many, many times)? Is this question "is it bullshit" (to which I'd answer yes, with the caveat that there is some research that shows it does have an impact) or is the question "Is this how people behave/does it matter to some people" (to which I'd also answer, without caveat, yes, it matters a LOT to some people).

The other problem I have with it is it does in fact perpetuate "it's okay for men to judge women sexually" but not judge themselves or other men on the same basis. YES it exists, rampantly. YES it happens on the daily. That doesn't make it right. It creates this whole issue for women that I don't think you can even begin to understand.

To this I'd say I think I understand it quite well. Because women "bullshit" judge men too. Is it OK for a woman to judge a man because he doesn't have a hot car/fat wallet, 6'3" tall with rippling muscles? Because, trust me, they do. Do women who aren't wealthy want to date wealthy men? Sure they do, they'd be fools not to have that as a selection criteria, IMHO. Do women with dead end jobs only want to date "movers/shakers"? Sure, again, with good reason. We do not have to want to date ourselves, there's not requirement for that anywhere in the dating manual. ;) I like blondes, I've got black hair. Bullshit? Judging someone with black hair as less attractive than a blonde when I, myself, have black hair!? Oh, the hypocrisy of it all. It just doesn't work that way, we have different criteria (all of us) for what we like in a mate, and those criteria are in no way bounded by what we like in ourselves. I don't want to date me! No way, no how. And I doubt my W wants to date herself either.

Let's do a little thought experiment here (and a bit more on topic). My W and I get a D. She's out dating again, and meets a nice guy who was recently divorced after he cheated on his wife. My wife "nexts" him immediately. Is she within her rights to do so? Sure, in fact, if she called and asked me what to do, that's exactly what I'd tell her to do, drop him and find someone else. Just because she did something in her past does NOT mean she has to accept that in a partner. Does it make her a hypocrite? Perhaps, you could argue that, but it's also a fine line, I've done lots of things in my past that would be an immediate "no" for me if I met a women who'd done the same. Again, I don't want to date myself, not even a little bit! ;)

[This message edited by Rideitout at 11:59 AM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

I will speak more from personal experience here.

IMO it WAS an issue between my ex and myself. My ex had more experience than I did. Whereas I look at my parents (about the same) siblings (about the same) her parents (about the same.) It is not really what you do in the bedroom (ex was no great shakes there, actually) but the posturing outside of it. Speaking the same language.

On the male side, there are players who enjoy deflowering or taking advantage of naive younger women/girls. Those guys are huge assholes. I have daughters. They will be warned.

Guy at a local college was featured in a newspaper article. Had been undergrad for 10+ years. Perpetual student, ha ha. Came out during the article was he was using his "access" to college scene to "date" the incoming freshmen girls each year. Disgusting to me anyway. I'm sure he had "game" being on that scene so long. Eventually they forced a diploma on him and kicked him out.

On the other side, yes there are issues with a more experience woman respecting a less experienced man. May work some of the time. But it is a significant relationship issue, and I would warn men with less experience.

I'm confused, Striver. What exactly was the issue between your ex and yourself? Just that she had had more sex than you?

What would you say to warn men? What would you be warning them about? This is completely out of sheer curiosity, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or seem like I'm setting you up, or anything.

How about option 3:

"Hey little RIO, women are not status symbols. You shouldn't choose women solely on what they look like because the best wife you can have is one that loves you, appreciates you, and has a lot in common with you so that you'll never get bored."

Jesus Christ, RIO.... You truly are something else.

To this I'd say I think I understand it quite well. Because women "bullshit" judge men too. Is it OK for a woman to judge a man because he doesn't have a hot car/fat wallet, 6'3" tall with rippling muscles? Because, trust me, they do.

The difference is, as a woman, I would tell you this is wrong. Yes, it's true it exists, but it's wrong and I would never condone it or justify it. I don't condone dating someone for their height, their wallet, or anything other than who that person is. If a friend disclosed to me she was dating someone because they had money, I am going to guess she is demoted in my mind. I just lost total respect for her. I don't want to affiliate myself with someone like that. I would either demote them significantly in my life or end the friendship altogether depending on the circumstance.

But, sure it exists, I didn't say it didn't.

As for the rest of what you are saying, it goes back to this. Yeah, people have all these standards. You can next people for whatever it is you want to, noone is saying anything against free will. I would argue every preference is singular and if you spent enough time having a date with someone there would be possibly things that mitigated something you would normally be concerned with.

But, let's use you as an example. You said earlier in one of your posts you were promiscuous, your wife was not. She had an affair, you did not. While that part was rare...here is the part that wasn't. You spent years being very unhappy with your sex life, correct? Do you see how your sensibilities didn't line up? Sure, you could have married a more sexual being, it might have come with the risks of cheating. I suspect the biggest risk is that if you believe what you just wrote a post or two up that she wouldn't have the same value. That's where that line of thinking goes crazy.

Sure, people can dismiss others for whatever they want to dismiss them for, but without taking the bigger picture in mind you do run the risk of getting with someone you are less compatible with or missing out on someone great. That's up to each individual to decide. But the whole double standard thing? It's wrong. It's baseless, it's got to go.

And, in this particular topic, yes, for men and women, being promiscuous IS/DOES have an effect on your future dating options. And yes, that effect is much more significant for women than it is for men. And no, that's not "fair". But that's the way it is, perhaps not how it SHOULD BE, but is. And I much prefer to deal in the "is" rather than the "would like it to be".

And there's our difference. I rebel against "how it is" and live "how it should be" because I am not dependent upon society approving of me. I also am not desperate to find a relationship and I'm sure that affects my feelings on it. I am and have always been complete unto myself. I don't discount the beauty of love and when I'm in it, I don't wish to not be. However, given that partnering up is an option and not a requirement for me, anyone's opinion of my sexual history is pretty much irrelevant to me. No one is required to approve of me and I am not required to give a damn when they don't.

And really, wanting to marry a super model isn't anything to do with this. Anyone who grows up determined to marry a super model isn't viewing women as individual people but as objects that can be categorized and obtained.

How about option 3:

"Hey little RIO, women are not status symbols. You shouldn't choose women solely on what they look like because the best wife you can have is one that loves you, appreciates you, and has a lot in common with you so that you'll never get bored."

Thank you. I just wanted to quote this to see it written again.

So let's summarize:

Women who have a high number are damaged goods (Thumos); men are not, they can be redeemed (RIO)

Women and men are held to a different standard . It is what it is. Tough shit.(RIO)

Wow. Just wow.

To this I'd say I think I understand it quite well. Because women "bullshit" judge men too. Is it OK for a woman to judge a man because he doesn't have a hot car/fat wallet, 6'3" tall with rippling muscles? Because, trust me, they do. Do women who aren't wealthy want to date wealthy men? Sure they do, they'd be fools not to have that as a selection criteria, IMHO. Do women with dead end jobs only want to date "movers/shakers"? Sure, again, with good reason.

Speaking for myself, no. I would never date a man for his money. I dated a millionaire for a short period of time and we broke it off because we have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common and could not relate to each other. I am not interested in using a man like that. If I don't like my dead end job, I go forth and procure a better one. If I'm unhappy financially, I work to do better and give myself some relief. No man exists to take care of me. I take care of me. This isn't ye olden days when dating meant that I'd have had to choose who would take care of me for the rest of my life and pray that he wouldn't be abusive and horrible as the years went by. I choose men for relationships based on who they are as people and how I feel about them. Not what they can do for me financially or what my friends will think or any other way less important thing.

And no, that isn't remotely okay, to view a man as your own personal wallet and try to procure him for selfish reasons.

[This message edited by DevastatedDee at 1:26 PM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

Yes, it's true it exists, but it's wrong and I would never condone it or justify it.

I think this is where we are talking past one another. I don't condone it. There is some justification for it (selecting a partner, of any sex, who hasn't had a ton of sex with other people), but, even that, let's say it's "unjustified" for the sake of argument. So, just to be clear, for the sake of this discussion, I neither condone nor justify it in any way.

OK, yeah, we fixed RIO, he no longer condones or justifies it, yeah! But it doesn't matter at all, because, in reality, people are going to DO IT. That's why I drew the parallel to men being wealthy, or tall, or ripped, or anything else. Sure, we can all sit here like college professors and say "You shouldn't do that". And frankly, I think that most of us agree, it's not a great "rating criteria" for selecting a partner (although, again, there is research that shows it's somewhat important, but let's leave that aside for this discussion). So, let's just say we all agree, it's not justified, and I wouldn't condone it if someone else did it.

Phew, we're there right? No, because what I think matters exactly 0. People are going to do it, men are going to judge women based on their sexual past (and to a lesser extent, women judge men on theirs). That's just a statement of fact; no, maybe not all men, maybe not even "most", but some. And, of course, we all KNOW that which is why if you look at broad statistical data, women always report less sexual partners than men (even in totally anonymous studies). And frankly, I feel like we all know why it's more important to some men that a woman has a "low number". Is it logical? Let's just accept that "no, it's not" and move on. None of that changes the reality of the situation. Sure, I suppose I can personally go out and start my own "man shaming" campaign when I hear of man dropping a woman because of her sexual past. I'll let you know how that goes. I'll even tell them; "you know it doesn't matter right". You think it's going to alter their behavior? I certainly do not, it would be akin to me trying to convince someone that they should prefer blondes over brunettes. It matters to them and I think that we all know it, shoot, I knew it when I told my wife my sexual past; this could be a dealbreaker. And if it was, so be it, but I wasn't gonna lie about it either.

"Hey little RIO, women are not status symbols. You shouldn't choose women solely on what they look like because the best wife you can have is one that loves you, appreciates you, and has a lot in common with you so that you'll never get bored."

Yeah, I could say that (probably would). But it doesn't answer the question "little RIO" asked. So sure, deflect is one alternative, redirect another. Or you (I) could answer the darn question. And guess what, if little RIO told me he wanted a Ferrari (as lots of young boys do), I'd tell him exactly the same thing. Not "you shouldn't want a Ferrari" or "Cars don't make the man" (all true, BTW, but inconsequential to the question that he actually asked) but, if you want one, this is how you get it (or set yourself up for the best chance of getting one).

men are not, they can be redeemed (RIO)

I never said that. I said that they are held to different standards with a different set of things that make them attractive and unattractive in the eyes of potential female partners. And I stand by that statement.

Women and men are held to a different standard . It is what it is. Tough shit.(RIO)

Well, that is reality isn't it? We are held to different standards our entire lives in many different areas. A lot of those areas make sense, women should have a private bathroom where they can nurse; men should get up so that women can sit on the subway (IMHO, anyway). I could even go so far as to say that women should get the "first shot" at a job where she's equally qualified as a man to do it. But there are clearly lots of different standards for male vs female in society. Is it only when that standard can be seen as disadvantageous to a woman or "good for a man" that we care? Just want to make sure I'm keeping up here, because we all seem fine with the many other double standards that exist, in fact, a lot of them we'll argue "biology" as the reason they exist in the first place as an unassailable defense (again, often true, men don't nurse, so they don't need a nursing room).

[This message edited by Rideitout at 1:41 PM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

RIO - the whole point is that women, as people, are different from fancy cars.

RIO - the whole point is that women, as people, are different from fancy cars.

OK, you guys have won. I'll throw in the proverbial towel. The really funny thing in all this, sexual history isn't even my thing. It was never a "no go" for me, especially not when dating when I considered it, most of the time, a good thing. My point was/is that it does matter to some people, and that those people don't need to be convinced that their beliefs are wrong. They have a right to ask, and a right to drop someone if they don't like the answer.

So, retracting all that, this is what "losing the argument" looks like to me.

Sexual history matters to nobody.

If by some brain damage or other defect it does matter to them, they are fools/idiots and should be shamed for their belief.

Thinking that a man's sexual history matters less to most women than a woman's sexual history matters to most men is also wrong, it matters the same to everyone (which, is to say, not at all).

And, to the original topic, no, it's none of your business, but, if you ask and they tell you, you have no right to be upset or take action based on it because it doesn't matter at all.

[This message edited by Rideitout at 1:55 PM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

"women should have a private bathroom where they can nurse; men should get up so that women can sit on the subway"

I don't see how these "double standards" are in any way similar to the double standard that women who've had lots of sex are damaged where as men who have aren't. That seems like a bizarre leap in logic. Your analogies aren't making any sense to me. You're stating your own opinion as an unshakable truth, which you seem to do a lot.