SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

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.

Did you really quote two different people to claim a double standard they them self might not hold?

Did someone quote me as using the term “damaged goods”? Wow I don’t think I ever used that phrase. I’ll have to go back thru this thread to make sure, but that sounds like someone was being really intellectually dishonest and putting words into my mouth.

Did you really quote two different people to claim a double standard they them self might not hold?

You noticed that too?

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

Sexual history matters to nobody.

It matters to me. I have shared mine, I would want to know.

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

Nope, I only don't like it if the male has done anyone and everyone under the sun but judges a female by a different standard. If you are sexually liberal, you shouldn't shame someone else for being sexually liberal.

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).

I don't think this is gender specific. Some people care a lot about sexual history, some people care very little.

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.

If two people decide to share their sexual history, and one person is bothered by the other's sexual history, they have a right to decide that. But, it's not okay if you have fucked everything and everyone to then look at what the other person has done and make some judgement based on their gender. It's hypocritical.

But the problem with this thread, by generalizing that most men want chaste women who hold more value because they refused more sex. Or that women who have had more partners are more likely to cheat. Or a women who has had group sex in their sexual history is comparable to a man who has raped someone in the past.

People select their partner in all these shades of grey. By making things gender specific, and then stereotyping them to be a certain way. And some of these stereotypes come from things that I don't see happening very much. I have tons of single girlfriends. None of them care about the guy being wealthy. They may require he have a JOB, but that's about it. I haven't heard of anyone having height requirements since I was in highschool or college. I see wealthy men with trophy wives, sure you can always find those, but I don't know of any of them in my personal life.

I don't know of any men or women who want sexual history for any other reason other than to get a point of reference of what their experience has been, maybe a gauge on their attitudes towards commitment. But honestly? Most of the people in the single category that I know have been married previously. They are dating men who have been married previously...and a lot of those were long term marriages. Their sexual history is from 20 years ago. They had been married and maybe had one or two boyfriends in the 5 years they have been divorced. I think you frame some of this around being young and dating but I don't think you are describing a lot of grown ups that I know.

But, natural selection in dating is a great thing. If someone wants to look at my sexual past and judge me for it, then they are not the person I want to date anyway. They can next me, but I am already nexting them. I would want someone who will be supportive of who I am and where I have been and who will have my back. Anyone else? Well, they can keep looking. There will always be men who will judge, but I would never be looking to date someone super judgmental.

Thumos,

I didn't get that from what you were saying. In fact, I think what you have said is fine. You are a sexually conservative person, and you would have that requirement in a mate should you ever find yourself dating. There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone wants someone who shares their principals.

You would find sex with three different women in one night gross, it's okay if you don't find it acceptable if the lady you are dating doesn't want that.

My major concerns with those on this thread would have been in the "women are expected to be something else" line of thinking. Double standards suck.

Did someone quote me as using the term “damaged goods”? Wow I don’t think I ever used that phrase. I’ll have to go back thru this thread to make sure, but that sounds like someone was being really intellectually dishonest and putting words into my mouth.

Yes, you did. Your words:

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.

By definition, something that "has difficulty doing something," or is "weakened," is damaged.

More:

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.

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.

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.

Yes, the same studies show the same effect for men - it just seems to be more pronounced for women. I don't know why. I could speculate all day long, but that would be speculation on my part. Maybe women's brains are more sensitive to the "severing" of too many pair bonds? Given that men and women's brains do operate in completely unique ways (for example, women can use both hemispheres at the same time while men "hyperfocus" in one hemisphere and then jump to the other one) that seems plausible and not a ridiculous assumption. But I have no idea.

[This message edited by WornDown at 3:44 PM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

My major concerns with those on this thread would have been in the "women are expected to be something else" line of thinking. Double standards suck.

I'm not sure anyone disagrees with that Hiking. But they exist, and likely always will. I could tell you/everyone that they don't, that would be a lie. I could tell you they shouldn't, and that would be mostly true. But I can't tell you that they aren't real, and exist in many people's heads (men and women). My point was, discussing the relative merits of the double standard is one thing, and a worthwhile intellectual exercise in my mind. But saying "they suck" does nothing to inform the decisions that we make regarding our attractiveness to the opposite sex. That's my fundamental point, not that they don't exist (they do) not that they are fair (they're not, in either direction), not they are good (again, probably be better for all of us if they didn't exist)... But they exist, we all KNOW they exist or this wouldn't have been such a hot button topic and we are all colored by them in some way or another.

If two people decide to share their sexual history, and one person is bothered by the other's sexual history, they have a right to decide that. But, it's not okay if you have fucked everything and everyone to then look at what the other person has done and make some judgement based on their gender. It's hypocritical.

So, by this standard, a tall guy who only likes short women is a hypocrite? Or a brown hair guy who only likes bleached blondes but won't bleach his own hair is a hypocrite? Or a guy who loves steak but will only date vegans? We do not have to date our mirror image. Our expectations of others are NOT the same as the expectations we put on ourselves. IDC one iota about my wife having a high paying job, she cares a lot about mine. Hypocrite? No, she's selecting for what's important to her. She could get her own high paying job if she wanted to. And yes, even a heavy guy can only date thin women if he so desires, I feel like that's a bit more in topic here because his weight is mostly a choice that he made, and yet, he will not date women who made the same choice. And that's just fine by me, I don't get to decide for him who he dates or how he selects. If that's what he likes, that's what he likes, and it's not wrong of him to want that, at all, IMHO.

RIO you are comparing apples to oranges. I guy having a preference for short women has nothing to do with any of this. We're not talking about a physical "type." We're talking a man behaving in whatever way he chooses and then harshly judging or condemning the exact same behavior in a woman. Your analogies, once again, do not really make sense here.

Yes, you did. Your words:

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.

By definition, something that "has difficulty doing something," or is "weakened," is damaged.

Geez that’s a jump, isn’t it? Thumos, you pig!

Yes, you did. Your words

I see, so I never used that term and you did put words in my mouth and you were being intellectually dishonest.

Good to know.

I see, so I never used that term and you did put words in my mouth and you were being intellectually dishonest.

Good to know.

I SUMMARIZED your MULTIPLE statements that women who have a high sexual partner count have difficulty/are unable to form long lasting bonds with a partner.

(BTW - Did I say I quoted you? Now it's you that are being intellectually dishonest)

As I said:

By definition, something that "has difficulty doing something," or is "weakened," is damaged.

You clearly think that people, especially women (your words by the way), who have slept with a lot of people are not good long term partners. You can deny that you didn't say "damaged goods," but that is damn sure what you meant.

[This message edited by WornDown at 4:06 PM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

You are a sexually conservative person, and you would have that requirement in a mate should you ever find yourself dating. There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone wants someone who shares their principals.

HikingOut, probably TMI but for the record I like good sex as much as anyone else and crazy monkey sex with one woman is pretty frickin' amazing. I'm sexually conservative, you're right, insofar as I'm a monogamist (not a serial one, yet) and I want the same in a woman I'm pair bonded to. And you're right that I would find the idea of having sex with a woman who had had sex with three other men the same night (or even that week or month) repellent. We'd be sharing four different microbiomes in a weird scientific experiment. It's objectively weird to think about.

I guess I pair-bond hard, as is evidenced by my lengthy marriage to my WW and the fact that I'm still in a kind of "reconciliation-ish" limbo with her three years after D-Day. That's because I had every intent of spending the rest of my life with her, so I've got a lot of things to figure out. If I end up separating from her and then dating other women, I would never be so naive as to expect a lot of middle aged women to have pristine sexual histories. But I would be on the lookout for someone who shared my values.

EDIT: Correction, five different microbiomes. That's a lot of sharing!

[This message edited by Thumos at 4:19 PM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

I summarized your MULTIPLE statements that women who have a high sexual partner count have difficulty/are unable to form long lasting bonds with a partner.

Yes, you summarized them in an intellectually dishonest way, and I'd warrant a lot of people on this thread are snickering at your continuing attempts to say otherwise.

Be well.

But saying "they suck" does nothing to inform the decisions that we make regarding our attractiveness to the opposite sex. That's my fundamental point, not that they don't exist (they do) not that they are fair (they're not, in either direction), not they are good (again, probably be better for all of us if they didn't exist)... But they exist, we all KNOW they exist or this wouldn't have been such a hot button topic and we are all colored by them in some way or another.

I don't want to be something I am not in order to be more attractive to the opposite sex. (Well, I am married so that might be easy to say). My history is my history. I will share it, and it will be honest. If the other person doesn't like it, I don't see that as a defect in me, I see it as a lack of compatibility with that other person. My husband is sexually liberal. He actually had fewer partners than I did when we met. But, he had a lot more liberal views on sexuality and none of them are antiquated. I found that to be freeing in many ways for me. There are plenty of men that could fit a mold in which that sort of judgement doesn't exist. And, for those who do, then I would assume that either they are a hypocrite, or they are sexually conservative. Either of those things could eliminate them as being attractive to me.

I don't ever want to be with someone who sees my sexuality as a deficit. And, honestly my experience as a woman has really shown me quite the opposite. That my sexuality is actually quite powerful, and the fact I enjoy sex is very attractive to my husband. Anything else that doesn't empower that, I have no use for. Life is short, we should enjoy it the way we all see fit.

So, by this standard, a tall guy who only likes short women is a hypocrite? Or a brown hair guy who only likes bleached blondes but won't bleach his own hair is a hypocrite? Or a guy who loves steak but will only date vegans?

What are you even talking about? None of these are behaviors or beliefs. You are a hypocrite if you expect your spouse to offer something that you should not have to offer, and if it's based on their gender then that's sexism. If you come up with some real examples here, then we will talk.

We do not have to date our mirror image.

No we do not. My H and I don't have the same political beliefs. His music, while I appreciate it is a generation off from mine. Being a hypocrite has nothing to do with liking the same things or looking the same way.

Our expectations of others are NOT the same as the expectations we put on ourselves.

I can agree to a certain extent.I am a runner, I don't expect my husband to enjoy running, that's not hypocritical.

But, let's say you smoke. You don't think women should smoke so your wife can not smoke. That's hypocritical. If I am fat and my husband doesn't like it, but I expect my husband to stay buff for me in order for me to find him sexy, then yeah that's hypocritical.

IDC one iota about my wife having a high paying job, she cares a lot about mine. Hypocrite? No, she's selecting for what's important to her.

I don't understand that, but if you are okay with it that's fine. So are you saying that if you didn't have the high paying job she wouldn't like you as much? I am not sure that's hypocritical, but it's shitty. It would mean she sees your value in your wallet rather than somewhere else. If you are okay with that, then that's okay I guess, but I would not be okay with that.

My husband has a high paying job. I have been encouraging him to leave it because he hates it. I also have a high paying job, I do not see it as an expectation for whether we can continue to have a relationship.

WornDown said:

(BTW - Did I say I quoted you? Now it's you that are being intellectually dishonest)

WornDown posted: (in his actual words)

Women who have a high number are damaged goods (Thumos)

I dunno man.

HikingOut, probably TMI but for the record I like good sex as much as anyone else and crazy monkey sex with one woman is pretty frickin' amazing.

Oh I am sure, I didn't mean it that way. I mean, you married your first and only and you find that important.

I guess I pair-bond hard, as is evidenced by my lengthy marriage to my WW and the fact that I'm still in a kind of "reconciliation-ish" limbo with her three years after D-Day. That's because I had every intent of spending the rest of my life with her, so I've got a lot of things to figure out. If I end up separating from her and then dating other women, I would never be so naive as to expect a lot of middle aged women to have pristine sexual histories. But I would be on the lookout for someone who shared my values.

Finding someone who shares your values is very different than saying "I can do this, but you can't because you are a woman" And that's where the problem comes in.

As far as whether the pair bonding theory is right or not, I don't think I necessarily buy that part of it. I don't think that a person who is conservative can't become something different in time, and a person who is promiscuous earlier on can't become conservative. We have way too many first and onlies here to begin to believe it decreases the risk of cheating. But, I do think that sharing values and sensibilities is important in any good relationship.

Worndown... did you SAY you quoted him? No.

But you did want everyone to think that's what he said when you posted this

Women who have a high number are damaged goods (Thumos)

[This message edited by GoldenR at 4:28 PM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

So let's say I'm a big time athlete. Yet I rule out female athletes as dating partners/marriage material.

That makes me an asshole?

Worndown... did you SAY you quoted him? No.

But you did want everyone to think that's what he said when you posted this

For the love of god, he was obviously paraphrasing! I understood that was what he was doing at the time and I assume anyone else who is unlucky enough to be following this thread understood what he was doing.

GoldenR

No it makes you really bad at coming up with examples

But for sake of argument, not necessarily. If you feel like it’s difficult for your schedules to match up, if maybe you like softer bodied women. Or maybe you find them on a whole to be too intense and you like someone with a lighter spirit.

But if you objection is to a woman being an athlete- and it should be for you as a male only- then yeah that’s sexist.