# Is it possible to determine sexual history without being told



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Can sexual history be discerned unless someone actually discloses it? 
@ConanHub, I'm interested in hearing which cues you look for.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I’m curious too. I have been able to tell when there is a lack of experience sometimes, and able to tell there is good skill other times, but I don’t think I would know how much experience someone has just because of good skill. They may just be naturally skilled without much experience. Some are not that skilled even though they do have a lot of experience.

Usually I just ask anyway so I’ve never tried to determine this without asking.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Lila said:


> Can sexual history be discerned unless someone actually discloses it?
> @ConanHub, I'm interested in hearing which cues you look for.


I suspect you'll get a lot self-serving statements about how good someone thinks they are at finding this out because "their gut tells them so".

Which I put on the same level of evidence as for aliens building the pyramids. Sure, you can tell when someone has never been flat on their back in bed before, and when their swinging from the chandelier as extremes, but what that says about the great chasm of unknown numbers of partners and experiences in between is pretty foggy. A year or two with one previous partner and a willing apprentice can reveal a whole lot of the smorgasbord of sexual possibility.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Comfort level. 
How far they are willing to go the first time you have sex. 
How they interact during the “preliminary stages “.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Andy1001 said:


> Comfort level.
> How far they are willing to go the first time you have sex.
> How they interact during the “preliminary stages “.


Then we'd better define our terms.

What is "sexual history"? I claim the only person you can readily identify here is someone who is not comfortable with sex. Which is a completely different question from sexual history. I came out of my first 18 month sexual relationship pretty damned comfortable with sex, but it was a single monogamous partner. 

What would you have been able to say about my history other that "some experience?"


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> Can sexual history be discerned unless someone actually discloses it?
> @ConanHub, I'm interested in hearing which cues you look for.


Uh, I mean, sure.

If they go kung fu kinky monkey on you the first few times you have sex, you can probably guess she knows what she's doing, and extrapolate quickly that knowledge takes experience.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m curious too. I have been able to tell when there is a lack of experience sometimes, and able to tell there is good skill other times, but I don’t think I would know how much experience someone has just because of good skill. They may just be naturally skilled without much experience. Some are not that skilled even though they do have a lot of experience.
> 
> Usually I just ask anyway so I’ve never tried to determine this without asking.


I find that you can be enthusiastic without being skilled, and be skilled without enthusiasm. For me, enthusiasm always wins. But skillful enthusiasm is the one ring to rule them all.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Uh, I mean, sure.
> 
> If they go kung fu kinky monkey on you the first few times you have sex, you can probably guess she knows what she's doing, and extrapolate quickly that knowledge takes experience.


If she did not and more or less just became passive and let you do all the moves, would you determine she didn’t have much experience? What if she was trying to seem inexperienced but wasn’t. Do you think you could tell she was hiding experience? 

Also, if you didn’t have much or any experience yourself, and she was passive, how would you be able to make a guess?

I think Conan was insinuating that Justthewife’s husband knows more about her sexual history than she thinks he does. But I really doubt that as he was a virgin and I’m sure Justthewife didn’t pull out kinky moves on him (in the beginning or ever). So I doubt her husband has any clue.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> I find that you can be enthusiastic without being skilled, and be skilled without enthusiasm. For me, enthusiasm always wins. But skillful enthusiasm is the one ring to rule them all.


I’ve still had skilled enthusiasm with those who don’t have that much actual experience. This is because some have natural skills.

I just ask though so it doesn’t matter. A very generic answer is all I need, not like number of partners, etc.

Some have only had one long term partner but they had a lot of sex with that partner so I would call that a lot of experience. However, that experience does not always translate to being skilled with other lovers. As long as there is enthusiastic engagement from sides in a new relationship, they can usually learn skills with a new partner pretty quickly.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> If she did not and more or less just became passive and let you do all the moves, would you determine she didn’t have much experience? What if she was trying to seem inexperienced but wasn’t. Do you think you could tell she was hiding experience?


I'm not sure. I mean, I'm sure it's possible. However, in my experience, the women that had experience acted like they did, and the ones that didn't, acted like they didn't. 
Now I can't prove that they did or didn't have a fairly extensive sexual experience, but it did seem somewhat obvious.



> Also, if you didn’t have much or any experience yourself, and she was passive, how would you be able to make a guess?


Probably not. I have a skewed perspective here given my first sexual experiences were with someone that was quite promiscuous, and older than me. So I have a sample size of 1, and that 1 didn't fit this scenario.



> I think Conan was insinuating that Justthewife’s husband knows more about her sexual history than she thinks he does. But I really doubt that as he was a virgin and I’m sure Justthewife didn’t pull out kinky moves on him (in the beginning or ever). So I doubt her husband has any clue.


Maybe. There's also 'willful gullability.' Meaning, he might have a clue, but he doesn't want to confront it, so he plays along with being duped somewhat consciously. 

Just like my fundamentalist father in law pretends not to understand booze or partying, when I know for a fact he used to party like a madman in vegas when he was younger. It's a convenience thing, an identity thing. 

Part of the social contract is agreeing to play games that work for everyone. Just like "does my ass look big in this?" isn't really a real question, nor is the answer to it generally expected to be a real one.

Social lubricant.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Some have only had one long term partner but they had a lot of sex with that partner so I would call that a lot of experience. However, that experience does not always translate to being skilled with other lovers. As long as there is enthusiastic engagement from sides in a new relationship, they can usually learn skills with a new partner pretty quickly.


Ya, that's where I'm at. If she's had crazy sex thousands of times with one dude, or meh sex with 10 dues 10 times... I mean, what's experience?


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*If you've not yet had sexual relations with them, or if they've gotten physically and psychologically loose by having had "a shot under the belt," and feel like or want to disclose what boudoir things that they've done with others, I'd think that's about the only recourse for disclosure!

Other than that, whenever "the makeout circus starts," you can usually tell exactly how wild or tame they really are going to be, and then find out even more as soon as you two hit the sheets together!*


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> Can sexual history be discerned unless someone actually discloses it?
> @ConanHub, I'm interested in hearing which cues you look for.


Too make sure we start this correctly, this discussion started from a female poster who was talking about clueless husbands who buy their wives innocent eyes and angel facade. She admitted some of them might be willfully blind to the fact that their wives had sexual histories while others are truly oblivious. I remarked that it isn't that hard to pull one over on a gullible or inexperienced man but it wouldn't work with me or people like me.

I know from experience and study that women are very sexual and just as human in regards to sex as men.

Now this is very basic but not readily apparent to religious virgin men for the most part but odds are better than excellent that I can tell if a woman I am in a relationship with has a sexual history at all, if she has a limited history or at least some experience. Past a certain point of experience, a woman could put some secrets over on me but not that she was some innocent little angel girl.:smile2:

The woman in question has apparently duped her husband into believing she has no sexual history and that wouldn't be possible to do with guys like me.

I have never bedded a virgin and that is by choice because I have had several opportunities. The virgin girls did not have to tell me they hadn't been with a man before because it became readily apparent quickly and I disengaged before sex.

I've also been with several ladies that I could easily tell had very limited sexual experience and some of it probably wasn't good.

As far as noticing a ladies nature vs what she wears?

Any time spent observing two conservatively dressed women over a period of time usually reveals some differences.

There were two girls in high school who dressed nearly identical in style. Both wore mostly pretty dresses that were very proper and ladylike. Both were good students. One was a slightly damaged nymphomaniac and the other was a virgin who had probably never been kissed. They had similar looks and builds as well.

It was pretty easy to determine by their reactions to different events, information and interactions how different they really were. I never had any direct romantic interaction with either of them but could tell what was going on with them especially after spending a year or n classes with them.

It is far easier in a religious/church type setting.

Comparing two women I knew who were both high in position in the church and both married to their high school boyfriends.

After interacting with both of them for a couple years it was easy to tell that one was exactly as she presented herself and one was far more experienced. The true one was oblivious to certain things that the other picked up on effortlessly.

The more experienced woman was above reproach in dress an manner and she never did anything overt but she pretty much overcorrected most of the time and it was pretty obvious to me while the other woman had absolutely nothing to hide so she wasn't a bit disingenuous and behaved unafraid to make certain mistakes or faux pas that the experienced woman avoided like her life depended on it.

The experienced one had certain voice inflections and hinted at double entendre when talking that the inexperienced one couldn't even conceive of.

It was similar with the girls in high school. 

Now onto the less tangible. FW talks about sexdar and I believe certain levels of awareness exist and some folks might be a little more in touch with that side of themselves and others not so much.

Maybe people that have been very experienced can just kind of pick up on certain aspects of others?

I don't know for sure and won't assume to speak for others but I'm certain there are a lot of people that can pick up non verbal cues.

There are sex cues that everyone has. Individuals have different ways of reacting to them but the basics remain similar. Eye dilation, voice pitch, blood flow, breathing, hormone production, etc. these happen to pretty much everyone and how individuals react can give away some truths about them.

Inexperienced women react differently than experienced and really experienced and confident women react on their own level.

This is long winded enough for now.:wink2:


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

ConanHub said:


> FW talks about sexdar and I believe certain levels of awareness exist and some folks might be a little more in touch with that side of themselves and others not so much.


Very much this. I think I've always had an active 'sexdar,' meaning I can quite rapidly pick out who's fairly comfortable with their sexuality, and connected with it. For women, it can be as simple as how they move. Walking is easiest to pick out, and it doesn't even have to be a sexy wiggle or anything. Its... comfort with themselves. Enjoyment in being in their body. Enjoyment in being a woman.

It can also be as simple as how they hold themselves, speak, or even in a tilt of the head. 

What they wear is also a big clue. Dressing provocatively often has nothing to do with it - I've known more than a few woman that love to wear everything tight and show lots of skin, but are obviously not comfortable in the skin that they're showing. It's more a sense of comfort and casual ease with themselves, and security in knowing they are sexy even in absence of attracting any attention at all.

This may also be controversial, but most of the really sexual people I've known also take very good care of themselves, and often for reasons that have nothing at all to do with being considered hot. It's more a sense of deep respect and connection with their body. They're integrated with their sexuality and their physicality.

Martial arts have made this very apparent. Bodies are very easy to read, and don't often lie.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> Now onto the less tangible. FW talks about sexdar and I believe certain levels of awareness exist and some folks might be a little more in touch with that side of themselves and others not so much.
> 
> Maybe people that have been very experienced can just kind of pick up on certain aspects of others?
> 
> I don't know for sure and won't assume to speak for others but I'm certain there are a lot of people that can pick up non verbal cues.


Interesting. I have not really used sexdar to determine amount of experience. It is usually just something that picks up if this or that person is a sexual person or not, and kind of at what level.

Like, the eyes and mannerisms of a man who is highly sexual is different than a man who is not very sexual. I don't really think this could be faked, either way. However, being highly sexual doesn't necessarily mean highly experienced. Or another example, a man may be highly sexual but is completely monogamous currently and definitely is not out looking for a piece of ass, but his eyes will still show that he is highly sexual anyway. He behaves differently than a HD man who is unattached, but his eyes still show he is HD. I don't just mean eyes looking at me or other women either, it includes this but is more than this. Some HD men will not notice me or make eyes at me in anyway because I'm not his type or whatever reason, yet I will still see in his eyes and mannerisms that he is HD.

Women are sometimes a bit harder to read, but they do also give subtle signs of HD or LD and everything in between. Since women typically will not react to me sexually at all, I have to observe in a different way.

With men, *usually* a HD man and I will "ping" each other, and I know in that moment he has spotted me as HD also. It does not mean we are necessarily attracted to each other, but we have noticed the sameness in each other. Like I said above, sometimes he will not notice me or ping me, but usually he does.

Again, I had never really thought about this in terms of amount of experience. I know I had sexdar long before I had actual experience to bank on. It is like a sixth sense.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Interesting. I have not really used sexdar to determine amount of experience. It is usually just something that picks up if this or that person is a sexual person or not, and kind of at what level.
> 
> Like, the eyes and mannerisms of a man who is highly sexual is different than a man who is not very sexual. I don't really think this could be faked, either way. However, being highly sexual doesn't necessarily mean highly experienced. Or another example, a man may be highly sexual but is completely monogamous currently and definitely is not out looking for a piece of ass, but his eyes will still show that he is highly sexual anyway. He behaves differently than a HD man who is unattached, but his eyes still show he is HD. I don't just mean eyes looking at me or other women either, it includes this but is more than this. Some HD men will not notice me or make eyes at me in anyway because I'm not his type or whatever reason, yet I will still see in his eyes and mannerisms that he is HD.
> 
> ...


Hmm.

In my experience, you don't actually need to see a woman relate to another person at all to be able to tell that she's very sexual. She just is, like breathing while you're alive.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Hmm.
> 
> In my experience, you don't actually need to see a woman relate to another person at all to be able to tell that she's very sexual. She just is, like breathing while you're alive.


Right, eyes and mannerisms. His or her eyes don't necessarily need to be on another person. You can tell just by how they look at the world.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Very much this. I think I've always had an active 'sexdar,' meaning I can quite rapidly pick out who's fairly comfortable with their sexuality, and connected with it.


Can you?

I understand you think that you can. Would any unbiased person say that you've determined the truth of this statement with anything other than self-serving presumptions? 

Not picking on you in particular. This is the response I have whenever I hear someone say "I'm VERY intuitive about these things" or "I have great gaydar" or "I'm so empathetic". 

You _think_ you can do this. No one does controlled experiments on themselves, so I suspect you actually have no empirical evidence one way or another.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Can you?
> 
> I understand you think that you can. Would any unbiased person say that you've determined the truth of this statement with anything other than self-serving presumptions?
> 
> ...


I don't have any empirical evidence, of course. But I have always wished I could run an experiment. Have a room of about 50 people, men and women. Have them all take a survey in which they rate themselves and how sexual they are on a scale of 1 to 10. Other than this, none of them know what the experiment is about. Then let me observe them all covertly for about 15 minutes or however long it takes for me to check each of them out for a bit. Then I take a guess on their self ranked number and see how close I come on how many of them.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Cletus said:


> Can you?
> 
> I understand you think that you can. Would any unbiased person say that you've determined the truth of this statement with anything other than self-serving presumptions?
> 
> ...


Well... actually I have. While single, of course. 

This would be part of the reason that I'd go to a party and pick out the hot girl at the back of the room that wasn't necessarily the extroverted, obviously hot woman that was the center of everybody's attention. 

You could pick up these waves of female sexuality coming off this woman, even if she was ignoring everybody else there. And, should she choose to come home with you... whammo! You'd wake up in the morning wondering what the hell kind of sexy crazy train just rolled over you. Often the hot popular girls would have the opposite effect.

I'm sure I've been wrong at times. Nobody is perfect. Confirmation bias is a thing. But on the whole I'm fairly sure I'm more right than wrong.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't have any empirical evidence, of course. But I have always wished I could run an experiment. Have a room of about 50 people, men and women. Have them all take a survey in which they rate themselves and how sexual they are on a scale of 1 to 10. Other than this, none of them know what the experiment is about. Then let me observe them all covertly for about 15 minutes or however long it takes for me to check each of them out for a bit. Then I take a guess on their self ranked number and see how close I come on how many of them.


In my experience, a lot of women that claim to be very sexual actually aren't. I've heard there's lots of guys like this, too. 

Maybe something like a Rorschach test would be better. My wife sees genitalia in everything, for example - men's and women's. I look at clouds and see dragons or whatever, she sees boobs and penises. Clearly sexuality is top of mind for her, at least subconsciously.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Again, I had never really thought about this in terms of amount of experience. I know I had sexdar long before I had actual experience to bank on. It is like a sixth sense.


I used sexdar as an example of a less tangible way to discern things about others.

If you cataloged research and behaviors in conjunction with sexdar, you could probably develop fairly accurate models for past and future behavior.

You probably already have to some extent.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Well... actually I have. While single, of course.
> 
> This would be part of the reason that I'd go to a party and pick out the hot girl at the back of the room that wasn't necessarily the extroverted, obviously hot woman that was the center of everybody's attention.
> 
> ...


Hmmm....

I'm not sure this is evidence. Because a woman's attraction to you specifically means she will vibe to you in ways she may not vibe to others.

We would need the blind test like I described. Where those in the room are not seeing you, and do not know you are observing them.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> In my experience, a lot of women that claim to be very sexual actually aren't. I've heard there's lots of guys like this, too.
> 
> Maybe something like a Rorschach test would be better. My wife sees genitalia in everything, for example - men's and women's. I look at clouds and see dragons or whatever, she sees boobs and penises. Clearly sexuality is top of mind for her, at least subconsciously.


Yes a self reported survey always has its limits. I would propose that a quick list of what is considered more and less sexual would be given to the subjects before they self asses their level. Still, people will tend to lean on one side or the other of the truth for their own reasons. We could find a way to interview them after I made my guess to see if what I got from them was at all accurate, even if it is not quite how they self assessed.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

We might be missing the forest for the trees here. Forget about pretending and picking up on cues. I think, if there's no reason for questioning someone's experience, it's just not likely to come up. The discussion is essentially academic masturbation. I mean, aside from the fact that how you act is who you are. There are some things you don't pick up from reading a book. Or I mean the internet. And as I type this, I realize this could be about my age. Read on.

Oh. K. Maybe there's a very different perception her for people who pre-date the 'net vs those who grew up with it? The belief that you *can* learn how to be sexual just like you can fix your dishwasher, just from watching a video. So when I look back at things with my wife, mid-70s, you didn't have such resources. You learned on the fly, picking things up from someone more experienced. 

Where things go bad is when someone is deliberately trying to appear to be someone they aren't. And in that case, it's no more complicated than being able to read someone who's lying in any other circumstance. Some people exhibit a certain amount of discomfort when lying. That one's easy. Others trip themselves up a bit when they might (during sex) exhibit something new, get caught at it, and say "Oh, I'm sure we've done that before..." or words to that effect. Lying about sex is really not much different from lying about anything else.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

If you live in a very small town of people who are forthcoming and honest, yes.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> I'm not sure this is evidence. Because a woman's attraction to you specifically means she will vibe to you in ways she may not vibe to others.
> 
> We would need the blind test like I described. Where those in the room are not seeing you, and do not know you are observing them.


My point was that I actually did experiment with it. I'd assess hot girl A as being hot, but not very sexual. I'd assess hot girl B as being hot and very sexual. And then go sleep with them both.

Now, the bias is as you say, me, so my conclusions may be wrong. But at least I did try to experiment with it. It may be bad evidence, but it's still evidence.

I'm not claiming to be able to peer into someone's sexual soul, but I do think it's probably a basic human ability to be able to look at someone and sense their comfort and connection with their own sexuality to some extent.

Take for example, Nicole Kidman. She's beautiful. A stone cold fox. But she strikes me as very non-sexual and quite cold. I may be totally wrong, but that's how she strikes me. Is that true, who knows?

But she strikes me quite differently than, say, Sofia Vergara. She oozes sexuality. Again, I might be totally wrong and have never (obviously) had sex with either one of them... but if I were to rate the two on my 'sexdar,' I'd put Vergara at an 8 or a 9, and Kidman at a 4 or 5 max.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

This is an interesting topic and I appreciate the discussion.

I don't believe you can decipher someone's sexual history from their appearance or personality in most instances. I can only use my only experience as evidence but as a very private person, I don't give anything away. 

As far as using sexdar, I think some people have "the gift" but it has nothing to do with how they perceive the other person using the basic 5 senses. There's an additional "sense" in there that allows them to look at a wall flower and say "yes! he/she is a sexual dynamo.".


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> My point was that I actually did experiment with it. *I'd assess hot girl A as being hot, but not very sexual. I'd assess hot girl B as being hot and very sexual.* And then go sleep with them both.


But what is she's not hot? 




Marduk said:


> Now, the bias is as you say, me, so my conclusions may be wrong. But at least I did try to experiment with it. It may be bad evidence, but it's still evidence.
> 
> I'm not claiming to be able to peer into someone's sexual soul, but I do think it's probably a basic human ability to be able to look at someone and sense their comfort and connection with their own sexuality to some extent.
> 
> ...


What you describe is profiling. Sometimes it's right. Sometimes it's wrong. But I wouldn't call that sexdar


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Cletus said:


> Can you?
> 
> I understand you think that you can. Would any unbiased person say that you've determined the truth of this statement with anything other than self-serving presumptions?
> 
> ...


You're right of course. 

The first issue with even trying to conduct this type of experiment is to define "sexually experienced". We wouldn't even get past that point.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lila said:


> This is an interesting topic and I appreciate the discussion.
> 
> I don't believe you can decipher someone's sexual history from their appearance or personality in most instances. I can only use my only experience as evidence but as a very private person, I don't give anything away.
> 
> As far as using sexdar, I think some people have "the gift" but it has nothing to do with how they perceive the other person using the basic 5 senses. There's an additional "sense" in there that allows them to look at a wall flower and say "yes! he/she is a sexual dynamo.".


Yes, exactly. I would clock you as a dynamo too, but I would have no idea of your history. I haven’t ever even considered trying to guess a person’s history or experience level. 

Once in the sack with someone, I’ve already asked them questions that give me an idea of their history.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, exactly. I would clock you as a dynamo too, but I would have no idea of your history. I haven’t ever even considered trying to guess a person’s history or experience level.
> 
> Once in the sack with someone, I’ve already asked them questions that give me an idea of their history.


I think sexual chemistry plays a role in all of this as well.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

I would love to know what kind of vibes all you sexdar people would pick up from ME....

I have limited partner experience, but tons of sexual experience. I am extremely sexually passionate and open (maybe even wild?), but ONLY when totally secure and comfortable with my partner. If I ever were to be single or date again, I would feel very nervous and intimidated if I were approached by a man that I could tell was interested in me. If it was friendly interest, I'd be fine and fun and playful, like I naturally am...but as soon as I could tell his interest changed to more romantic, it would change everything for me, and I would become shy and insecure - like, really, you like ME, are you sure? I would look like a deer in the headlights...Lol!!! 

I think that shyness would look like inexperience, but it's masking a very enthusiastic, experienced sexual person, in the right circumstances!! I suppose I lack "partner-experience", so reacting this way to potential new partners makes sense, but if any guy who saw me like that concluded that I hadn't had much sex, or that I was a boring, inhibited sexual partner, they would be VERY wrong!


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Lila said:


> Can sexual history be discerned unless someone actually discloses it?
> @ConanHub, I'm interested in hearing which cues you look for.


And I'm still unclear as to why this matters to some people (if there is anyone for whom it does...) - I mean, besides STDs, is it REALLY necessary to know someone's sexual history before you decide you want to be with them...?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Too make sure we start this correctly, this discussion started from a female poster who was talking about clueless husbands who buy their wives innocent eyes and angel facade. She admitted some of them might be willfully blind to the fact that their wives had sexual histories while others are truly oblivious. I remarked that it isn't that hard to pull one over on a gullible or inexperienced man but it wouldn't work with me or people like me.
> 
> I know from experience and study that women are very sexual and just as human in regards to sex as men.
> 
> ...


I am not doubting this has worked for you in the past but I don't think this is universal. 

I say this as a woman who grew up in a very different culture than the typical American one. Sex talk was not taboo and showing skin is pretty normal. 

I was a virgin until I got to college and started dating my first boyfriend. I had never seen a penis in real life when I started dating him. I'd kissed two boys before him. He was older and had a long sexual history. He assumed I was experienced because I was very affectionate with him and didn't shy away from his approaches. You can imagine his surprise when we were messing around the first time and he used his hands on me. I think his exact words word "Umm, Lila? Is there something you want to tell me?" Needless to say, I think he (as well as others I'm sure) thought I was more experienced because I wasn't shy about my body or talking about sex. 

Perceptions color reality.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

LisaDiane said:


> And I'm still unclear as to why this matters to some people (if there is anyone for whom it does...) - I mean, besides STDs, is it REALLY necessary to know someone's sexual history before you decide you want to be with them...?


 @LisaDiane, you bring up a great point but I don't wish to have this thread derailed on the argument about whether or not sexual history is important.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Lila said:


> @LisaDiane, you bring up a great point but I don't wish to have this thread derailed on the argument about whether or not sexual history is important.


COOL! You're right!!


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

LisaDiane said:


> And I'm still unclear as to why this matters to some people (if there is anyone for whom it does...) - I mean, besides STDs, is it REALLY necessary to know someone's sexual history before you decide you want to be with them...?


The million dollar question for some folks. (After only for STDs) etc.

It appears there are folks here strongly on both sides of the fence just from reading posts in diff threads.

And i believe there's a group who are on the line.

Me, didn' when I was single, if single now would still not matter. 😉 course I'm married, so not a concern. 

When single, if there was chemistry it was on. Although I was very promiscuous I never ever asked hey how many people have you slept with. Just not a concern for me at least.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

LisaDiane said:


> I would love to know what kind of vibes all you sexdar people would pick up from ME....
> 
> I have limited partner experience, but tons of sexual experience. I am extremely sexually passionate and open (maybe even wild?), but ONLY when totally secure and comfortable with my partner. If I ever were to be single or date again, I would feel very nervous and intimidated if I were approached by a man that I could tell was interested in me. If it was friendly interest, I'd be fine and fun and playful, like I naturally am...but as soon as I could tell his interest changed to more romantic, it would change everything for me, and I would become shy and insecure - like, really, you like ME, are you sure? I would look like a deer in the headlights...Lol!!!
> 
> I think that shyness would look like inexperience, but it's masking a very enthusiastic, experienced sexual person, in the right circumstances!! I suppose I lack "partner-experience", so reacting this way to potential new partners makes sense, but if any guy who saw me like that concluded that I hadn't had much sex, or that I was a boring, inhibited sexual partner, they would be VERY wrong!


I don’t know how to explain it, but I would still probably clock you as very sexual. I think even a virgin can be very sexual. They just haven’t gone for a spin yet. 

I can say I have a tiny bit of evidence for my accuracy in sexdar which came as a result of meeting new female friends. I would have already felt my sexdar kick in and had made an assessment of them upon first glance (this is an unconscious thing that happens to me with everyone I meet). Then in getting to know them and hear them talk about their sexuality, I would find out I was usually correct in my assessment.

Sexdar isn’t something I’m using to determine if someone is a good match for me. It also doesn’t affect how I treat people or what I think of them. It’s just something that happens and has always happened to me. Usually I will never know for sure if my assessment was correct, but in some cases I do have a way to find out.

I’m never off with men I do actually end up in a relationship with. But it still doesn’t tell me what their actual experience has been.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> I am not doubting this has worked for you in the past but I don't think this is universal.
> 
> I say this as a woman who grew up in a very different culture than the typical American one. Sex talk was not taboo and showing skin is pretty normal.
> 
> ...


The church/religious setting was the background for the impetus that started the conversation.

I would say you were raised very healthy and good in regards to sexuality.

I was not but I was very exposed and experienced early on. It certainly colored my view point but it gave me a lot of insight as well.

Two of the virgins I turned down were much like you described yourself. I will say that your situation reinforces my belief that open conversation and education about sex in families and churches, etc. is very healthy.

Surprisingly, or not, one of the two I described was a naturally very good seductress and I almost caved.

I'm also not claiming that anyone can very easily ascertain sexuality or likely sexual history.

I know I can with fairly high accuracy and there must be others.

Even your fella knew something was up once the clothes came off. The aforementioned woman's husband apparently didn't get clued in and is still oblivious.

That wouldn't happen with me or even the boyfriend you described.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

If I got obscure @Lila , I don't believe it is universal at all either.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Faithful Wife said:


> I don’t know how to explain it, but I would still probably clock you as very sexual. I think even a virgin can be very sexual. They just haven’t gone for a spin yet.
> 
> I can say I have a tiny bit of evidence for my accuracy in sexdar which came as a result of meeting new female friends. I would have already felt my sexdar kick in and had made an assessment of them upon first glance (this is an unconscious thing that happens to me with everyone I meet). Then in getting to know them and hear them talk about their sexuality, I would find out I was usually correct in my assessment.
> 
> ...


This is VERY interesting!!! I can say I have NO idea what you see in people or how you see it, because I just don't have that ability. I know it would be much easier for me to be openly talk about my sexuality with a woman in a friendly discussion, than with a man who might be interested in me in a sexual way (which makes me feel self-imposed pressure, for some reason), but you are talking about a FEELING you have, before even talking to someone...again - very interesting!!!


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

Here's the thing, though. I've heard arguments presenting how you can tell if someone is sexual or not...experienced or not...

...but that's not the same as being able to determine someone's sexual history. 

On the one hand, we have the original female poster who advocates for essentially lying to her SO, believing she has convinced him of her angelic purity "before him." In response to this female poster, @ConanHub says (I'm paraphrasing) "Oh you wouldn't be able to lie to me--I could tell." But I think he meant "I could tell you were more experienced than you are letting on" not "I could tell what your sexual history was." 

As as example, let's assume she actually got some pretty good sexual technique out of the gate. Let's be honest--she could have had one previous person with whom she was sexual and been going at it kung fu monkeys and still honestly said "I've only been with one person." Or she could have been with a whole fraternity in college who all passed her around and used her and dumped her, and thus she learned some technique from twenty guys! Or she could be a naturally open and sexual person, who saw a porno last week and thought, "Oh I'm trying that next time..." but she's not sleeping with anyone. From a "sexual history" point of view, that's 1 monkey-sex partner, 20 lazy college kids, or 1 creative porno with no partner... And if you break that down further into "experience" is she more experienced from the 1000 rounds of swinging from the chandelier, 20 rounds with 20 others, or Kama Sutra Live? 

See what I mean? All might result in pretty good sexual technique in someone who was naturally comfortable in their own body. So sexual history could be anything depending on how she packages it. I'm pretty sure what @ConanHub would tell is "Hey you've been around the block more than you've told me" but not really "history."


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Affaircare said:


> Here's the thing, though. I've heard arguments presenting how you can tell if someone is sexual or not...experienced or not...
> 
> ...but that's not the same as being able to determine someone's sexual history.
> 
> ...


This is pretty close in general and precisely accurate in regards to the aforementioned lady.

I can sometimes glean some surprisingly accurate history if I'm around someone long enough. Not number of partners really though sometimes that fact gets revealed without intention.

I was once talking to a friend that we had known for a few years and enough previous data came together with a current topic and I knew for certain that she had been sexually abused as a child and as a young adult.

A few years later, guess what popped up in her life resulting in therapy?


----------



## JustTheWife (Nov 1, 2017)

Interesting discussion. I guess I should weigh in as this thread was started from an exchange between Conan and me. Just some points to add:

1. I have no doubt that people can get a sense for how in touch with their sexuality someone is. But "in touch with their sexuality" can be a very poor indicator of sexual history. There are loads of sexy and sexually charged people who have little or no experience. And vice versa.

2. I don't think very many people would describe me as outwardly sexual or "in touch with my sexuality". In fact, I've always been uncomfortable with my sexuality. Yet I've had sex with many guys. Not much in the way of longer term relationships where I may have grown more comfortable with sex.

3. Sexual skill also doesn't have much to do with it. I'm pretty far from what anyone would call a "firecracker". I'm more of a follower. Like a ragdoll.

4. As already mentioned on the other thread, I wear outdoorsy stuff. Turtlenecks. I cover up. Nothing sexy. In the summer I wear a bikini sometimes but that's for the beach or pool.

So in summary, being able pick out people "in touch with their sexuality" or a "sexual person" is very different from determining the sexual history of a person through some kind of intuition, CIA-like brain, body language expertise, having "been around" or whatever.

In thinking about the exchange that started this discussion on the other thread, I think it was more about bravado to infer that my husband was some kind of chump or "gullible" for being fooled and how that could NEVER happen with him as he knows the ropes unlike my husband. I'm just trying to explain how I perceived that exchange. My husband is one of the smartest people that I know and not just book smart but he is extremely good with people - he deals with all kinds of people and is tough. Nothing gets past him. Well almost nothing.

One of the more interesting aspects of this is how it seems that the "sexdar" is a highly prized attribute for men. The "she'll never fool me" thing. I learned from psychology that in primitive times, males evolved to avoid being cuckolded (having another man impregnate their partner). Men's natural instinct is to avoid this at all costs. Seems like this might be the source of the bravado of being able to pick out a "good" partner (one that is less likely to cheat) from a "bad" one (one who has a promiscuous history). There's a view that "sissies" get cuckolded so I guess it's a trait aligned with "real men" to know what you're dealing with with your partner. What's behind her angel eyes. What she's really been up to. "Real men" know. "Chumps and sissies" have no idea.

Furthermore, Conan and others have linked having "been around" (sex with a lot of women) as the reason for gaining this "real man" trait of sexdar...this innate ability to know a woman's sexual history regardless of what she says. As he said, my husband can't possibly have it despite truly having "been around" in areas other than sex. So is male promiscuity justified by giving you this ability to choose a "better" partner ----or at least avoid being deceived by a partner who has had more men than she lets on???

{{{{Women deceive their husbands - more often than is generally appreciated.....The trust of husbands is often cruelly misplaced. >>>Psychology Today.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I don’t know how to explain it, but I would still probably clock you as very sexual. I think even a virgin can be very sexual. They just haven’t gone for a spin yet.


I think the "virgin" can quite possibly be far more "sexual" than the post-virgin version of the same person. It likely depends upon the exploratory nature of each phase. A woman... and maybe a guy too... going through the pre-sex phase of sexual exploration is covering a lot of exciting new ground with lots of anticipation. That is a very powerful thing. For some, once they "have" sex, for them, a lot of that anticipation and excitement ends. This may especially be true for someone with just one partner. 

Obviously, if these women had access to @ConanHub , the post-virgin story would be very different. Partly serious here; some seem to have a way of continuing to make sexual encounters (even with the same person) seem new and exciting. That makes a difference. But again, my point is that the "virgin" may act far more "sexually" than after they've had sex.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> But what is she's not hot?


Meaning, not hot but not sexual? I’m not sure what you’re asking. 






> What you describe is profiling. Sometimes it's right. Sometimes it's wrong. But I wouldn't call that sexdar


Lol, ok, what’s your definition of it?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Casual Observer said:


> I think the "virgin" can quite possibly be far more "sexual" than the post-virgin version of the same person. It likely depends upon the exploratory nature of each phase. A woman... and maybe a guy too... going through the pre-sex phase of sexual exploration is covering a lot of exciting new ground with lots of anticipation. That is a very powerful thing. For some, once they "have" sex, for them, a lot of that anticipation and excitement ends. This may especially be true for someone with just one partner.
> 
> Obviously, if these women had access to @ConanHub , the post-virgin story would be very different. Partly serious here; some seem to have a way of continuing to make sexual encounters (even with the same person) seem new and exciting. That makes a difference. But again, my point is that the "virgin" may act far more "sexually" than after they've had sex.


I’ve met women that were very promiscuous and that didn’t seem very sexual at all. Meaning, they didn’t seem very into sex, or really enjoy it. But they’d sleep around a lot.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

JustTheWife said:


> Interesting discussion. I guess I should weigh in as this thread was started from an exchange between Conan and me. Just some points to add:
> 
> 1. I have no doubt that people can get a sense for how in touch with their sexuality someone is. But "in touch with their sexuality" can be a very poor indicator of sexual history. There are loads of sexy and sexually charged people who have little or no experience. And vice versa.
> 
> ...


You are laying it on thick again and definitely adding your own details that I never mentioned or inferred. I don't think your husband's gullibility or naivete towards your history is in anyway a poor reflection of him, nor have I ever inferred that so further pursuit by you down that rabbit hole will continue to be your prerogative alone.

Your posts were coming off as if you thought you were particularly sly or cunning to have pulled one over on your husband which we already addressed. You are also attempting to reinforce a negative stereotype of women being great at decieving men and I assure you that men are just as fantastic at deception as women.

Lying to a spouse is hardly a gender issue.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> I’ve met women that were very promiscuous and that didn’t seem very sexual at all. Meaning, they didn’t seem very into sex, or really enjoy it. But they’d sleep around a lot.


Lots of men like this, too.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Meaning, not hot but not sexual? I’m not sure what you’re asking. Lol, ok, what’s your definition of it?


What if they aren't hot? 

You only determined the sexual-ness of women who were "hot". The 1 sigma from the average. What about all of the non-"hot" women of the world (Average and 1 sigma below)? You can't base your findings on just one set of women.

Profiling/stereotyping is when you assume characteristics to a person based on the way they look.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lila said:


> What you describe is profiling. Sometimes it's right. Sometimes it's wrong. But I wouldn't call that sexdar


That's fair. What I call sexdar could also be called sexual profiling.

And the same way we profile just about everyone we come into contact with (we have already judged a lot of things about a person based on age, size, race, clothing, and other clues), this happens in an instant and isn't necessarily a deliberate thing we do.

It does sound like Marduk is using the term specifically about women he is attracted to or interested in (even as a friend maybe).

For me, it happens to everyone I meet, and has nothing to do with my attraction to them or theirs to me. It's just that I do feel this is an inner sense more than a learned type of profiling, though. I'm saying that because it has been with me since childhood, long before I could understand or make use of what I was picking up off of people. It was confusing to me then. But I still paid attention.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Marduk said:


> I’ve met women that were very promiscuous and that didn’t seem very sexual at all. Meaning, they didn’t seem very into sex, or really enjoy it. But they’d sleep around a lot.


I was never making an argument that more or less "sex" meant someone was "sexual." Nothing to do with promiscuity either. Just a (possible) contrast between how sexual someone might be while a virgin vs after.

And that person who was very promiscuous but not enjoying it? That might be exactly my point. Maybe that's what you're saying? That person might be in a searching phase, trying to find that same excitement they had before actual sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> You are laying it on thick again and definitely adding your own details that I never mentioned or inferred. I don't think your husband's gullibility or naivete towards your history is in anyway a poor reflection of him, nor have I ever inferred that so further pursuit by you down that rabbit hole will continue to be your prerogative alone.
> 
> Your posts were coming off as if you thought you were particularly sly or cunning to have pulled one over on your husband which we already addressed. You are also attempting to reinforce a negative stereotype of women being great at decieving men and I assure you that men are just as fantastic at deception as women.
> 
> Lying to a spouse is hardly a gender issue.


I disagree that she feels she is particularly sly or cunning or has pulled one over on her husband. I think she actually wishes either she could be honest, or that she had no past to hide from him. But neither of these are the case so she is stuck with continuing to hide her past.


----------



## TBT (Dec 20, 2011)

No. Anyone can make an assumption,but a person's sexual history is factual. jmo


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> What if they aren't hot?
> 
> You only determined the sexual-ness of women who were "hot". The 1 sigma from the average. What about all of the non-"hot" women of the world (Average and 1 sigma below)? You can't base your findings on just one set of women.
> 
> Profiling/stereotyping is when you assume characteristics to a person based on the way they look.


Sure, but it’s a self-selecting bias. I never slept with someone I didn’t think was hot. 

To be fair, I used to have a lot of friends that were women, and some of them I didn’t think were hot. They seemed very sexual, at least some of them. 

Are you saying the whole idea is stereotyping and therefore bad?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I disagree that she feels she is particularly sly or cunning or has pulled one over on her husband. I think she actually wishes either she could be honest, or that she had no past to hide from him. But neither of these are the case so she is stuck with continuing to hide her past.


We determined that she wasn't feeling that way earlier and she admitted, upon reading her posts that it looked that way.

I was glad her feelings were not in line with how her posts were looking.

My original statement that she couldn't pull on someone like me, what she did with her husband was in response to my perception that she was feeling cunning for decieving her husband and that she shouldn't.

When she elaborated I was glad and didn't pursue it.

She then went on about decieving husbands and didn't think I would know she wasn't an untouched innocent if I was in her husband's shoes and I assured her with high confidence that I could.

She believes it is false bravado and has added an imagined list to my perceived offenses since.

She can believe what she wants but there is no way she could pull off what she did with her virgin, religious husband with many other men.

That is not insulting him. I've known more than one naive religious virgin man and what she is describing is very accurate.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Casual Observer said:


> I was never making an argument that more or less "sex" meant someone was "sexual." Nothing to do with promiscuity either. Just a (possible) contrast between how sexual someone might be while a virgin vs after.
> 
> And that person who was very promiscuous but not enjoying it? That might be exactly my point. Maybe that's what you're saying? That person might be in a searching phase, trying to find that same excitement they had before actual sex.


In my experience, it was seeking validation. 

The first girl I fell in love with was in high school, and she dumped me as soon as we graduated. I found out later that she was using me to become popular, therefore when high school ended, it was done. 

One of the ways she got me to date her was with sex. 

I don’t think I’m alone in this.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Sure, but it’s a self-selecting bias. I never slept with someone I didn’t think was hot.
> 
> To be fair, I used to have a lot of friends that were women, and some of them I didn’t think were hot. They seemed very sexual, at least some of them.
> 
> Are you saying the whole idea is stereotyping and therefore bad?


I'm saying that your experiment is faulty if you are only studying "hot" women. That's a small subset of woman kind.

I think people who actually have "sexdar" can spot the sex-pot wall flower even if she/he is not "hot". @Faithful Wife explained it better "For me, it happens to everyone I meet, and has nothing to do with my attraction to them or theirs to me. It's just that I do feel this is an inner sense more than a learned type of profiling, though. I'm saying that because it has been with me since childhood, long before I could understand or make use of what I was picking up off of people. It was confusing to me then. But I still paid attention."


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> That's fair. What I call sexdar could also be called sexual profiling.
> 
> And the same way we profile just about everyone we come into contact with (we have already judged a lot of things about a person based on age, size, race, clothing, and other clues), this happens in an instant and isn't necessarily a deliberate thing we do.
> 
> ...


No, I’m talking about that joi de vive sense you get from some and not others. That comfort, that confidence. That switched on sense, that sashay in the walk. 

What I’m saying is that I only have direct knowledge from those I slept with, and I only slept with women I found hot at the time. 

For example, I became fast friends with an older woman in my divorce support group. She would fly through men, and would often dump them for not being sexual enough with her. I wasn’t attracted to her at all, but she pinged my sexdar for sure. I believe she was very sexual from the moment I met her , and found her super interesting and wise as a friend. I’m not certain she was, because I never slept with her. 

Being honest about it though, there’s still a bias - I’m less likely to notice an unattractive woman to begin with, and hence my sexdar wouldn't be as likely to ping in the first place. So there’s a bias, but I don’t think it’s in the way you mean. 

And maybe that makes me an *******, but you probably knew that a long time ago.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> No, I’m talking about that joi de vive sense you get from some and not others. That comfort, that confidence. That switched on sense, that sashay in the walk.
> 
> What I’m saying is that I only have direct knowledge from those I slept with, and I only slept with women I found hot at the time.
> 
> ...


No, we are just talking about different things. You are talking about assessing compatibility, chemistry, and interest among females you are attracted to. Some random female may ping you once in awhile, but you did also describe her as "flying through men" and dumping them for not being sexual enough, so you did have knowledge about her sexuality as well. It wasn't just something you "felt". Or if you did feel something, it was probably that she was attracted to you and made subtle hints.

I am talking about a quality people have (HD or LD and much in between, is the easiest TAM way to describe it) that I just pick up on, seemingly naturally, and that quality in them has no bearing on me or a relationship with me or any attraction that may exist. Most times people don't even see me when this is happening.

You aren't a "multiple stars, not sure what the expletive was", you are simply talking about something different you are doing.

If I am assessing someone for mutual attraction, compatibility, chemistry, etc. then I probably am using the same senses you are using.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> I'm saying that your experiment is faulty if you are only studying "hot" women. That's a small subset of woman kind.
> 
> I think people who actually have "sexdar" can spot the sex-pot wall flower even if she/he is not "hot". @Faithful Wife explained it better "For me, it happens to everyone I meet, and has nothing to do with my attraction to them or theirs to me. It's just that I do feel this is an inner sense more than a learned type of profiling, though. I'm saying that because it has been with me since childhood, long before I could understand or make use of what I was picking up off of people. It was confusing to me then. But I still paid attention."


I think the difference is that I ignore most people unless they interest me for some reason. 

Why don’t we test it? Pick some random public figures, and assess? See if we agree or not? FW can be our arbiter of truth.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> I think the difference is that I ignore most people unless they interest me for some reason.
> 
> Why don’t we test it? Pick some random public figures, and assess? See if we agree or not? FW can be our arbiter of truth.


Except how can we know if the random public figure is or isn't HD or LD or whatever?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> No, we are just talking about different things. You are talking about assessing compatibility, chemistry, and interest among females you are attracted to. Some random female may ping you once in awhile, but you did also describe her as "flying through men" and dumping them for not being sexual enough, so you did have knowledge about her sexuality as well. It wasn't just something you "felt". Or if you did feel something, it was probably that she was attracted to you and made subtle hints.
> 
> I am talking about a quality people have (HD or LD and much in between, is the easiest TAM way to describe it) that I just pick up on, seemingly naturally, and that quality in them has no bearing on me or a relationship with me or any attraction that may exist. Most times people don't even see me when this is happening.
> 
> ...


No, I’m not talking about compatibility or attraction at all. 

I’m obviously not explaining myself well. I’m not sure how to describe it to you differently. 

It’s a sense that people are deeply engaged with their own sexuality and comfortable with it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> No, I’m not talking about compatibility or attraction at all.
> 
> I’m obviously not explaining myself well. I’m not sure how to describe it to you differently.
> 
> It’s a sense that people are deeply engaged with their own sexuality and comfortable with it.


Ok I misread you. What you mean is you are seeing it on women you notice (which will only be ones who are attractive or interesting to you), but you only know if you were correct or not with the ones you slept with. I think I get it.

I still think this is different than me because your own interest and/or attraction to them is part of why you would look at them with that lens. But it isn't what I thought you meant before.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Except how can we know if the random public figure is or isn't HD or LD or whatever?


What I’m saying is if we agree if they ping our sexdar or not.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> I think the difference is that I ignore most people unless they interest me for some reason.
> 
> Why don’t we test it? Pick some random public figures, and assess? See if we agree or not? FW can be our arbiter of truth.


Rossy De Palma


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> Rossy De Palma


Had to google her and find some stuff on YouTube. No idea who she is. 

Based on the first video I found, she pings it quite hard. I’d say a 7 or an 8. 

Also not attracted to her at all, but I bet she’s a beast in the sack. 






I watched the first few seconds and made my call.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> Rossy De Palma


I'm pretty worn out from the day so I don't get the rules but she looks like a smoking machine to me!:wink2:


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Had to google her and find some stuff on YouTube. No idea who she is.
> 
> Based on the first video I found, she pings it quite hard. I’d say a 7 or an 8.


No bonus points for you. That's like watching 30 seconds of "The Birdcage" and stating that, based on all available evidence, you think that Nathan Lane might just be gay after all.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Cletus said:


> No bonus points for you. That's like watching 30 seconds of "The Birdcage" and stating that, based on all available evidence, you think that Nathan Lane might just be gay after all.


I thought the point was that it’s immediate or it’s not. Being able to tell.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Marduk said:


> I thought the point was that it’s immediate or it’s not. Being able to tell.


In all the software I've written for multivariate statistical analysis, the 3-sigma cases were never the hard ones. It's the .2 sigma cases that separate the men from the boys (unless that's your thing).


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I can't think of a way I can do this and actually use my sexdar. Because no matter who the famous person is, I know at least something about them *OR* I have to do what Marduk did and look up something if I don't know anything of them. And by doing that, now suddenly I do know something about them. I can't really just let my impression happen, it is all filled up with what I know or perceive about the person.

I'm also not positive I could do this from only pictures. When I'm reading someone it is always happening in person.

However, if I could do it on pictures, it would still have to be people I do not know anything about.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

@Marduk I thought of your Nichole Kidman example, and generally I agreed - - but then I realized I do know things about her and am not sure where my impression is coming from. For instance, she doesn't move very gracefully (I think she is as tall as as giraffe so...) and that alone could mess up my sexdar because now I'm looking at her more like a dance instructor observing whether someone can dance or not (my bet is that she can't). I also didn't find her particularly sexy in her sexy roles, even though I think she is beautiful. So that colors my impression also and is not a pure sexdar read.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> @Marduk I thought of your Nichole Kidman example, and generally I agreed - - but then I realized I do know things about her and am not sure where my impression is coming from. For instance, she doesn't move very gracefully (I think she is as tall as as giraffe so...) and that alone could mess up my sexdar because now I'm looking at her more like a dance instructor observing whether someone can dance or not (my bet is that she can't). I also didn't find her particularly sexy in her sexy roles, even though I think she is beautiful. So that colors my impression also and is not a pure sexdar read.


She’s beautiful - my ex wife looked a lot like her. But she holds herself awkwardly and has zero grace. 

And those eyes are stone cold dead.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Let’s do a dude. Been rewatching twin peaks - Kyle MacLachlan?

My read is he’s a bit of a meh, but is probably funny.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Let’s do a dude. Been rewatching twin peaks - Kyle MacLachlan?
> 
> My read is he’s a bit of a meh, but is probably funny.


I can’t do him. I saw him in Showgirls and I’ll never forgive him for it. Nor ever forgive myself for watching it.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I can’t do him. I saw him in Showgirls and I’ll never forgive him for it. Nor ever forgive myself for watching it.


Never seen it. Liked him in Dune. He obviously couldn’t fight though. 

Ok pick someone else.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > I can’t do him. I saw him in Showgirls and I’ll never forgive him for it. Nor ever forgive myself for watching it.
> ...


I’m still a little confounded over how I can do this on someone who is famous.

How about pick an author that you admire who I likely won’t recognize, and post their pic here without telling me their name.

Then I will do my best based on the picture. 

I have not usually tried this based on a picture alone but will try it. And then whatever you know about the author can let you know if you have any clues that would make me right or wrong. 

I can do the same and pic someone I know a little about and ask your impressions. 

Also would be interested in others impressions.

Or we can start a new thread just for this if @Lila feels it is a threadjack.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

For me it would be hard to do if you can’t see them move. But let’s try.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

Marduk said:


> Uh, I mean, sure.
> 
> If they go kung fu kinky monkey on you the first few times you have sex, you can probably guess she knows what she's doing, and extrapolate quickly that knowledge takes experience.



Kung Fu kinky monkey...oh god :rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> For me it would be hard to do if you can’t see them move. But let’s try.


I can’t because I know who it is.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I would be interested in anyone’s opinion if they don’t know who it is though.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Marduk said:


> No, I’m talking about that joi de vive sense you get from some and not others. That comfort, that confidence. That switched on sense, that sashay in the walk.


This description is more about sensuality... which could tap into sexuality too, but not necessarily.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Marduk said:


> Sure, but it’s a self-selecting bias. I never slept with someone I didn’t think was hot.
> 
> To be fair, I used to have a lot of friends that were women, and some of them I didn’t think were hot. They seemed very sexual, at least some of them.
> 
> Are you saying the whole idea is stereotyping and therefore bad?


being pretty is not a requirement to be horney.
though as the farther away a women is from a 10 the harder it is to get to sex.

same with men.

and because a person is willing to have lots of sex does not mean they have to
be good at it or show enthusiasm.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

heartsbeating said:


> This description is more about sensuality... which could tap into sexuality too, but not necessarily.


I think they're related for sure.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I can’t because I know who it is.


OK you pick someone.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

If you know who it is it will be another dead end probably....


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> If you know who it is it will be another dead end probably....


If you people are honestly asking us to believe that you can tell anything about this man's sexuality, let alone his sexual history from that photograph, I'll be dipped in ****.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Here’s a guy who is on an ad I see here at TAM all the time. I do not know anything about him but can make my guesses.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > If you know who it is it will be another dead end probably....
> ...


No. I know a little about him because I know who it is. So Marduk was going to make a guess based on picture only.

Cletus, we don’t know anything for sure. And we are just having fun. There is no science going on here, it’s just a game. 

I already offered what I felt would be a way to test myself (observing a room of people who have self assessed, without them knowing I’m observing). Other than that way I can’t think of any way to show any of this has any validity.

And maybe none of it does have validity. I could be wrong about everyone all the time. I don’t know and am not trying to prove anything. It’s true to me but it’s also not important information in anyway. It’s just what I sense of people.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> If you know who it is it will be another dead end probably....


I have no idea.

His beard and eyebrows tell me that he might be meticulous and a little anal, fighting his animal nature that tries to come out. The Buddha statue in the background maybe is his intention to mellow out.

Shot in the dark - secretly into BDSM.

Of course I really have no idea, I'm just spitballing for fun.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Here’s a guy who is on an ad I see here at TAM all the time. I do not know anything about him but can make my guesses.


Likes to pretend he's a ladies man, but is actually very insecure when the clothes come off.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > If you know who it is it will be another dead end probably....
> ...


Yeah I think this is just too hard to do from a picture. It was worth a try!!!

The picture is of David Schnarch author of Passionate Marriage.

From his writings my sense is that he is fairly HD. Not sure about kink but he definitely supports anything that brings couples more passion.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> No. I know a little about him because I know who it is. So Marduk was going to make a guess based on picture only.
> 
> Cletus, we don’t know anything for sure. And we are just having fun. There is no science going on here, it’s just a game.


I'm reminded of the Nova episode years ago with James Randi. He took a photograph of a man to two Psychics in Russia who were selling the idea that they could tell you details about anyone's personality and life from a photograph.

So Randi shows them the picture, and we get a stream of utterly ambiguous nonsense that one could reasonably apply to anyone you and I know. Except the actual picture was of Ted Bundy.

The backpeddling that followed could have powered a small town for a week.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> I'm reminded of the Nova episode years ago with James Randi. He took a photograph of a man to two Psychics in Russia who were selling the idea that they could tell you details about anyone's personality and life from a photograph.
> 
> So Randi shows them the picture, and we get a stream of utterly ambiguous nonsense that one could reasonably apply to anyone you and I know. Except the actual picture was of Ted Bundy.
> 
> The backpeddling that followed could have powered a small town for a week.


Ok, man. I'm sorry if this is silly and offensive. I did ask @Lila if we should move it to a separate thread. I am not trying to change anyone's mind or convince anyone of anything.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, man. I'm sorry if this is silly and offensive. I did ask @Lila if we should move it to a separate thread. I am not trying to change anyone's mind or convince anyone of anything.


Silly? The world needs more silly. Offensive? After all this time, do you really think I can be offended?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)




----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Cletus said:


> I'm reminded of the Nova episode years ago with James Randi. He took a photograph of a man to two Psychics in Russia who were selling the idea that they could tell you details about anyone's personality and life from a photograph.
> 
> So Randi shows them the picture, and we get a stream of utterly ambiguous nonsense that one could reasonably apply to anyone you and I know. Except the actual picture was of Ted Bundy.
> 
> The backpeddling that followed could have powered a small town for a week.


quiet, you.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Silly? The world needs more silly. Offensive? After all this time, do you really think I can be offended?


Excellent point.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Marduk said:


> quiet, you.


Now that I look at this photo, Mr. Randi and I have more than a passing resemblance! :nerd:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Likes to pretend he's a ladies man, but is actually very insecure when the clothes come off.


That's approximately my guess, too. But neither of us know anything about him so this one is pure silly-ness.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Now that I look at this photo, Mr. Randi and I have more than a passing resemblance! :nerd:


You mean you are a stone cold fox, too?


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> You mean you are a stone cold fox, too?


That's what all the psychics in Russia say.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

@Marduk

The thin man in glasses....I would have to see his eyes and see him move. There are lots of thin dorky looking dudes who are absolutely love machines. Ric Ocasek! Mick Jagger!

I'm reading shyness in this picture but I don't know if I would read that in person.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Faithful Wife said:


> If you know who it is it will be another dead end probably....


Oh, he's YUMMY...looking, at least...!!!


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

in looking at the thin man i noticed the following....

the picture it self looks like the picture you would find inside the cover of a book flap although with the casting of the shadow in the back notes it was done without thought and in haste. he brought that suit off the rack, certainly not custom give the slack in the fabric of his coat and his jack sleeves, his hair is disheveled a bit and could use a clean up, his eye brows as well. his glasses are a bit out of style (not sure how old the picture is) the back ground is an office study given that papers are haphazardly stuffed on the top of books. And he is single. but beyond that any assessment about his sexual proclivities or history would be a mare guess at best.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> @Marduk
> 
> The thin man in glasses....I would have to see his eyes and see him move. There are lots of thin dorky looking dudes who are absolutely love machines. Ric Ocasek! Mick Jagger!
> 
> I'm reading shyness in this picture but I don't know if I would read that in person.


Deeply shy. It's William Gibson, author of seminal cyberpunk science fiction, coiner of the term 'cyberspace,' and a somewhat brilliant (but introverted) futurist.

Here's something more current.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Fun turn in the discussion. 

My sexdar is not very good.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)




----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

That chick looks like she is thinking of sex right now. And going to journal about something naughty.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> That chick looks like she is thinking of sex right now. And going to journal about something naughty.


Direct hit.

Anias Niin.

See, you're good at this.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Direct hit.
> 
> Anias Niin.
> 
> See, you're good at this.


I think most anyone might have clocked that one?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I think most anyone might have clocked that one?


Maybe.


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

Marduk said:


> Direct hit.
> 
> Anias Niin.
> 
> See, you're good at this.


This year author i am reading about is Henry Miller and of course his works, his interaction with Anias throughout his life was very introspective. Anias had such a wonderful perspective on human sexuality. i am looking for a great biography on her.


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

Marduk said:


> Maybe.


JD Salinger?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lostinthought61 said:


> JD Salinger?


You're not supposed to say, you're supposed to say what you're sexdar says!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> You're not supposed to say, you're supposed to say what you're sexdar says!


I'm finding this is not working for me. My guesses have been about something other than sexdar. My sexdar does not light up and try to read just based on a picture.

So this guy, all I can say is he is a handsome fella and I would expect a conversation with him to be delightful. He has an impish grin which makes me think he's a rascal (in a good way).

But again, none of that is coming from sexdar. It is coming from my womanhood. I feel attraction and then all sorts of other thoughts and assumptions come to mind.


----------



## JustTheWife (Nov 1, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> You are laying it on thick again and definitely adding your own details that I never mentioned or inferred. I don't think your husband's gullibility or naivete towards your history is in anyway a poor reflection of him, nor have I ever inferred that so further pursuit by you down that rabbit hole will continue to be your prerogative alone.
> 
> Your posts were coming off as if you thought you were particularly sly or cunning to have pulled one over on your husband which we already addressed. You are also attempting to reinforce a negative stereotype of women being great at decieving men and I assure you that men are just as fantastic at deception as women.
> 
> Lying to a spouse is hardly a gender issue.


First, I think this is an interesting debate and i have nothing against you. Just a discussion.

I don't think i mischaracterized anything that you said. Gullible and Naive are not usually considered a positive description of someone. Anyway, whether it's positive or negative isn't the issue. We all interpret things differently but saw your post dripping in bravado. Like hearing a story about someone getting ripped off and all the tough guys fall all over themselves to say how it could NEVER happen to them. Not naive and gullible like that chump.

I very well know that men deceive just like women do. My comment had nothing to do with who deceives more. Simply that women deceive more THAN IS GENERALLY APPRECIATED. I didn't say women deceive more than men. Maybe a lot of men with the bravado (I can tell a woman's history blah blah) have very misplaced trust. But that doesn't matter. Men can be blissfully content thinking that they would know if their wife "got around" (not like "chumps" like my husband) and the wife can keep her secrets safe. Works for everyone. Pretty normal arrangement, I would say.


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

Marduk said:


> You're not supposed to say, you're supposed to say what you're sexdar says!



oh that is easy pedophile


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm finding this is not working for me. My guesses have been about something other than sexdar. My sexdar does not light up and try to read just based on a picture.
> 
> So this guy, all I can say is he is a handsome fella and I would expect a conversation with him to be delightful. He has an impish grin which makes me think he's a rascal (in a good way).
> 
> But again, none of that is coming from sexdar. It is coming from my womanhood. I feel attraction and then all sorts of other thoughts and assumptions come to mind.


From what I've heard, he could be charming when he wanted to be, and very controlling and manipulative when he wanted to be. He basically totally isolated his wife and family from the world.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

JustTheWife said:


> First, I think this is an interesting debate and i have nothing against you. Just a discussion.
> 
> I don't think i mischaracterized anything that you said. Gullible and Naive are not usually considered a positive description of someone. Anyway, whether it's positive or negative isn't the issue. We all interpret things differently but saw your post dripping in bravado. Like hearing a story about someone getting ripped off and all the tough guys fall all over themselves to say how it could NEVER happen to them. Not naive and gullible like that chump.
> 
> I very well know that men deceive just like women do. My comment had nothing to do with who deceives more. Simply that women deceive more THAN IS GENERALLY APPRECIATED. I didn't say women deceive more than men. Maybe a lot of men with the bravado (I can tell a woman's history blah blah) have very misplaced trust. But that doesn't matter. Men can be blissfully content thinking that they would know if their wife "got around" (not like "chumps" like my husband) and the wife can keep her secrets safe. Works for everyone. Pretty normal arrangement, I would say.


You are the one referring to your husband as a chump. I don't believe anyone else is.


Learn terms. Gullible isn't derogatory, neither is naivete. Ignorant isn't a negative term either.

I have never had an issue with your husband. I have always believed the onus is on you and my response to your post was along that same line.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

JustTheWife said:


> First, I think this is an interesting debate and i have nothing against you. Just a discussion.
> 
> I don't think i mischaracterized anything that you said. *Gullible and Naive are not usually considered a positive description of someone.* Anyway, whether it's positive or negative isn't the issue. We all interpret things differently but saw your post dripping in bravado. Like hearing a story about someone getting ripped off and all the tough guys fall all over themselves to say how it could NEVER happen to them. Not naive and gullible like that chump.


 There is a very thin line between "Gullible and Naive" and "trusting." In fact, it may not be a line at all; it may be entirely in the mind of the beholder. One person's "naive" could be another person's "trusting." And "trusting" would generally carry a positive, not negative, connotation.

The difference in perception may be all about opportunity. The person seeing someone as "gullible and naive" may be the type of person who would take advantage of that.


----------



## JustTheWife (Nov 1, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> You are the one referring to your husband as a chump. I don't believe anyone else is.
> 
> 
> Learn terms. Gullible isn't derogatory, neither is naivete. Ignorant isn't a negative term either.
> ...





Casual Observer said:


> There is a very thin line between "Gullible and Naive" and "trusting." In fact, it may not be a line at all; it may be entirely in the mind of the beholder. One person's "naive" could be another person's "trusting." And "trusting" would generally carry a positive, not negative, connotation.
> 
> The difference in perception may be all about opportunity. The person seeing someone as "gullible and naive" may be the type of person who would take advantage of that.


Whether gullible and naive are positive traits or not is irrelevant to the points made. However, if someone thinks that describing a grown man as "gullible" does not have a negative connotation, especially when accompanied with -- (to paraphrase) "that would never happen to me", then I'm not going to sit here and waste time arguing.

Yes, "trusting" often carries a positive connotation while "gullible" rarely does. "Gullible" was the word used, not "trusting". I get that not everyone has a good command of the nuance of language but if someone wishes to convey a positive trait related to believing things you hear, you'll use "trusting", not "gullible, especially related to a grown man and accompanied by the bravado of (to paraphrase), "that would never happen to me". Back to the real topic of discussion...

It can be insulting (and ignorant) to suggest that one is gullible or naive if they can't tell that a woman has had sex with a lot of guys. That's why I'm picking up on these words and the general attitude that "guys just can tell". I still don't understand why that is and nothing that's been explained makes much sense. Like I'm marked or damaged? Like somehow it gives me traits that are readily apparent to every man except for the gullible and naive? Like maybe I'd be stretched out or "nasty"? I know that nobody said anything like this but those are the undertones that I feel from it.

Maybe men don't understand this because they don't have to deal with "sl** shaming" but there's something insulting about an attitude such as (to paraphrase) "we just know...". I'm not trying to twist your views or your words and I assume it's unintended but just pointing out that it has a slightly misogynous hue to it. Men may notice this less but it's not uncommon to hear people describing "easy" women in graphic physical terms or somehow otherwise damaged. Although I'm sure it's unintended, the language used felt a little like code for this.

If I'm the only woman here sensitive to this then you can ignore me. Just being open about my feelings to some things i'm reading and I think pointing this out is relevant to the topic being discussed.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Yes, there is...

Cars and other vehicles have an odometer on them to indicate the actual mileage.
Some HD trucks and most boat engines, aircraft engines and industrial machinery have an hour-meter to indicate how long they been run.

Ladies, all of them have an "Oh damn! meter. It indicates how many times she got off.



Men have an hour meter. Every time they have sex they must put in a penny. 

At first, it was a quarter, but their SO's kept stealing it for pin-money. 

It was not to am*ass* a fortune but to keep count. 

You could tell which men had a lot of sex by the coin count. 

You could tell which men put everything into the endeavors, this by the amount of sweat and salt corrosion in the meter. 
Unfortunately, the time on the job was never a consideration. The two minute pumpers got the same credit as those who lasted an hour.


The Typist-


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

JustTheWife said:


> Whether gullible and naive are positive traits or not is irrelevant to the points made. However, if someone thinks that describing a grown man as "gullible" does not have a negative connotation, especially when accompanied with -- (to paraphrase) "that would never happen to me", then I'm not going to sit here and waste time arguing.
> 
> Yes, "trusting" often carries a positive connotation while "gullible" rarely does. "Gullible" was the word used, not "trusting". I get that not everyone has a good command of the nuance of language but if someone wishes to convey a positive trait related to believing things you hear, you'll use "trusting", not "gullible, especially related to a grown man and accompanied by the bravado of (to paraphrase), "that would never happen to me". Back to the real topic of discussion...
> 
> ...


I'm not seeing where I said anything that contradicts you. I'm especially sensitive to misogynous tendencies and the sl_t shaming issues. Shaming in particular is counter-productive. 

Where things get interesting is when we talk about guilt. Guilt is not always such a bad thing, as guilt can motivate us to become a better person, if we actually deal with it instead of bury it. There is no good side to shame that I can think of.


----------



## hinterdir (Apr 17, 2018)

JustTheWife said:


> Interesting discussion. I guess I should weigh in as this thread was started from an exchange between Conan and me. Just some points to add:
> 
> 1. I have no doubt that people can get a sense for how in touch with their sexuality someone is. But "in touch with their sexuality" can be a very poor indicator of sexual history. There are loads of sexy and sexually charged people who have little or no experience. And vice versa.
> 
> ...


Much of what you describe is what people who barely know you would think of you from afar. 
I believe the core of this debate is what someone who knows you well and is intimate with you would think or pick up on. 
Who knows what your man thinks. Maybe he really knows you've been a promiscuous woman and just doesn't say. Maybe if you came clean he would say..."yeah I could tell" 
Who knows.


----------



## cashcratebob (Jan 10, 2018)

Honestly, if experience has developed an intuition for recognizing sexual experience, and it holds true for them, what is the point of arguing from the "unique" situations? Even if the unique situation is themselves. My experience working with thousands of folks administering personality profiles is that they are not nearly as nuanced as they (or the TAM community) would like to think. You are likely more of an open book than you think. I know this, because if anything is lacking in the thousands of folks I've facilitated personality tests to, it is self-awareness!

That being said, I think the conversation regarding men of bravado/strong men being able/good at "just recognizing" sexual experience is not particularly accurate. Again, that would be more of an intuition based on experience, since men in that dominant category tend to have the least emotional intelligence...ie the ability to just read a person and know. (Ya sucks...the flip side is they likely have more "experience" lending to intuition but that's a separate conversation). Strong men can be emotionally intelligent...but once you get into the bravado/arrogant/direct personality trait you really start to move away from your more emotionally intelligent side of the wheel. Strong dominant men's men kept their women in ages past by being strong dominant men's men...it's your weaker "beta" men, like myself, who had to develop EI to understand where their mates head was at by paying attention to behavior and non-verbals. 

All this is true for women as well (obviously). Women who fall in the dominant category tend to have the least emotional intelligence (for women...some would argue they have more out the gate than men...not sure on that but I'm inclined to agree).

As someone who has little nuanced sexual experience to build intuition from, I find I am still pretty accurate when it comes to my perceived biases (confirmed via social media or conversation that happen later). I naturally operate, though not always, with a higher degree of emotional intel than guys around me. It gets to the point where it bothers my wife (and I know it does...separate story lol). 

I agree [email protected] perspective...whether from intuition or just knowing via EI...don't care. I agree that you can't be 100% accurate, there are nuances, but I don't agree that negates the use and accuracy of either intuition or EI of judging sexual experience or any personality trait for that matter. A man who is duped is likely less emotionally intelligent or has very little experience to build the necessary intuition. Obviously if you couple that with a women's desire to hide her experience, than yes you got a duped husband. But I wouldn't use words like naive or ignorant to describe the guy as much as lacking some facet of EI or intuition.


----------



## a_new_me (Dec 27, 2012)

Marduk said:


> Well... actually I have. While single, of course.
> 
> This would be part of the reason that I'd go to a party and pick out the hot girl at the back of the room that wasn't necessarily the extroverted, obviously hot woman that was the center of everybody's attention.
> 
> ...



I remember in my mid-30s. I went to the first day of classes and we were told to group up for an assignment. Teacher then halved the amount of groups by putting groups from different streams together.

Anyways, right after class we got together to “brainstorm”. I had never met the woman beside me. For some reason I snickered out loud after she talked. She was like wtf? I said to her i could sense things about her. She was like ok, what? So I said first you are a lesbian, she snickered, I then said that she was a cop.
She laughed, sat back, looked at me and asked me how in the hell I knew that. 

I was totally right about both, she was just blown away because I got that from just my senses. Told me I should be a cop because I can read people but am hard to read myself so I would make a good detective. 
Been friends ever since. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

if it walks, talks and acts like a duck chances are it is a duck.

so if one dresses, talks, acts a certain way that is most likely what one is.

people give off vibes.
there are stereotypes for a reason.

vibes and stereotypes are not as correct when told to trust your gut when you suspect
that your WS is cheating on you. though they are more often correct than they are
wrong.


----------

