# Had a talk with the wife last night



## Vtecthis (Apr 8, 2011)

Last night my wife shared with me that a major part of the reason she doesn't like/want to have sex is because she feels her previous partners used her for it. She says she feels they took from her and didn't give back... In the bedroom or out.

So now she doesn't want to have sex with me, nor does she like doing it. 

I feel like they have have stolen the joy of sex from her and also stolen the gift of sex from our marriage. I am very angry with them!


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

Getting angry with the previous partners is useless and blaming the wrong person. It's her mindset that needs to change.

Has her attitude changed for the worse since you were married? Or was it always bad? And are you two talking to a counselor?

C


----------



## Vtecthis (Apr 8, 2011)

Yeah, I know... It just doesn't do any good to get angry at her. 

Her attitude has changed, but I'm starting to think it's because she is getting tired of fighting it... I don't know. We are not talking to a counselor right now, but I do think talking to one will be in order shortly.


----------



## WhiteRabbit (May 11, 2011)

not fair to drag baggage from the past relationship and dump it on your doorstep. 

i'd be insulted at being punished for the behavior of a loser ex.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

V I can understand her attitude based on past bad experiences. It is easy for women to think of men in general based on experience with a few. If she has been unlucky to be with users then she carries with her for life. Negative societal attitudes about men don't help. 

The overriding factor here is that you are the man who committed to her and obviously loves her. That makes her reason for not wanting to have sex with you unreasonable. In fact , having a loving husband who is making love to her should be healing. You sound like a wonderful man and very understanding but I think giving her a pass on this will not help her or you. 

Having a loving husband is a great gift that many women never get. It seems to me that sharing that feeling with you is a beginning and not the end. Now she has to heal and she can not punish you for the past. Moreover, the best thing she can do is to embrace her good fortune in having a loving man and giving the finger to the jerk from the past. I'll bet who ever it was wishes he had as good a partner as your wife has had in you. 

Let her know this is the beginning of her healing and that she will have to work on it with you and with a therapist. Don't just accept this
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Vtecthis (Apr 8, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> V I can understand her attitude based on past bad experiences. It is easy for women to think of men in general based on experience with a few. If she has been unlucky to be with users then she carries with her for life. Negative societal attitudes about men don't help.
> 
> The overriding factor here is that you are the man who committed to her and obviously loves her. That makes her reason for not wanting to have sex with you unreasonable. In fact , having a loving husband who is making love to her should be healing. You sound like a wonderful man and very understanding but I think giving her a pass on this will not help her or you.
> 
> ...


I absolutely agree! Thank you very much!

And thank you for the kind words  I try to be as loving and patient as I can. 

I agree that this is only the beginning of her healing and she had the attitude of "I know I need to work on this". 

So my questions becomes, how can I help her with this?


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Bogus excuse. Really. What if she told you last lover had a such a large penis compared to you, there's just no point? How would that feel?

Right.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

She made something up that you could not do anything about. If you accept this excuse, she will become further disinterested in sex (ha, he is weak!). If you challenge her as to whether she wants to be a partner in your marriage, you will see some change.


----------



## rotor (Aug 28, 2010)

That is complete unadulterated BS and is one of the oldest lines in the book. Women use that one all the time to both get in or out of sex.

To get out of sex.

My wife used that one. In her case it was a professional athlete that was overly well endowed that scarred her for life. (Poor broken little thing. Sniff.)

To get into sex.

True story, a woman was hitting on me in a bar a few weeks ago. She tells me "You represent everything that every other guy that has hurt me in the past wasn't. You know what I mean?" 

I thought to myself, yea I know exactly what you mean. Now where is my gag bag? LOL

Regards,

rotor


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Translation:
The "alpha" guys who I desired treated me badly. 

You on the other hand treat me really well AND you aren't willing to stand up for your needs so you get to be "incel"



Vtecthis said:


> Last night my wife shared with me that a major part of the reason she doesn't like/want to have sex is because she feels her previous partners used her for it. She says she feels they took from her and didn't give back... In the bedroom or out.
> 
> So now she doesn't want to have sex with me, nor does she like doing it.
> 
> I feel like they have have stolen the joy of sex from her and also stolen the gift of sex from our marriage. I am very angry with them!


----------



## Nicbrownn80 (Mar 20, 2011)

Why don't you try to fix that feeling, say its not fair to you.

From your post your an understandable guy


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Knowing sex was an expected part of the deal, and knowing she would prefer to not have sex, she entered into a marriage with you anyway, apparently intending to deny you sex while receiving whatever benefits you bring to the equation. Interesting that because past lovers allegedly "used" her, she apparently feels justified to use you.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

"They took from her and didn't give back". Isn't that exactly what she's doing?


----------



## magnoliagal (Mar 30, 2011)

I'm calling BS on this bogus excuse. Poor pitiful me, feel sorry for me that other men scarred me for life but forget that your needs are not being met nor will they ever be met. But hey I'll throw you a bone and say "I know I need to work on it" while you behave like too much of a nice guy and let her get away with it. If she truly felt this way she should not have gotten married.

I think this excuse is up there with I have a headache but this one is better because it lasts longer.

Time to do some manning up and fast.


----------



## boxer (Apr 30, 2011)

Your main problem is marrying a woman who had casual sex partners in her past. Such women are not fit to be a wife or mother to a man's child.

The Social Pathologist: Sexual Partner Divorce Risk

As you can see, a woman who has even one sex partner without being wed is at a big disadvantage. Three or more sex partners make her unable to form a healthy bond to a husband or to have the capacity to be a wife.

If it were me, I would divorce this woman and just be single. You will certainly get your sexual needs met better this way, and I am sure you will save money too. Good luck brother.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Why do you believe she is lying about the effect of past experience on her attitude towards sex with her husband? And where did the belief that she had casual encounters? Women go through their formative years knowing that men separate their abitity to care about when it comes to their sexual pleasure and are capable of amoral and self serving behavior. These woman become someones wife. Even woman who do not have sex before marriage are effected, they are just as likely or maybe more likly to deny sex to their husband. 

Depending on the personality and individual experiences of the women, a man's desire for sex in marriage can easy to be seen in the same light. Maybe women are as capable of separating caring from sex like men. Or maybe they learn from men. Nevertheless women are behaving more like men so it may be they we are more alike than once believed. Maybe the lack of caring behavior by men manifest as an utter lack of empathy in women when their husbands come to them for sex. 
. 
As for the notion that a women is incapable of being a good mother or wife because she has sex before marriage is hypocritical. Does that apply to men? I wonder if any studies have been done on the correlation betwen the number of premarital male partners on the and the ability of so many men to refuse any contact with their own children when they divorced.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BigBadWolf (Nov 30, 2009)

Do not put much stock in your woman's excuses. It is as much a fitness test as I have ever seen, this comment about previous partners.

A woman, if she is sexually attracted to a man, she will not have such excuses.

Stop behaviors that are not sexually attractive -such as talking to your woman about why she won't have sex with you- and start behaviors that are sexually attractive.

I wish you well.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

I'm trying to wrap my head around this concept of her previous sexual partners "using" her. Both she and her partners had sex, so they're basically even. If she felt her participation in sex put some other unrequited obligation on her partners, then were they using her or was she trying to use them? Unless she was the victim of a rape or sexual assault, she was a willing participant and apparently a repeat one. What was she expecting to get that she did not and why did she expect it? If she hooked up repeatedly with dishonorable losers, what malfunctioned in her selection process to make her do so?


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> V I can understand her attitude based on past bad experiences. It is easy for women to think of men in general based on experience with a few. If she has been unlucky to be with users then she carries with her for life. Negative societal attitudes about men don't help.
> :iagree: I went through similar scenarios, where I felt used and tossed aside or misled in order to get sex. By the time I met my husband, I was so cynical that I never believed I would marry, since I believed that all men were lying jerks. I was coming from an ex who left me when I broke my arm, because he could eff me but not help me. Soon after that, I met another who lied about his indentity to hide his extensive criminal record. Both of those experiences hardened me.
> 
> The overriding factor here is that you are the man who committed to her and obviously loves her. That makes her reason for not wanting to have sex with you unreasonable. In fact , having a loving husband who is making love to her should be healing. You sound like a wonderful man and very understanding but I think giving her a pass on this will not help her or you.
> ...


----------



## jmsclayton (Sep 5, 2010)

sHe can get it back by u helping her an she doing her part 

I am willing to talk an share with her as she works thru ,takes a lot of writings
An talking an doing for to make it thru an see it is for u an her 

Judith


Vtecthis said:


> Last night my wife shared with me that a major part of the reason she doesn't like/want to have sex is because she feels her previous partners used her for it. She says she feels they took from her and didn't give back... In the bedroom or out.
> 
> So now she doesn't want to have sex with me, nor does she like doing it.
> 
> I feel like they have have stolen the joy of sex from her and also stolen the gift of sex from our marriage. I am very angry with them!


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

boxer said:


> Your main problem is marrying a woman who had casual sex partners in her past. Such women are not fit to be a wife or mother to a man's child.
> 
> The Social Pathologist: Sexual Partner Divorce Risk
> 
> ...


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

MrsG I too was tricked by a coach who claimed to love me when I was 15 yr old. After that, I hated older men, they disgusted me.

I was very lucky that my husband befriended me and helped to recover when we were 16. I was equally fortunate that we fell in love when we were 19 yo and have been together since. 

I heard the coach he lost everything, family, job, friends, died 10 yrs latter from alcoholism. I was happy he suffered, he deserved it. I am glad you get to see karma in action; that does not often happen that you see it but, although it always happens.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> And where did the belief that she had casual encounters?


A sexual encounter outside of marriage is, by definition, casual. I suppose one could argue degrees of casualness (sex during engagement, sex during cohabitation, sex after professing love, etc.), but that would be difficult to quantify in a statistical study. Marriage serves as a bright dividing line for committed and non-committed relationships.



Catherine602 said:


> As for the notion that a women is incapable of being a good mother or wife because she has sex before marriage is hypocritical. Does that apply to men? I wonder if any studies have been done on the correlation betwen the number of premarital male partners on the and the ability of so many men to refuse any contact with their own children when they divorced.


The study didn't deal with quality of parents or spouses. It only dealt with the likelihood of divorce. The study found that the risk of divorce increased with the number of premarital sexual partners for women. The study did not show the same increased risk for men. The poster concluded on his own that a mother/wife who divorces is a less fit than a woman who does not. That's not an outrageous conclusion, but it's outside the scope of the cited study.


----------



## 4sure (Aug 8, 2010)

Vtecthis said:


> Last night my wife shared with me that a major part of the reason she doesn't like/want to have sex is because she feels her previous partners used her for it. She says she feels they took from her and didn't give back... In the bedroom or out.
> 
> So now she doesn't want to have sex with me, nor does she like doing it.
> 
> I feel like they have have stolen the joy of sex from her and also stolen the gift of sex from our marriage. I am very angry with them!


If she feels this way she should have gotten counseling, and gave it time before entering into another relationship. She should have worked on self.

Most all of us over 25, men and women, have been used in some sort of way. We are damaged to a degree.

How was sex before marriage? Did she have the issue then, or has it surfaced since marriage?

If a man was used for his money, does it make it ok for him not to work? :scratchhead:


----------



## VLR (May 15, 2011)

I would read into her response the implication that you are not viewed as being any different than the other guys. I suppose you have to ask yourself whether that could be true. If it there is truth to it, then maybe you need to think about how you treat her. If that isn't a fair thing to put on you, you have to decide whether you want to stay in the relationship or not.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> A sexual encounter outside of marriage is, by definition, casual. I suppose one could argue degrees of casualness (sex during engagement, sex during cohabitation, sex after professing love, etc.), but that would be difficult to quantify in a statistical study. Marriage serves as a bright dividing line for committed and non-committed relationships.
> 
> 
> The study didn't deal with quality of parents or spouses. It only dealt with the likelihood of divorce. The study found that the risk of divorce increased with the number of premarital sexual partners for women. The study did not show the same increased risk for men. The poster concluded on his own that a mother/wife who divorces is a less fit than a woman who does not. That's not an outrageous conclusion, but it's outside the scope of the cited study.


Interpretation of scientific studies takes intellectual rigor, and honesty that is difficult to maintain, especially on emotionally laden topics. At one time, several scientific studies showed that women had lower intelligence than men and these were used to deny women the right to make decisions over their lives. 

The agenda with these studies is transparent - an attempt to control the sexuality of women.

How will this help couples with problems - should men in the mist of marital problems question their wives closely about their sexual past and then what? If she has had more than a certain number, he can say she is the problem? Is the solution to the 50% divorce rate to control the number of sexual partners a woman has? Do you think there is any role that men play in the divorce rate or are they victims of rapacious females.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> Interpretation of scientific studies takes intellectual rigor, and honesty that is difficult to maintain, especially on emotionally laden topics. At one time, several scientific studies showed that women had lower intelligence than men and these were used to deny women the right to make decisions over their lives.
> 
> The agenda with these studies is transparent - an attempt to control the sexuality of women.
> 
> ...


:iagree::iagree:


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

V I don't know if you are still reading but I hope you don't let these side discussions confuse the issue with your wife. I know you love her and you identify with her past pain but you also need to be harder on her and more demanding of her to grow from the past. We all need to recover from trauma, it is unacceptable to let the past overtake the present. 

She has been very fortunate to have secured a good family, why does she not act to appreciate that? . You must get through to her that no matter what she has experience that was bad, she has also experienced many good things. Especially when it has to do with securing the love of a man like you. 

Some women would kill to have a man like you and your wife is treating you like chopped liver.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> Interpretation of scientific studies takes intellectual rigor, and honesty that is difficult to maintain, especially on emotionally laden topics.


That's correct. That's why I agree that the commenter that posited that women with a significant number of premarital sex partners make less fit wives and mothers went too far. The data only shows that those women are at increased risk for divorce. It's not a ridiculous hypothesis that women who are at increased risk for divorce are less fit wives and mothers, but that topic wasn't addressed in the study in question.



Catherine602 said:


> At one time, several scientific studies showed that women had lower intelligence than men and these were used to deny women the right to make decisions over their lives.


At one time, academics believed the Earth was flat. That doesn't mean we should assume modern geologic studies to have a flat Earth bias.



Catherine602 said:


> The agenda with these studies is transparent - an attempt to control the sexuality of women.


Now you are the one making unfounded assumptions beyond the scope of the study.



Catherine602 said:


> How will this help couples with problems - should men in the mist of marital problems question their wives closely about their sexual past and then what? If she has had more than a certain number, he can say she is the problem?


The study may help divorced men feel less guilty. If a man's ex-wife had 10 prior partners, he may feel like less of a failure if he knows that a very small percentage of such women remain married to their husbands.



Catherine602 said:


> Is the solution to the 50% divorce rate to control the number of sexual partners a woman has?


The divorce rate was much lower when people were less promiscuous. Perhaps people valuing chastity could effect a reduction in the divorce rate. That really sounds ridiculous to you? When my children reach puberty I will be encouraging them to remain chaste and to seek out potential mates who are also chaste. I want them to have the best possible chance of a lifelong marriage.

You are a married woman. Do you feel that your premarital sexual relationships enhance your marriage? Feel free not to answer such a personal question. For the record, I feel that my sexual history prior to my wife at best contributes nothing to my marriage, and at worst, detracts significantly from it.



Catherine602 said:


> Do you think there is any role that men play in the divorce rate or are they victims of rapacious females.


Of course. It's always the man's fault, right?

For the record, I erred in a prior post when I said the study didn't show an increased risk of divorce for men as the number of sex partners increased. There was an increased risk. But the increase was smaller than for women.


----------



## Vtecthis (Apr 8, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> V I don't know if you are still reading but I hope you don't let these side discussions confuse the issue with your wife. I know you love her and you identify with her past pain but you also need to be harder on her and more demanding of her to grow from the past. We all need to recover from trauma, it is unacceptable to let the past overtake the present.
> 
> She has been very fortunate to have secured a good family, why does she not act to appreciate that? . You must get through to her that no matter what she has experience that was bad, she has also experienced many good things. Especially when it has to do with securing the love of a man like you.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I really do appreciate everything everyone has said. I do need to be harder on her, because it is not fair to me or our marriage.

I don't know why she wouldn't act on it. For the last 2 years I have thought that she would if I continued to show her patience, kindness and love... In her defense, we have gotten better in some areas, but there is still a long way to go.

Thank you!


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> The divorce rate was much lower when people were less promiscuous.


At the same, there was basically no effective birth control and in the divorce courts a woman would end up without a pot to p*ss in or a window to chuck it out of, which of course _might_ have an effect.



> Perhaps people valuing chastity could effect a reduction in the divorce rate. That really sounds ridiculous to you? When my children reach puberty I will be encouraging them to remain chaste and to seek out potential mates who are also chaste. I want them to have the best possible chance of a lifelong marriage.


And when they turn up somewhere like this because they've got married and one of them can't abide the other sexually - like loads of the people on here? Does that meet your requirements?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sawney Beane said:


> At the same, there was basically no effective birth control and in the divorce courts a woman would end up without a pot to p*ss in or a window to chuck it out of, which of course _might_ have an effect.


It's possible lots of factors interact to contribute to divorce rates. I have never claimed otherwise. However, I think it's foolish to believe that promiscuity can have no effect on the divorce rate.



Sawney Beane said:


> And when they turn up somewhere like this because they've got married and one of them can't abide the other sexually - like loads of the people on here? Does that meet your requirements?


How many virginal marriage stories do we have on this board? Is it a statistically credible number? Do you know of any studies that can refute the conclusions of the cited study showing correlation between divorce and promiscuity? I would be interested to see them. Please provide links.

As I stated earlier, I would like for my kids to have the best chance for happiness in life. I would love for them to have lifelong marriages. It's curious that my wish antagonizes you. Are you against lifelong marriage? Are you against chastity? Are you simply trolling?


----------



## Ben (May 8, 2011)

^^Remaining chaste before marriage is a terrible idea because then there is a good chance the two people will realise they are sexually incompatible when it is too late, and they go through years of unhappiness before they finally get a divorce.

Very, very bad idea that clearly you have no idea of because you have never been in that situation.

You may wish to raise your children however you like, however you have to realise that MOST other children in this current generation are NOT raised this way, because the world is a changing place, and I honestly think your kids will struggle being in the minority group. I just hope you also don't poison them with any negative ideas about sex or particular sexual acts.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> It's curious that my wish antagonizes you. Are you against lifelong marriage? Are you against chastity? Are you simply trolling?


Your wish doesn't antagonise me, I just think it's laughable. My first boss reckoned that a good working definition of stupidity was the idea that ignorance improved anything

As far as I know, holding a different opinion doesn't constitute trolling. 

Finally, Google "sexual incompatability" and see if you wish a lifetime of it on someone.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Ben said:


> ^^Remaining chaste before marriage is a terrible idea because then there is a good chance the two people will realise they are sexually incompatible when it is too late, and they go through years of unhappiness before they finally get a divorce.
> 
> Very, very bad idea that clearly you have no idea of because you have never been in that situation.
> 
> You may wish to raise your children however you like, however you have to realise that MOST other children in this current generation are NOT raised this way, because the world is a changing place, and I honestly think your kids will struggle being in the minority group. I just hope you also don't poison them with any negative ideas about sex or particular sexual acts.


:iagree: Spot on.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

Ben said:


> ^^Remaining chaste before marriage is a terrible idea because then there is a good chance the two people will realise they are sexually incompatible when it is too late, and they go through years of unhappiness before they finally get a divorce.
> 
> Very, very bad idea that clearly you have no idea of because you have never been in that situation.
> 
> You may wish to raise your children however you like, however you have to realise that MOST other children in this current generation are NOT raised this way, because the world is a changing place, and I honestly think your kids will struggle being in the minority group. I just hope you also don't poison them with any negative ideas about sex or particular sexual acts.


I don't really want to get in to a debate about chastity versus not - I will leave that as an individual decision. However, having sex before marriage and establishing some kind of "sexual compatability" before marriage does not necessary equate to sexual compatability later on or throughout a marriage. This board is littered with lots of stories of this. To me, the thing that is likely to determine compatability or not long-term, whether chastity is involved or not, is the commitment to the union by both parties.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Ben said:


> ^^Remaining chaste before marriage is a terrible idea because then there is a good chance the two people will realise they are sexually incompatible when it is too late, and they go through years of unhappiness before they finally get a divorce.


I have seen cases of sexual incompatibility that resulted from past sexual history. Remaining chaste would eliminate these.

I have seen cases of sexual incompatibility that resulted from changing desire. Promiscuity before marriage would do nothing to eliminate these.

I suppose that premarital sex would flush out cases of sexual incompatibility resulting from incompatible genitalia. How many of those cases do you suppose exist?



Ben said:


> Very, very bad idea that clearly you have no idea of because you have never been in that situation.


I have only experienced my own situation. And you have only experienced your situation. And neither one of those is statistically credible. If only there were some sort of statistically credible study available that would show if there was a correlation between premarital promiscuity and later divorce. Wait a minute ...! 



Ben said:


> You may wish to raise your children however you like, however you have to realise that MOST other children in this current generation are NOT raised this way, because the world is a changing place, and I honestly think your kids will struggle being in the minority group. I just hope you also don't poison them with any negative ideas about sex or particular sexual acts.


I realize that the world is changing. However, I don't see a skyrocketing divorce rate as a positive change that I should embrace. You are free to believe otherwise, but I sincerely hope that your children (if you have any) are raised in a two parent household.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Pht,
The post below is not balanced. About 1/4 of the women I slept with - there is no way I would have married them because sexually something was seriously "off". Not saying it was them. Maybe it was me. Just saying "that" part of the relationship would not have worked. 

While initial compatibility is no guarantee - initial compatibility plus commitment tends to work out well. 



PHTlump said:


> I have seen cases of sexual incompatibility that resulted from past sexual history. Remaining chaste would eliminate these.
> 
> I have seen cases of sexual incompatibility that resulted from changing desire. Promiscuity before marriage would do nothing to eliminate these.
> 
> ...


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sawney Beane said:


> Your wish doesn't antagonise me, I just think it's laughable. My first boss reckoned that a good working definition of stupidity was the idea that ignorance improved anything


I agree. That's why I find it curious that you dismiss statistical studies that contradict your own personal preferences. Do you think that statistical studies are ignorant?



Sawney Beane said:


> As far as I know, holding a different opinion doesn't constitute trolling.


I think a good definition of trolling is belittling the conclusion of statistical studies in favor of opinions based on nothing valid. 



Sawney Beane said:


> Finally, Google "sexual incompatability" and see if you wish a lifetime of it on someone.


Obviously not. But I don't see how premarital promiscuity would avert many, or any, cases of sexual incompatibility. I certainly wouldn't wish a lifetime of fighting higher odds of divorce on someone.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Pht,
> The post below is not balanced. About 1/4 of the women I slept with - there is no way I would have married them because sexually something was seriously "off". Not saying it was them. Maybe it was me. Just saying "that" part of the relationship would not have worked.


I'm not dismissing sexual incompatibility as irrelevant. I'm simply saying that on the balance, I think more sexual incompatibility could be avoided by remaining chaste than by being promiscuous.

This thread is about a man's wife who isn't interested in sex with him because she was treated badly by prior lovers. If she didn't have that prior history, she would probably be much more open to sex with her husband.

And incompatibility isn't the only issue at work with the correlation between premarital promiscuity and divorce rates. How many affairs occur between a spouse and an ex-lover? It seems reasonable to think that removing the ex-lovers from the equation, or at least reducing them, would reduce the risk of affairs, and subsequent divorces.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

PHT,
I agree that a high level of promiscuity is not a good thing either for men or women. As to what we define as a "high level" - in this area clearly you have much higher standards than I do.

As for Vtech - sadly his story is much, much different story it seems on the surface.

Loosely speaking, women mate for 3 reasons: 
- procreation
- bonding their male partner to them
- recreation

His W selected high alpha/low beta partners for recreation. At a certain point she elected to find a more stable "higher beta" male to marry and procreate with. She mated with him to make babies and to bond. She did not mate with him for recreation, because he isn't her "type" in that area. 

Sadly she just isn't that turned on by a guy with very little edge. Which - by the way is likely the single biggest source of lack of desire in a large chunk of the female population (meaning those women NEED their partner to have some edge). So "their" issue has zero to do with prior partners - and everything to do with her having no desire to be straight and tell him she isn't attracted to him. 




PHTlump said:


> I'm not dismissing sexual incompatibility as irrelevant. I'm simply saying that on the balance, I think more sexual incompatibility could be avoided by remaining chaste than by being promiscuous.
> 
> There is a current thread on this board where a man's wife isn't interested in sex with him because she was treated badly by prior lovers. If she didn't have that prior history, she would probably be much more open to sex with her husband.
> 
> And incompatibility isn't the only issue at work with the correlation between premarital promiscuity and divorce rates. How many affairs occur between a spouse and an ex-lover? It seems reasonable to think that removing the ex-lovers from the equation, or at least reducing them, would reduce the risk of affairs, and subsequent divorces.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> Loosely speaking, women mate for 3 reasons:
> - procreation
> - bonding their male partner to them
> - recreation
> ...


You may be right about this case. I agree with you that most men in low sex marriages need to ramp up the alpha to create attraction. But, I think the prior partners may still be an issue. People will inevitably compare sexual partners. If this wife had no prior sexual history, then the husband may be sufficiently alpha, or may be able to raise his alpha to a sufficient level to create attraction. But with a wife with an extensive history, he may never be able to live up to the alpha standard set by boyfriend #5.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> I think a good definition of trolling is belittling the conclusion of statistical studies in favor of opinions based on nothing valid.


No. Statisitical studies are:
1 A useful way of allowing multiple people with different desired end uses to demonstrate that a particular set of data support their assertions. 

2 A way of designing data collection and interpretation to support a particular hypothesis.

I base this on having spent about 15 years in a scientific field (water / environment) where different groups of people want widely differing things, but there is only one data set that all sides have to draw on to support their assertions; or people collect statistically valid data to advance a specific position. That isn't trolling, it's accepting that "statistical" and "unbiased" are not necessarly the same.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sawney Beane said:


> That isn't trolling, it's accepting that "statistical" and "unbiased" are not necessarly the same.


I also have a background in math/science. Therefore, I agree that statistics can be used in a biased manner. They can also be used to uncover inconvenient truths. Being a person well versed in math and statistics, I obviously give more weight to statistical surveys using large, statistically credible numbers of cases than I do unsupported opinions. I find it sad that many people do not.

Let me know if you have any evidence that this study is biased. It may be. So far, the only arguments on this board for bias have used the logical fallacy of begging the question.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> Let me know if you have any evidence that this study is biased. It may be. So far, the only arguments on this board for bias have used the logical fallacy of begging the question.


I won't accuse you of being deliberately obtuse, but what I mean is plain, ordinary common or garden bias, not statistical bias.

There have been large, statistically solid studies that demonstrated smoking doesn't cause cancer and that women and black people are less intelligent than white males. Those studies had no statisitical bias, but plenty of good old fashioned prejudice.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sawney Beane said:


> I won't accuse you of being deliberately obtuse, but what I mean is plain, ordinary common or garden bias, not statistical bias.


I won't accuse you of being deliberately obtuse, either. But, you have yet to demonstrate either kind of bias. You've simply begged the question that premarital promiscuity can't possibly affect divorce rates, so this study suggesting otherwise should be ignored. That's not a logically, mathematically, or scientifically valid position. The scientific method requires that your conclusion should come after your experiment or study. Not before.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

PHT,
And I won't accuse you of choosing to ignore the elephant in the room which is very simply this: The stronger the "sacred vows" of marriage to "either" spouse, the more easily abused they are by their partner. Abused emotionally. Abused via neglect. Pick your poison. 

A "lifetime" marriage does not imply a happy marriage, more importantly it does not imply a "healthy" marriage. Where I define "health" as the degree to which you bring out the best in each other and in your kids. 

I have been married once - for 20+ years. I don't envision getting divorced. With that said there are most definitely things I simply would not tolerate. And that is also true for my W. 

My guess - the same behavioral drivers (mostly religious), for premarital celibacy - are those that create a fertile environment for emotional bullying, sexless and ultimately loveless marriages. 

I think religion is a great thing overall. I also think that many people treat marriage as the foundation from which to demand unconditional love without giving it. That was never the spirit of the vows as written by the people of the book. 



PHTlump said:


> I won't accuse you of being deliberately obtuse, either. But, you have yet to demonstrate either kind of bias. You've simply begged the question that premarital promiscuity can't possibly affect divorce rates, so this study suggesting otherwise should be ignored. That's not a logically, mathematically, or scientifically valid position. The scientific method requires that your conclusion should come after your experiment or study. Not before.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> I won't accuse you of being deliberately obtuse, either. But, you have yet to demonstrate either kind of bias. You've simply begged the question that premarital promiscuity can't possibly affect divorce rates, so this study suggesting otherwise should be ignored. That's not a logically, mathematically, or scientifically valid position. The scientific method requires that your conclusion should come after your experiment or study. Not before.


From the abstract alone you get:

"...However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution..."

and


"...These results suggest that neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages..."

The bias here is NOT in the study - it is in the conclusions that subsequent users have drawn _from_ the study. Per my quote that "...there is only one data set that all sides have to draw on to support their assertions..." The study itself is "neutral", but BOTH side seem able to claim it asserts their position.

Frankly, I don't give a tuppenny b*gger what you believe or how you live your life. I couldn't care less if you believe that the moon is made of green cheese. If you think ignorance is bliss, go ahead. I can't stop you. But don't try to convince me that there's an underlying scientific rationale to your position.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

MEM11363 said:


> PHT,
> And I won't accuse you of choosing to ignore the elephant in the room which is very simply this: The stronger the "sacred vows" of marriage to "either" spouse, the more easily abused they are by their partner. Abused emotionally. Abused via neglect. Pick your poison.


I agree that marriage should be a union between two people who are equally and strongly committed to each others' happiness. And I agree that a bond that can never, under any circumstances, be broken could possibly invite abuse. But I don't think, and I doubt you meant to imply, that less commitment in marriage is a good thing. In general, the stronger the commitment of each partner to the other, the better.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sawney Beane said:


> From the abstract alone you get:
> 
> "...However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution..."
> 
> ...


You didn't read the rest of the abstract. The conclusion was that premarital sex or cohabitation with one's future spouse did not correlate with higher risk of later divorce. Thus, the two statements are perfectly congruent. It's not the premarital sex or the premarital cohabitation, it's the number of sexual partners that correlates with risk of divorce.



Sawney Beane said:


> Frankly, I don't give a tuppenny b*gger what you believe or how you live your life. I couldn't care less if you believe that the moon is made of green cheese. If you think ignorance is bliss, go ahead. I can't stop you. But don't try to convince me that there's an underlying scientific rationale to your position.


I am very happy that you don't care about my position. The feeling is mutual. You seem to like basing your opinions on politically correct bromides and logical fallacies. That is your right and I certainly don't want to interfere with your happiness by forcibly imposing logic and data on your unwilling mind.

But I do find it curious that you keep referring to conclusions in agreement with scientific studies as "ignorant." As Inigo Montoya said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


----------



## VLR (May 15, 2011)

The main issue I see with sexuality, independent of any moral judgment, is the lack of consistency with a person's actions and their ability to deal with their choice. If someone sleeps around, they must be able to deal with the fact that their partner has slept around. 

If a person jumped into bed first and asked questions later, what right do they have to be dissatisfied with the answers?

If sex is so terribly important and certain assurances are crucial to the health of the relationship a person needs to explain the rules to the potential partner before the game is underway.

When a person goes from "Getting lucky" to "Getting married" they should remember how the relationship began.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

boxer said:


> Your main problem is marrying a woman who had casual sex partners in her past. Such women are not fit to be a wife or mother to a man's child.


WTF :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Sorry mate, strong disagreement there



> Last night my wife shared with me that a major part of the reason she doesn't like/want to have sex is because she feels her previous partners used her for it. She says she feels they took from her and didn't give back... In the bedroom or out.
> 
> So now she doesn't want to have sex with me, nor does she like doing it.
> 
> I feel like they have have stolen the joy of sex from her and also stolen the gift of sex from our marriage. I am very angry with them!


I don't see the problem, simply decide to spoil her one night (satisfy her desires only - naturally they'll want to repay the favor anyway), then ****** off and let her chase after you for more later.


----------



## Longtime Husband (Dec 14, 2009)

PHTlump said:


> I agree that marriage should be a union between two people who are equally and strongly committed to each others' happiness. And I agree that a bond that can never, under any circumstances, be broken could possibly invite abuse. But I don't think, and I doubt you meant to imply, that less commitment in marriage is a good thing. In general, the stronger the commitment of each partner to the other, the better.


What we have here is the quintessential paradox. I think that MEM is very wise in pointing out some facts of human relationships that, while very true, undoubtedly make some very uncomfortable. 

Commitment is a necessary & good thing. So are things like medicine, food, water & air. Too much of any of these leads to undesirable results virtually 100% of the time.


----------

