# Good men who want to avoid divorce/cheating should not marry promiscuous women



## Goldmember357

> The Social Pathologist has crunched the numbers, and the verdict is in: women with lots of past partners are more likely to divorce than women who didn’t take a self-empowering spin on the **** carousel.
> 
> The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage.


In my experience as a divorce lawyer roughly 70-75% of divorces are filed by women. Now contrary to the belief of some that most of these women/divorces are the case of "walk away wife syndrome". That is not true, most women are filing for divorce because of physical/mental abuse/infidelity on the man's part or a combination of all of those. Most divorces are not because of "financial reasons". In my experience women have been way more likely to forgive infidelity, and tolerate being cheated on more than men. Men when they are cheated on they almost always seem to leave immediately while women are more likely to forgive until it becomes a repeat thing. Furthermore id like to add that in my experience the females are more willing to try, and make the marriage work than the males. In addition id like to say that MOST divorced women, and single mothers do not have a "better life". Single mothers are one of the poorest groups in America, and the belief that women "find a better/richer man, or take all the man's money and live a single bachelorette lifestyle having fun all the time" is not true for majority of divorced women. In reality most divorced women are worse off than divorce males (in my experience), now there does exist rare cases in which the woman is a walk away wife, or she takes it all and the male gets screwed, but these are not as common as believed (by folk on here).

In my experience when males file for divorce its usually because they were cheated on, they are in a sexless marriage, or they found a better woman and wish to file for divorce before the wife can find out they are cheating/planning to leave them. If a man is financially smart, and does his work properly he can assure that the wife gets little of his assets when he files for divorce. 

However generally in my experience men when they are cheating are not so inclined to file for divorce, they often see it as pointless. They get often the best of two worlds, emotional love/support and loving wife, while also getting other women on the side. When men are in sexless marriage's is (in my experience) when they are more likely to divorce. When women are in sexless marriages they are more likely to cheat, have it implode than divorce. When women cheat they are more inclined to tell the husband, and he is the one who comes to file for divorce usually. Rarely does the wife seem to cheat and then come file for divorce, when the wife is cheating usually she won't initiate the divorce. 




Now i have noticed a trend when "good men" are cheated on by a wife. Almost always the wife is "not a good person" from what i see/can judge. They are usually narcissistic, self entitled and are quick to bad mouth others, they are also often insecure as well. In addition it seems that most of these women seem to have "rough pasts" and that they were once quite the party girl aka very promiscuous. 










Now i would take the above, and studies with much validity. However, DO NOT Equate a wife's number of sexual partners with her being a walk away wife necessarily. Remember that most divorces are filed by women, and most are because of neglect/abuse/cheating etc. 

Remember that the person filing for divorce is usually the one who has been wronged. The person who is F#cking up, doing the wrong doing, has no reason to divorce as have the best of both worlds. They can do their wrong doing while also having a "slave". From my experience, it seems that a person who is cheating has zero reason to file for divorce because why would they wish to lose their "stable marriage/partner" and then possibly lose their "cheating partner"??? It seems that the person wronged is the one who no longer wishes to tolerate the constant failure of the marriage and want's out. 


So in short i believe their is a direct relationship between promiscuous past/risky behavior and that of ability to be faithful/monogamous. I do not believe humans are naturally monogamous, now while the society and development programs people to like marriage etc. I feel if one partakes in set risky behavior they undo that which they have learned and are more prone to engage in natural human behavior which is promiscuity. Id advice all "GOOD GUYS" to STOP marrying/dating party/promiscuous girls, many of these girls who would not have dated you in their younger years, only to like you now when you can provide financial safety/stability.

In my experience the men most likely to be cheated on are those who marry this exact type of woman. The party/promiscuous girl, many of whom display key character flaws e.g., Narcissism, and excessive thrill seeking for pleasure. I feel many "nice guys" (more so nerdy/timid guys) fall victim to this, as they meet a really attractive woman who before would not have been into them but now is. Id advice men to NOT look exclusively at the most beautiful women who only make up like 5% of the population. In my opinion many great women are overlooked by men, and the same goes for many good men being overlooked by women. Only difference is that smart/good/inexperienced men seem to fall victim to good looking/party girls, while good/inexperienced women seem more judgmental and likely to marry an equally good guy. 

Basically id advice men (especially those who are good guys and serious about marriage) to be more selective and picky when it comes to choosing women. In addition id advice them to not overlook such large % of the female population. Btw the same would apply to "good females" not wishing to be cheated on by a man.


----------



## Goldmember357

Also the double standard of calling women S#uts when they are promiscuous and not males is (yes not fair), but its understandable. Especially in the eyes of males.

A S#uty man needs to be good looking, have game, and other positive/attractive attributes about him. It takes skill and majority of men cannot emulate his status nor his prowess in bedding women.

A s#uty woman does not have to meet any of the same requirements as a s#uty man. All she has to do is open her legs, to whoever she chooses. Because women are the choosers in our evolutionary roles, they have historically been more picky. Because males are the chasers, and impregnate and are also the hunters, they are the ones who's goal is to spread their seed as much as they can. For a female to disregard her "picky" nature she is becoming of less value to other males. In short all men will have sex with the female who opens her legs (albeit she is abnormal). For the female to be promiscuous its extremely easy and because of that does not merit praise by the males, the males do not want what every other man has had so easily (when it comes to relationships), and at that do not want the female who is NOT picky. So you get the trend of men sleeping with "s#uty" women only to disregard them as potential lovers/partners for long term relationships, FEW men desire the easy woman in marriage/long term relationship. This can leave many women feeling hurt, and confused but it actually makes perfect sense if you can understand our roles.


For that general reason the double standard is understandable, and those who try and argue against (can make great points), but are doing so in the wrong period of time. The current day society is not orchestrated to accept or embrace old trends of human behavior/ancestral behavior of other species. It is for that very reason that those who try to break the double standard may be doing harm to those who wish to be in a monogamous marriage.


----------



## hekati

Hmm… there could be different logic. S1utty woman easier adjusts to an imperfect husband. It is extremely hard to find a perfect match especially for a picky woman. But if a woman would set her goal as a perfect marriage with kids with nice stable house she would do it easier if she is not very picky. She will never have a problem that she finally in her late 30s or early 40s met a guy that match the chemistry better. 
Another thing is that maybe there are some biological cycles that woman supposed to raise kids for a 7 years and then she goes to look another perfect match. For our ancestors maybe 7 years was already the age when a young person supposed to be raised by the community, get some skills, education. And a woman was going to find another perfect match or maybe could fall in love with the same perfect match again - similar to animal’s mating seasons. 
Marriage is a product of the institution of private property. Biologically it is not necessary. Basically marriage was about providing a support to s1utty enough females when they are raising kids and about inheritance.
And the s1utty woman that you describe is more like a drug of alcohol addict. Usually alcohol reduces the ability to do a right choice. Even about man they say any girl looks good right before 2 am in a bar. Men also don’t take just any female. And I really don’t know if competition is tougher for male. Actually due to this gender role shift in society male competition is controllable by male. If you are successful with money you’ll find a girl even if you are ugly and, genetically, you are not really good material. With girls getting equal opportunity it changes but not very fast. But if you are an ugly girl you’ll have problems to find a mate even if you have money. So I would probably disagree with the main assumption that a male is in general less picky than female. Come on, be a gold digger is not equal to be picky LOL. It takes to be s1utty enough to be able to have sex with a guy that is most likely not in her taste. 
As I see things around, I would say even picky girls sometimes have affairs and change their heart and sometimes are dreaming about someone else. There are several things that stop them from getting into a real affaire or divorce and those things ranges from just fear to be caught and lose financial support to the fear to hurt husband’s feelings. 
Your statistics unfortunately is false. It doesn’t show the correlations you are trying to find. Well, nowadays if a girl was a virgin when she married she probably have all the baggage of the old traditions that have nothing to do with pickiness and she could be faithful due to the fear of rejection from her family, or due to her religious believes. Moreover most of the marriages that involves virgins are prearranged marriage where is bride never even had a chance to reveal her pickiness, or helped to be arranged by friend and family when a bride doesn’t use her instincts but merely follows the advice of her friends and family. And even if later she feels like her husband is not the right one she would have more moral problems to divorce him because he is a friend of her family and friends and she will feel a pressure from them. The girls that are not married been a virgin could be much pickier than virgins.


----------



## Goldmember357

hekati said:


> Hmm… there could be different logic. S1utty woman easier adjusts to an imperfect husband. It is extremely hard to find a perfect match especially for a picky woman. But if a woman would set her goal as a perfect marriage with kids with nice stable house she would do it easier if she is not very picky. She will never have a problem that she finally in her late 30s or early 40s met a guy that match the chemistry better.
> Another thing is that maybe there are some biological cycles that woman supposed to raise kids for a 7 years and then she goes to look another perfect match. For our ancestors maybe 7 years was already the age when a young person supposed to be raised by the community, get some skills, education. And a woman was going to find another perfect match or maybe could fall in love with the same perfect match again - similar to animal’s mating seasons.
> Marriage is a product of the institution of private property. Biologically it is not necessary. Basically marriage was about providing a support to s1utty enough females when they are raising kids and about inheritance.
> And the s1utty woman that you describe is more like a drug of alcohol addict. Usually alcohol reduces the ability to do a right choice. Even about man they say any girl looks good right before 2 am in a bar. Men also don’t take just any female. And I really don’t know if competition is tougher for male. Actually due to this gender role shift in society male competition is controllable by male. If you are successful with money you’ll find a girl even if you are ugly and, genetically, you are not really good material. With girls getting equal opportunity it changes but not very fast. But if you are an ugly girl you’ll have problems to find a mate even if you have money. So I would probably disagree with the main assumption that a male is in general less picky than female. Come on, be a gold digger is not equal to be picky LOL. It takes to be s1utty enough to be able to have sex with a guy that is most likely not in her taste.
> As I see things around, I would say even picky girls sometimes have affairs and change their heart and sometimes are dreaming about someone else. There are several things that stop them from getting into a real affaire or divorce and those things ranges from just fear to be caught and lose financial support to the fear to hurt husband’s feelings.
> Your statistics unfortunately is false. It doesn’t show the correlations you are trying to find. Well, *nowadays if a girl was a virgin when she married she probably have all the baggage of the old traditions that have nothing to do with pickiness and she could be faithful due to the fear of rejection from her family, or due to her religious believes. *Moreover most of the marriages that involves virgins are prearranged marriage where is bride never even had a chance to reveal her pickiness, or helped to be arranged by friend and family when a bride doesn’t use her instincts but merely follows the advice of her friends and family. And even if later she feels like her husband is not the right one she would have more moral problems to divorce him because he is a friend of her family and friends and she will feel a pressure from them. The girls that are not married been a virgin could be much pickier than virgins.


I would agree with most of all that you said. 

The only reason that i argue that promiscuous women/men of TODAY are more prone to divorce/infidelity is that i believe they are reverting back to natural human desires. In other words they are throwing away the views that society puts on people, such views which are extremely common during our development. I am under the impression that when people in today's society sleep around a lot, they are slowly but surely throwing away old school idea's of "love" and "waiting for the one" etc. They are indulging in pleasure first and other "needs". Because of this i feel they are less inclined to stay and truly devote themselves to set individuals. 

I feel they train themselves to do away with the concept of marriage. 


Now in the long run once marriage as an institution is dead i feel people will be different and females/males won't be so inclined for monogamy. But the ones who are will have had many past partners but it won't have any bearing on their faithfulness given (in this time) those who seek out monogamy are doing so knowing its implications. In today's world/society most people grow up believing that is the only way, that way being "marriage". It seems to me that for the average male and female, lots of sexual partners and risky past behavior makes people jaded, more inclined to seek pleasure, and less "programmed" to fit in with the ideals of marriage/monogamy. Basically they take the natural drug life offers, and that drug is forbidden once they partake in its frequent use it seems their is no going back.


----------



## hekati

Yes, I have about the same oppinion on the marriage and monogamy.


----------



## Jack29

Wow, this is pretty well covered from the very first posts!

As about to the double standards it is my opinion that taboos, as much as people would complain about them have been set since a long time and most times they're there for good reasons (you don't eat human flesh, you dont have sex with your siblings). My point being that most men won't think well of a girl who sleeps around when they first hear of it! If they will listen to their guts or not thats another point and modern society has done a lot (what with female liberation and all) to blunt the taboo of the slvt.

Not very long ago a woman that I was seeing asked me how i would feel if i were to be with someone who had been with 30 men, i thought she was just trying to test me, didn't make much of it so i said thats too many for my taste and then i was proceeding to sort of picture all those partners in my mind and I was saying things like "OK, 30 men thats like 3 football teams...no wait a football team is 11 so 3 teams will make 33, but lets say she f****d 3 football teams except for the goalkeepers because they would run late for training" and i was stopped abruptly only to discover that she was more than annoyed by what I was saying.

Now if it was me telling her that i had had 30 partners i don't think i'd have been so touchy!

Edit: that was the last meeting, I guess i could have gone out again if she had called me but i wasn't feeling like calling first!


----------



## Viseral

You should post this in the Coping with Infidelity section as well.


----------



## Cosmos

Jack29 said:


> Not very long ago a woman that I was seeing asked me how i would feel if i were to be with someone who had been with 30 men, i thought she was just trying to test me, didn't make much of it so i said thats too many for my taste and then i was proceeding to sort of picture all those partners in my mind and I was saying things like "OK, 30 men thats like 3 football teams...no wait a football team is 11 so 3 teams will make 33, but lets say she f****d 3 football teams except for the goalkeepers because they would run late for training" and i was stopped abruptly only to discover that she was more than annoyed by what I was saying.
> 
> Now if it was me telling her that i had had 30 partners i don't think i'd have been so touchy!
> !


I doubt that you would. After all, it would have been her having to come to terms with your promiscuity, rather than you with hers. 

I believe that both genders need to be more discerning when it comes to notching up large numbers of bed partners, because, IMO, you can't expect higher standards from a prospective partner than you have set for yourself. .

I've always set myself pretty high standards, and I wouldn't be interested in a serious relationship with a man who had had a high number of sexual partners. It mightn't be that important to some women, but I think I probably think like a man in this regard.


----------



## KathyBatesel

I won't quote because it's just wayyy too long, but my experience leads me to agree with your observations about why people divorce. However, I have a COMPLETELY different theory about the promiscuity angle. 

In fact, if I read your ideas correctly, you've got some flawed logic. You said that women filed because they were mistreated, not that they filed for divorce in order to have more partners or sexual excitement. For me, this doesn't equate to resorting to any base non-monogamous instincts that may or may not be present. (I personally believe some people are naturally monogamous and some aren't.)

First, I will state that I'm a woman who is joyously married to her third husband, has never cheated on a man, has had MANY sexual partners, and ended every previous longterm relationship I was in except for one - not counting my husband, of course... I also have paid close attention to relationship and communication topics most of my life, so this isn't based purely on my experiences. 

Anyway... here are some things I will throw out there for consideration: 

1. A woman who marries her first sexual partner has a very limited frame of reference regarding what's available "out there." She is more likely to think of whatever happens to her as a "normal" part of marriage than a person who has been with a variety of men. For example, if Virginia marries an alcoholic, it will take her longer to identify and name the problems in her relationship than someone who has dated both a non-alcoholic and an alcoholic before. 

A less-experienced woman may or may not have had the kind of background that gave her the skills to be a good relationship partner and to get good treatment from her partner. If she didn't learn those skills, though, she is more likely to doubt herself, not see other options, and accept whatever comes her way.

2. For this reason, women with more sexual experience tend to have higher expectations (largely unreasonable). We subconsciously or consciously compare the new to the old, and believe that the best of the old + best of the new should exist with NONE of the bad of either. These expectations can result in increased dissatisfaction and a greater likelihood of looking for the next great deal.


----------



## StargateFan

Am I the only one whom feels the "study" seems as if it were a pamflet distrubuted on the way out of church on Sunday ? No citations, just words. The data seems suspect to me. The conclusions the OP draw seem to come out of thin air. I just don't quite get the connection. 

Is "id" a word ? Outside the context of Frued. 
Not "in my experience"


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Well Goldmember, I have to disagree.

I have read numerous studies that show the more promiscuous a woman OR a man before marriage- the more likely they are to be promiscuous after.

Just because a woman might be more willing to forgive unfaithfulness and stay in that marriage, doesn't mean it's a good one, and doesn't mean she shouldn't be careful before marrying.

Also as you said 75% of women file for divorce, and the ones doing the wrong thing usually aren't the ones who file (sometimes they are but anyway), and since women are more likely to end up raising the children and living in poverty, and given your view that many women file due to abuse and neglect, shouldn't women be the ones being super careful about who they marry? Shouldn't women be more picky than men? 

I think men and women should both be careful who they marry, they should not discount any man and woman because of the number of partners but they should discount people who haven't matured and gained wisdom through their lives and from their actions. 

Also many people who were virgins before marriage often stay together because of family and religious beliefs and pressure. That does not make their marriages greater or healthier.


----------



## RandomDude

My wife fked around quite a bit in her youth, which led to many men feeling too intimidated to even give a gem such as herself the time of day. Oh well, their loss, my gain I say!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Interesting that many other key components of the study have been left out of this post, of them being education, income, age at the time of marriage and religious similarities. So one could suggest that pre-marital sex is only a small component of a much larger picture and hardly the biggest predictor of divorce. 

You've posted this three separate times so you must have some agenda. I'd be curious to hear what that is.


----------



## Goldmember357

KathyBatesel said:


> I won't quote because it's just wayyy too long, but my experience leads me to agree with your observations about why people divorce. However, I have a COMPLETELY different theory about the promiscuity angle.
> 
> In fact, if I read your ideas correctly, you've got some flawed logic. *You said that women filed because they were mistreated, not that they filed for divorce in order to have more partners or sexual excitement*. For me, this doesn't equate to resorting to any base non-monogamous instincts that may or may not be present. (I personally believe some people are naturally monogamous and some aren't.)



Yes that is a flaw in the study, and i should of talked more on that. Basically i am saying that in the case of "walk away wives" their pasts are almost always the same. "Walk away wife" is the wife who just gets up and leaves for another man, and is often the wife who cheats because she is "bored" or some other BS reason. 

In general id say though that experienced women who have had experience with long term relationships, BUT were not promiscuous make better partners than those who exhibited high risk behavior. What i mean by that is a woman who has slept with 7 men all of whom were people she deeply cared about and knows what its like to have a broken heart or something of that sort. Will be able to know the ropes of a relationship a lot more than someone who had 7 drunken one night stands and could never have or develop deep feelings for anyone. 


I suppose i should of talked more about that in my original post. Because you are correct, most wives are not divorcing because they found someone better. So one could argue that maybe women who have more partners divorce more (leave unhappiness/suffering) because they can relate their relationship to past ones, and they know that its not right being mistreated or something of that sort.




KathyBatesel said:


> First, I will state that I'm a woman who is joyously married to her third husband, has never cheated on a man, has had MANY sexual partners, and ended every previous longterm relationship I was in except for one - not counting my husband, of course... I also have paid close attention to relationship and communication topics most of my life, so this isn't based purely on my experiences.
> 
> Anyway... here are some things I will throw out there for consideration:
> 
> 1. A woman who marries her first sexual partner has a very limited frame of reference regarding what's available "out there." She is more likely to think of whatever happens to her as a "normal" part of marriage than a person who has been with a variety of men. For example, if Virginia marries an alcoholic, it will take her longer to identify and name the problems in her relationship than someone who has dated both a non-alcoholic and an alcoholic before.
> 
> A less-experienced woman may or may not have had the kind of background that gave her the skills to be a good relationship partner and to get good treatment from her partner. If she didn't learn those skills, though, she is more likely to doubt herself, not see other options, and accept whatever comes her way.


Exactly. But i still feel their is enough evidence to suggest that a direct correlation exists between risky behavior/big 5 personality traits, along with an individuals development, can relate to happiness, marriage, infidelity, promiscuity etc.



KathyBatesel said:


> 2. For this reason, women with more sexual experience tend to have higher expectations (largely unreasonable). We subconsciously or consciously compare the new to the old, and believe that the best of the old + best of the new should exist with NONE of the bad of either. These expectations can result in increased dissatisfaction and a greater likelihood of looking for the next great deal.


So you do agree with me then? 

You say that those with more experiences will compare things more and be more inclined to look elsewhere or the "next great deal" as you put it.

And yes despite your 2 previous marriages, and you never cheating you are obviously an exception. I am not saying this is universal for all individuals. Rather i am saying that people should be more judgmental of others past and look at their personality traits, characteristics and many other things. 




*LittleDeer* said:


> Well Goldmember, I have to disagree.
> 
> I have read numerous studies that show the more promiscuous a woman OR a man before marriage- the more likely they are to be promiscuous after.


so you'd agree with me they are might be more inclined to cheat?




*LittleDeer* said:


> Just because a woman might be more willing to forgive unfaithfulness and stay in that marriage, doesn't mean it's a good one, and doesn't mean she shouldn't be careful before marrying.


She should be more careful, be judgmental on the person's past and their actions. It can very well save you from future distress, sadness etc.



*LittleDeer* said:


> Also as you said 75% of women file for divorce, and the ones doing the wrong thing usually aren't the ones who file (sometimes they are but anyway), and since women are more likely to end up raising the children and living in poverty, and given your view that many women file due to abuse and neglect, shouldn't women be the ones being super careful about who they marry? Shouldn't women be more picky than men?


Yes women should be more careful about how they marry without a doubt. In my opinion women are more careful in the selection of their long term partners, and i feel women are the more picky sex in general. 

So yes women should be more picky than men given they are more likely to be in a worse off position. 



*LittleDeer* said:


> I think men and women should both be careful who they marry, they should not discount any man and woman because of the number of partners but they should discount people who haven't matured and gained wisdom through their lives and from their actions.
> 
> Also many people who were virgins before marriage often stay together because of family and religious beliefs and pressure. That does not make their marriages greater or healthier.


Totally agree with that part. I would not take this study with extreme validity, however i would take other things i say with much importance. I think their is a direct correlation between that of risky behavior, and infidelity/promiscuity. I have read studies and journals on this and they all tend to say the same thing, that a relationship between risky behavior/promiscuity and infidelity/monogamy does in fact exist. I do not find that at all hard to believe that a person's development, past actions can be used as a way to determine if you will be compatible with them. Nor do i think that its hard to see a relationship between those factors and that of "character flaws".

And yes i would not suggest everyone totally overlook people who have high numbers. BUT id advice them factor that in and see why those sexual relationships happened, and what were they. Were they all long term relationships in which they liked the person? or where they all drunken one night stands? was their a lot of cheating in the past? was there ever lack of self control because one was so "lustful/horny"? 

those are all huge questions.



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Interesting that many other key components of the study have been left out of this post, of them being education, income, age at the time of marriage and religious similarities. So one could suggest that pre-marital sex is only a small component of a much larger picture and hardly the biggest predictor of divorce.


Yes it is a shame that many other key components of mental health and marital relationships were not accounted for in this study. However, what i am saying is i believe all backed up by evidence. Is it really hard to imagine that people are not naturally monogamous, and for this reason those who partake in promiscuous/risky behavior (in today's world) untrain themselves of monogamy?




Therealbrighteyes said:


> You've posted this three separate times so you must have some agenda. I'd be curious to hear what that is.


My agenda is that i often (too much) see males on this site encountering a situation of unhappiness in the marriage, whether it be infidelity by the wife or lack of deep love. I feel for many men their troubles, and problems of a cheating wife, or unloving wife can be avoided if they STOP marrying the type of women i described and STOPPED ignoring "good girls".. Men should be less tempted by attractive gold diggers/damaged girls who one day decided they like the "stable nerdy man" who they once did not like. I'd be totally into making a thread on what women should do to avoid divorce. But i am not a woman, so i am not sure how the thread would be viewed. I honestly think i could give more advice to women on what to do to avoid a divorce and the type of men to AVOID marrying. Seeing that women are the ones who file for divorce the most, and its rarely because they found someone better. Rather their partner has failed to put in effort in the relationship.

The issue comes down to sticking with people who you are truly compatible with and those who you can truly accept. Id also advice that people look at how the person lives their life. Be judgmental if you are not you overlook things that would normally bother you it will come back haunt you.


----------



## Goldmember357

KathyBatesel said:


> 1. A woman who marries her first sexual partner has a very limited frame of reference regarding what's available "out there." She is more likely to think of whatever happens to her as a "normal" part of marriage than a person who has been with a variety of men. For example, if Virginia marries an alcoholic, it will take her longer to identify and name the problems in her relationship than someone who has dated both a non-alcoholic and an alcoholic before.
> 
> A less-experienced woman may or may not have had the kind of background that gave her the skills to be a good relationship partner and to get good treatment from her partner. If she didn't learn those skills, though, she is more likely to doubt herself, not see other options, and accept whatever comes her way.
> 
> 2. For this reason, women with more sexual experience tend to have higher expectations (largely unreasonable). We subconsciously or consciously compare the new to the old, and believe that the best of the old + best of the new should exist with NONE of the bad of either. These expectations can result in increased dissatisfaction and a greater likelihood of looking for the next great deal.


:smthumbup:

Excellent point. The study does not take into account the many inexperienced people who stay in marriages because they DONT know anything better. It also does not take into account how many of those people are only staying together for religious reasons or things that make them put their needs second.


I suppose a better point for me to have argued is that their is a direct correlation between 5 big personality traits/behavior/infidelity/promiscuity to that of Infidelity/non monogamy.


I feel that is actually a better thing to argue that people's behavior is more indicative of their faithfulness than that of divorce rates. The study is than negated by failure to factor in other elements. 



*LittleDeer* said:


> Well Goldmember, I have to disagree.
> 
> I have read numerous studies that show the more promiscuous a woman OR a man before marriage- the more likely they are to be promiscuous after.
> 
> Just because a woman might be more willing to forgive unfaithfulness and stay in that marriage, doesn't mean it's a good one, and doesn't mean she shouldn't be careful before marrying.
> 
> Also as you said 75% of women file for divorce, and the ones doing the wrong thing usually aren't the ones who file (sometimes they are but anyway), and since women are more likely to end up raising the children and living in poverty, and given your view that many women file due to abuse and neglect, shouldn't women be the ones being super careful about who they marry? Shouldn't women be more picky than men?
> 
> I think men and women should both be careful who they marry, they should not discount any man and woman because of the number of partners but they should discount people who haven't matured and gained wisdom through their lives and from their actions.
> 
> Also many people who were virgins before marriage often stay together because of family and religious beliefs and pressure. That does not make their marriages greater or healthier.


Great points. My above post shows me realizing the flaw in that study, but i still believe other points i made hold much weight and are backed up. In addition id like to add that i feel women should be more careful of who they sleep with if they wish to bag a "good guy"... Good guys see drunken one night stands, and high risk behavior as exactly that HIGH risk behavior, its viewed as unstable and many guys are put off by that because they fear the woman might cheat or something of that sort.


For that reason id say women should be more judgmental of men and those who want to assure they have the biggest poole of men to choose from, should be careful of who they have sex with. Sex effects women just as it does men, but i think women are more emotionally affected from it, because of that its best a woman (imo) sleep only with those she has strong feelings for (say in a relationship). That behavior shows ability to be a good mother/wife and makes the woman appear very attractive to "good guys" who are into love/romance/marriage. Remember those particular men are judgmental and do factor in a lot of things when selecting a woman to marry.


----------



## Goldmember357

In short i was trying to tell of the real reasons for divorce and do away with the myth that "walk away wife syndrome" is rampant. I also wanted to address the notion that divorced/single moms have better lives after divorce. *Furthermore i am trying to sell that people should be more picky/judgmental in order to AVOID divorce/infidelity and to LOWER divorce rates.*


----------



## Goldmember357

Therealbrighteyes said:


> We don't need your advice, if we did, we would ask for it. You have posted this exact chart leaving key things out not once, not twice but three times so I have to ask, what exactly are you trying to sell?


hmm you seem quite annoyed, angry agitated by what i say. 

Why i left things out? I did not know at the time of the other factors/i did not think of them, but i have always held that a person's development and actions are the best indicators of their current and future behavior.

That's my own fault as to why i did not elaborate more in the past.

But where might i ask does this annoyance come from?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

In the future when you claim to be a lawyer, know the difference between "advice" and "advise". It's a dead give away.


----------



## tacoma

StargateFan said:


> Am I the only one whom feels the "study" seems as if it were a pamflet distrubuted on the way out of church on Sunday ? No citations, just words. The data seems suspect to me. The conclusions the OP draw seem to come out of thin air. I just don't quite get the connection.
> 
> Is "id" a word ? Outside the context of Frued.
> Not "in my experience"


People you can all ignore any research done by the Heritage Foundation as it`s all pre-paid agenda laden Christ based dogma.

Crap in other words.


----------



## Goldmember357

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No. Many would suggest that those who have had multiple partners and finally find one to settle down with are the least to cheat. It's the virgins you have to watch out for.


Virgins who were conditioned that way by say religious indoctrination and told to surpress true feelings are the ones to watch out for. Should they ever drift into periods of time when they are removed from the "order" or they are severly tempted. 

I could definitely agree that women along with men who have had experience can definitely be just as or if not more serious about what they want. 

However id have to disagree when it comes to those who exhibits high risk behavior constantly in their life. Those who exhibit high risk behavior are more inclined to do it again. For that reason there is a relationship between infidelity and high risk behavior its been documented. 



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Ah, you mean the [email protected] carousel as many of you like to think it is. A woman who has sex with other men, besides yourself must automatically be slvts, carousel riders and because "Mr. Nice Guy" was there all along, it makes it even worse. I'll give you a little insight in to "Mr. Nice Guy". They are hardly the knight you claim they are. They are passive aggressive a-holes who cozy up to a woman with the pretense of friendship and secretly hate her for not ****ing him. They then hate an entire gender because their bullsh!t and trickery wasn't met with a bj. They are scum of the highest order. At least "bad boys" make their intentions up front. They are honest if nothing else


lol why are you so angry? have you been personally affected/judged by your past behavior by men?

I see no reason for your anger. I do not view promiscuity as "evil" or wrong, nor do i even see cheating as "evil".. Cheating is horrible but its all explainable given our evolution/our development and many other factors. I take the stance that people are not naturally monogamous for example, in fact i am quite liberal. I don't think marriage is the right option for most people.

All i am saying is that those who wish to avoid infidelity/divorce should be more CAREFUL in who they chose.


----------



## Goldmember357

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I find it impossible to believe that you are an attorney as you claim. The first clue is that you use lower case "I's" which is punctuation 101 and any lawyer worth his or her salt would perfect. You also used "advice" in place of "advise" which tells me all I need to know. Oh, you are a tricky one. Kuddos for besting me for a while but alas, you are a fraud, at least as the attorney you claim to be. If you are actually a lawyer, I hope you have something else to fall back on. Your use of that study while removing 4 other components which were literally right there in the study you provided, all while claiming "You wish they were there", is hilarious and if you ever went to trial, you would be laughed out of the courtroom.


Wow you seem quite angry.

I find this amusing i really do. Where is this coming from?

Punctuation is the last thing i need. You don't know my life, but if you wish to believe i am a fraud go ahead.


----------



## Catherine602

What are you a professional fight promoter? You are not a lawyer. Either that or yiu are a defunct lawyer because you couldn't write a brief. 

Another cautionary tale to get the genie back into the box!! This one is good. Sucks to be a woman though cant catch a frecken break.

If women are so bad off, why do they divorce from these pillars of the community? Besides being bad they are stupid. 

Lets crunch numbers here. So women who divorce their good men, are bad women. 50% of marriages end in divorce, 75% of that 50% are initiated by women making the 35 % of married women bad. That has got to be an under estimation. Everybody knows that upwards of 90% of married women are bad. Your #s are off by 55 percentage points. You got more figuring to do. 

What ever the numbers, the average women in her 20s has has 4 partners. I don't know what % falls into the safe range of virginity but let's say 10%. Are you suggesting that 100% of the marriage seeking male population try to find a wife among the 10%? Will there be virginity test? Bloody sheets shown to wedding guess. 

Boy this is going to be fun. A drastic change in the mating game. Fierce competition for the few virgins. Legions of loser men and dirty women with no partners. Plunging birth rates, collapse of the baby industry. Birthday party clowns out of work. 

The end of farming as old I unmarried farmers die out. Famine, pestilence. I think the s!utty women had better get married even if they are bad. That or the collapse of America.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Goldmember357

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I find it impossible to believe that you are an attorney as you claim. The first clue is that you use lower case "I's" which is punctuation 101 and any lawyer worth his or her salt would know. You also used "advice" in place of "advise" which tells me all I need to know. Oh, you are a tricky one. Kuddos for besting me for a while but alas, you showed yourself. If you are actually a lawyer, I hope you have something else to fall back on. Your use of that study while removing 4 other components which were literally right there in the study you provided, all while claiming "You didn't know at the time of other factors", is not only hilarious but if you ever went to trial, you would be laughed out of the courtroom and the judge would sanction you.













You're pretty mean


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Goldmember357 said:


> Wow you seem quite angry.
> 
> I find this amusing i really do. Where is this coming from?
> 
> Punctuation is the last thing i need. You don't know my life, but if you wish to believe i am a fraud go ahead.


I deleted my post. You aren't worth getting banned over.


----------



## Goldmember357

Catherine602 said:


> Another cautionary tale to get the genie back into the box!! This one is good. Sucks to be a woman though cant catch a frecken break.
> 
> If women are so bad off, why do they divorce from these pillars of the community? Besides being bad they are stupid.
> 
> Lets crunch numbers here. So women who divorce their good men, are bad women. 50% of marriages end in divorce, 75% of that 50% are initiated by women making the 35 % of married women bad. That has got to be an under estimation. Everybody knows that upwards of 90% of married women are bad. Your #s are off by 55 percentage points. You got more figuring to do.
> 
> What ever the numbers, the average women in her 20s has has 4 partners. I don't know what % falls into the safe range of virginity but let's say 10%. Are you suggesting that 100% of the marriage seeking male population try to find a wife among the 10%? Will there be virginity test? Bloody sheets shown to wedding guess.
> 
> Boy this is going to be fun. A drastic change in the mating game. Fierce competition for the few virgins. Legions of loser men and dirty women with no partners. Plunging birth rates, collapse of the baby industry. Birthday party clowns out of work, in 15 yrs the car industry will collapse no teen drivers. Old people in the street because no youngsters to care for them and SS & Medicare dead.
> 
> The end of farming as old I unmarried farmers die out. Famine, pestilence. I think the s!utty women better get married even if they are bad. That or the collapse of America.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This confused me:scratchhead:

I've already said that the original post (or part of it) should be not be heavily weighted. My own incompetence for not further looking into the study, and my own failure for not elaborating more on the individuals and there development.


For instance here are some good reads about the big 5 personality traits and that of high risk behavior and the relation to infidelity/promiscuity.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep06246282.pdf

http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165862.pdf

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=orpc&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dbig%25205%2520personality%2520traits%2520infidelity%2520promiscuity%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26cad%3Drja%26ved%3D0CEEQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarworks.gvsu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1041%2526context%253Dorpc%26ei%3DCZkiUafdOurp0AHQiYCoDA%26usg%3DAFQjCNH99Ah_wEl0qjoPBTpcTNCPNuXR5A%26bvm%3Dbv.42553238%2Cd.dmQ#search=%22big%205%20personality%20traits%20infidelity%20promiscuity%22


----------



## Goldmember357

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I deleted my post. *You are not a worthy opponent.*


You see there you go again with attacking me. Why is this?

Do you realize how this makes you look?

If you are my intellectual superior why not prove it instead of lashing out in anger? At that why do you see this as a competition? why the need to claim i am "not a worthy opponent". Your decision to add that in there is very interesting it makes you come off as very hostile.

Again can i ask you.

Where does your disgust for me come from?


----------



## Catherine602

Well I for one am convinced. Back to no sex for women before marriage for the good of society and the good of women who are getting out if hand anyway. 

So how do we proceed what do you suggest to get us back on tract. 

Hey who are the men going to have premarital sex with? They will have to be virgins too. He he.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Jack29

Catherine602 said:


> Boy this is going to be fun. A drastic change in the mating game. Fierce competition for the few virgins. Legions of loser men and dirty women with no partners. Plunging birth rates, collapse of the baby industry. Birthday party clowns out of work.
> 
> The end of farming as old I unmarried farmers die out. Famine, pestilence. I think the s!utty women had better get married even if they are bad. That or the collapse of America.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't know where you live but the fierce competition for virgins is happening already! Nobody wants to break too much of a sweat and spend too much time after some woman who has given it already to plenty of men!


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

I do believe that there is a difference in being open and knowledged about one's sexuality and having no self-control over it. And there is the fact that the promiscuity may come from compulsively seeking sex(unresolved abuse,rape, daddy issues) and it makes me take a more guarded approach to it, instead of just thinking it as "strong, independent woman living as she likes".

And I don't even advise any men to sleep around randomly, why should I do it for women?


----------



## Goldmember357

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I deleted my post. *You aren't worth getting banned over*.


Ah you changed and edited your post i see.

Now you get to run off after making this snide little remark trying to give off the impression of your inherent superiority. Does well in assuring yourself of your supposed greatness and status. You have now been elevated (in your mind) and you can override conflicting/doubtful thoughts. 

Now you get to watch from the sidelines believing of your superiority without having to prove it. Is this not to some extent a sign of neurotic behavior? coupled with that of over-inflated ego?

I ask you again

Why not prove your superiority right now? Are you too good for that.


----------



## Jasel

Men and women I've noticed tend to have different standards in what they look for and value in members of the opposite sex. Sometimes this includes things regarding sex itself. It's almost like you can critique a potential partner for pretty much anything, but when it comes to their sexual history it's off limits? I don't get that. 

The girl I lost my virginity to wanted to date me and had been pursing me for 2 months when we finally had sex. 2 days later when she found out she was my first, she dropped me like a bad habit. Did I take it personally? No. She knew what she wanted and what she didn't want. And she wanted someone with more experience (although she didn't come out and say it to me she was kind enough to tell mutual acquaintances). 

I mean it's one thing to degrade, insult, or shame someone over their sexual history but if you simply say "I don't think this is going to work out" or because that's simply something you either don't desire in a partner or find undesirable in a partner that's something else and I don't see anything wrong with it. I really don't care if it's a double standard or not. If women are fine being with a man who has an extensive sexual history I guess that makes them more mature or something? Okay. If men are fine not being serious with a woman who has an extensive sexual history then I guess that makes them insecure and judgemental? Okay.

If I ever did get married (not happening) I wouldn't want a virgin and would prefer someone with some experience under her belt. But I don't want anyone who has had sex with the equivalent of 3 baseball teams either. I don't care if she's proud, indifferent, or ashamed of it. It's just something I personally find unappealing but I'm not going to shame anyone about it. There are plenty of other things that I'd avoid in a potential partner as well.


----------



## Goldmember357

Catherine602 said:


> Well I for one am convinced. Back to no sex for women before marriage for the good of society and the good of women who are getting out if hand anyway.
> 
> So how do we proceed what do you suggest to get us back on tract.
> 
> Hey who are the men going to have premarital sex with? They will have to be virgins too. He he.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think waiting for till marriage is the right answer for everyone. I think a better answer would be to tell young people to have sex with someone when they have strong deep feelings for them. I feel that is the best way to learn how to give, take, wait and love. I also feel that people may become less jaded if they are not so quick to throw sex around so easily. Waiting for the right person is not a bad thing at all, i think many of those people who do may have better relationships. 



Jack29 said:


> I don't know where you live but the fierce competition for virgins is happening already! Nobody wants to break too much of a sweat and spend too much time after some woman who has given it already to plenty of men!


No way really?

I was under the impression most young men could careless. My wife was not a virgin, she had had only had 2 people before me, but she had lots of sex in her second relationship. That does not bother me at all, i had more partners, and had done way more things including "high risk" activities. However, sexually nothing crazy like swinging parties, or gang bangs, or threesomes. Anyhow i was shocked when we slept together at how experienced she was for only having 2 partners. 

Number of partners i do not think is a huge thing unless those partners were racked up in a very short time or are the result of very risky behavior. Like lots of drunken one night stands

Sleeping with someone you deeply care about is an entirely different issue than actively playing the filed and seeing how many you can get with.


----------



## CantePe

I have had plenty of partners in my past (it was a symptom of being a survivor of child sexual assault, yes promiscuity is one of the psychological symptoms). I'm married 14+ yrs and the only reason I'd divorce is if WS commits infidelity a second time.

I must be an anomaly here too because those stats don't take ANY of my variables in life into consideration at all.

I don't appreciate being lumped into the s!ut category for having multiple partners and more sexual experience than other women. These are all generalizations that don't apply across the board in all cases.


----------



## A Bit Much

CantePe consider yourself in good company. I don't appreciate it either, and for the same reason as you.


----------



## StargateFan

So do you include "id" in your legal briefs ? How does that go over with the judge ?


----------



## Jack29

StargateFan said:


> So do you include "id" in your legal briefs ? How does that go over with the judge ?


Please explain joke, cant get it, want to know because it sounds funny 

Why would someone tuck id in the underwear and than have to show up in court?


----------



## Goldmember357

Paralegal's exist for a reason


----------



## Goldmember357

CantePe said:


> I don't appreciate being lumped into the s!ut category for having multiple partners and more sexual experience than other women. These are all generalizations that don't apply across the board in all cases.


You're not a s#ut. All i am saying is that i think its best that people exercise better caution and that being judgmental/picky would decrease divorce rates. Many men are very pick as are women, and a person's poor decisions could merit them unworthy in the eyes of some people. 

I think more past actions/other traits are a better indicator of infidelity/ability to have a stable marriage.

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=orpc&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dbig%25205%2520personality%2520traits%2520infidelity%2520promiscuity%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26cad%3Drja%26ved%3D0CEEQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarworks.gvsu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1041%2526context%253Dorpc%26ei%3DCZkiUafdOurp0AHQiYCoDA%26usg%3DAFQjCNH99Ah_wEl0qjoPBTpcTNCPNuXR5A%26bvm%3Dbv.42553238%2Cd.dmQ#search=%22big%205%20personality%20traits%20infidelity%20promiscuity%22

http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165862.pdf

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep06246282.pdf


These are good reads on relations to behavior and stability and infidelity and if if a correlation between the two exists.


----------



## Faithful Wife

My H and I both have considerable sexual experience, and that is precisely why we picked each other. Yumm.


----------



## chillymorn

lol

once a sl*t always a sl*t!
once a cheater always a cheater.

this goes for both genders in my mind!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Get my husband and I together behind closed doors, and the word sl*t is actually TOO TAME to describe what happens next. Mmmm mmmm, good.


----------



## Racer

Definitions of acceptable levels of “promiscuous” change with age and generations. My great grandmother would probably say you were promiscuous if you kissed on the lips any man you weren’t intending on marrying and there is no way a woman would go out unescorted. My 24 year old receptionist would wonder what deep issues or problems you are harboring if you haven’t been having sex recently (and she’s not considering marriage yet). By the time she hits that divorce age, the statistics will change. So whatever correlation you draw today won’t be true tomorrow...


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> Get my husband and I together behind closed doors, and the word sl*t is actually TOO TAME to describe what happens next. Mmmm mmmm, good.


A woman cannot be a sl*t with her own mate, IMO


----------



## Catherine602

Jack29 said:


> I don't know where you live but the fierce competition for virgins is happening already! Nobody wants to break too much of a sweat and spend too much time after some woman who has given it already to plenty of men!


You're kidding right? I am certain that there are men of this type. 

How do the men know that the women are virgins? Ask them before dating, pick from a pool of virgins hanging around the village green? 

Do women wear armbands in this mythical place, have tattoos declaring them USDA prime on their foreheads? Do the guys do vaginal exams, try out the goods and throw back the clunkers? Are the guys pure too? 

I am amazed how many men want to control the choices young men make with repect to women. What is obvious is that some men want to control womens sexuality. They want a woman who is sexually wild about them but not interest in other men. Ego bost. 

They want guarantees that women will not stray. Fear based. My theory - men are finally facing themselves. Men enjoy their sexuality the way they want and settle down but reserve the right to wonder for variety. 

Ta da, now women are taking the script from men. It is uncomfortable to risk humiliation and pain if your partner strays. 

Having it happen to men as frequently as women may give both parties pause out of empathy. Cheating may actually decrease as a result.

There is no easy way to prevent cheating except by making cheating unacceptable in marriage for both men and women. Controlling women is self serving and insincere besides not feasable. 

Do the math, who are these men cheating with, angels? Both men and women need to curb the urge. 

The virginal thing. Guys, you will just have to have confidence that is unconnected to sex, and be good lovers. If you want women with low or no lovers then stop sleeping around. 

If it is a principled decision that you impose on yourself as well as the women you want to marry that will work. 

But if you want to enjoy sex with multiple women and then look for a virgin, where are all of these virgins going to come from, heaven? 

Each action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's a law of nature.


----------



## KathyBatesel

Goldmember357 said:


> In short i was trying to tell of the real reasons for divorce and do away with the myth that "walk away wife syndrome" is rampant. I also wanted to address the notion that divorced/single moms have better lives after divorce. *Furthermore i am trying to sell that people should be more picky/judgmental in order to AVOID divorce/infidelity and to LOWER divorce rates.*


You asked if I agreed with you. Now that you've laid out exactly what you're trying to say, I can answer: 

Rampant walk away wife is a myth - I agree.
Divorced and single moms have better life after divorce is a myth - I agree. 

People should be more picky/judgmental in order to avoid divorce and infidelity - I partially agree and partially disagree. I believe that both the woman who has seven long-term partners and the woman who engages in 7 one-nighters over a short time will do equally well if they understand their motivations and what they are looking for. I believe the problem is NOT in the number or frequency of partners, but in the way people (especially women) are conditioned to believe that love is enough to make a relationship work, that relationships take hard work, etc. The cultural conditioning is the problem. Not the number of partners. 

Having said that, I qualify my statement. I also believe that many women who engage in high-risk, promiscuous sex do so because they lack the social skills to know what they want, but that women who do not do this have better social skills overall.

In other words, I believe there is a correlation, but that it's not a cause/effect.


----------



## NextTimeAround

KathyBatesel said:


> Having said that, I qualify my statement. I also believe that many women who engage in high-risk, promiscuous sex do so because they lack the social skills to know what they want, but that women who do not do this have better social skills overall.


No, rather I think that women who engage in high risk promiscuous sex do so because they think that they can't get any better. That is,if they hold out, no guys will hang around long enough for them.

ETA: Isn't this the whole reason behind encouraging women to carry around condoms because they may go ahead and have sex with a guy doesn't bother supplying them for himself.

Back when I started dating again after my divorce, I was amazed at the female friends who would hassle me about paying for the date....... like they had a stake in the matter. I realise now it's usually women who get few dates on their own and feel as if they have to go dutch to sweeten the deal.


----------



## Wiltshireman

KathyBatesel said:


> In other words, I believe there is a correlation, but that it's not a cause/effect.


KathyBatesel has put forward some well thought out ideas and I would tend to agree with much of what she has said.

As a child my father told me that there were two types of people (both men and women can fall into either group), those who where promiscuous and those who were not, whilst promiscuous people might be fun to date they might not be as suitable as long term faithful partners.

I have found little evidence to dispute this and much to support it.


----------



## NextTimeAround

But generally, every now and then I notice that a guy may highly attracted to a woman even being aware of her less than pristine record.

I'm still trying to understand the attraction that my fiancé had for his EA, knowing full well that she had started f*cking another guy ....and as he tells me, she even told him that the other guy was better in bed than he was. 

And also my exH, he would talk in dreamy terms of an ex --not the one before -- but another one, I never met her despite her round robin end of year letters (and I thought the Brits were above that). She was already a single mom while he was at university and he described the father of her child as rich .... without saying what he did to be rich. ExH admitted to me that he knew that the relationship was over when one night he was babysitting for her and she did not come back until the next morning. 

But he admits that he was upset enough about it that it made the beginning of his next relationship a bit rocky........

So maybe there is some way that a modern savvy woman should play it..... but it appears to me that men like the idea that their partner is desirable to other men.

How subltle or unsubtle that that a man wants his partner to be probably should be the topic of discussion here.....


----------



## NextTimeAround

Wiltshireman said:


> KathyBatesel has put forward some well thought out ideas and I would tend to agree with much of what she has said.
> 
> As a child my father told me that there were two types of people (both men and women can fall into either group), those who where promiscuous and those who were not, whilst promiscuous people might be fun to date they might not be as suitable as long term faithful partners.
> 
> I have found little evidence to dispute this and much to support it.


Prince Charles seems to be a happy camper since his second wedding.


----------



## Jack29

NextTimeAround said:


> But generally, every now and then I notice that a guy may highly attracted to a woman even being aware of her less than pristine record.
> 
> I'm still trying to understand the attraction that my fiancé had for his EA, knowing full well that she had started f*cking another guy ....and as he tells me, she even told him that the other guy was better in bed than he was.
> 
> And also my exH, he would talk in dreamy terms of an ex --not the one before -- but another one, I never met her despite her round robin end of year letters (and I thought the Brits were above that). She was already a single mom while he was at university and he described the father of her child as rich .... without saying what he did to be rich. ExH admitted to me that he knew that the relationship was over when one night he was babysitting for her and she did not come back until the next morning.
> 
> But he admits that he was upset enough about it that it made the beginning of his next relationship a bit rocky........
> *
> So maybe there is some way that a modern savvy woman should play it..... but it appears to me that men like the idea that their partner is desirable to other men.
> 
> How subltle or unsubtle that that a man wants his partner to be probably should be the topic of discussion here.....*


I seriously doubt that someone in his right mind would like to be with a woman that goes around and cuckolds him!

What i find appealing (and i think what most men do) in girls that go around is the way they talk about things like sex. they will talk very offhandedly and carelessly about subject such as sex and penises and porn etc! I've had a couple of gfs like that and we have hit it off pretty well since the beginning.

The downside is that that kind of talk wears thin pretty quick and I get tired of it, and than it is time to go. Sooner or later they are bound to eff things up and to push the conversation a bit too far, (im not bringing examples they're not very pleasant)


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Faithful Wife said*: My H and I both have considerable sexual experience, and that is precisely why we picked each other. Yumm


Funny how very different people are...and to each their own... Me & mine both wanted YOUNG LOVE ... and the ultimate was to find another who was *experience FREE*...so we could begin our journey together with all that sweet awkwardness & vulnerability..where another has never graced....this I see as something "beautiful"..... 
We both waited till marriage (for intercourse & oral sex).







has been the greatest blessing to our lives...every dream we dared dream has come forth from this Union...and sex was surely that mother of cherries on top of it all....a bonding we hold as "sacred", it's something we could never never never take lightly, it would be going against everything within us. 

My husband did not want a promiscuous woman and I would have spit a Philandering Playboy out of my mouth. 

I do not believe everyone is suitable for marriage either...Those who have no issues with bedding some "strange" -because this is excitement/ Empowerment for them....they simply would never share the same values as another who feels Sex should be reserved for Love & commitment *.....The Romantic View* at the very least  EXPLAINED HERE ... not to mention how such a couple would handle raising & teaching their children as they enter their teens. 

Then there is the continuous argument given - so often spewed on this forum about our types....that ALL such men are insecure ~ if they have issues with a woman's past.......Hear me...this is NOT THE CASE for ALL... most especially the few, due to their moral convictions... who wait themselves. Nor does it mean that those who wait are all Low Drivers (me hardly! Even then I was a HORNY son of a gun... husband - hardly!)....or are "undesirable" in the looks department... I've never had a lack of getting hit on..some darn funny stories back in the day. 

It has *E**V**E**R**Y**T**H**I**N**G* to do with HOW a person views & values the act of







....what it personally means to them.....







...* For us....it represented FOREVER*, a giving of our bodies in the fullest sense (making us "one") with our hearts & souls melting /entangled in each other...there is not greater consuming FIRE. 

For many....in this Free lovin' "sexed up" society.... there is no attachment of Love & deep abiding emotion... they don't even want it / saying it would only complicate their lives.... it is simply Pleasure in a moment.....PLEASURE is in itself a worthy & praised pursuit today. 

And those who don't share this view....now we are painted as "Freaks of nature"... mocked as Prudes.... I believe the "casual sex" lifestyle of multitudes has led to a Lack of empathy in our society even.... That's another debate ....







Is Casual Sex Destroying Empathy?









I don't know that I care for threads like this too much though... because all they end up accomplishing is ..... breeding defenses....and people taking more POP shots at those who CHOOSE to wait till marriage.... Which really kinda pi$$es Me off... makes me want to DEFEND those who feel as WE did. We have no regrets...and would do it all over the same.


----------



## Wiltshireman

NextTimeAround said:


> Prince Charles seems to be a happy camper since his second wedding.


For Prince Charles I believe that his marriage to Dianna was more to do with duty than love so after the divorce (and her subsequent death) he was able to marry Camilla (with whom he had be linked before his first marriage).
I do not know how anyone can live their lives under that level of press / public attention.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Wiltshireman said:


> For Prince Charles I believe that his marriage to Dianna was more to do with duty than love so after the divorce (and her subsequent death) he was able to marry Camilla (with whom he had be linked before his first marriage).
> I do not know how anyone can live their lives under that level of press / public attention.



Regarding Mrs. P-C, I have read that she was known to be more sexually active than the other women in her social set at the time. And, an article that was published in one of the London newspapers around the announcement of their wedding claimed that she chose to sleep with the prince in order to make her future first husband jealous.

Now that's an operator. 

You may also be interested in the life and times of Pamela churchill harriman. If I correctly understand your location, she is one of your home girls.


----------



## Wiltshireman

NextTimeAround said:


> You may also be interested in the life and times of Pamela churchill harriman. If I correctly understand your location, she is one of your home girls.



You are correct about my location Hampshire is a next door county. 

Pamela and ladies of her ilk where so far ahead of their times. Holding and expressing strong political and moral opinions as often as not opposing views to their husbands or families. Living their lives as they saw fit and not just conforming to that which society expected of them.

Wouldn't life be dull if we were all the same?


----------



## MEM2020

Gold,
You shouldn't lie about your credentials. You clearly aren't a lawyer. 



QUOTE=Goldmember357;1462417]You see there you go again with attacking me. Why is this?

Do you realize how this makes you look?

If you are my intellectual superior why not prove it instead of lashing out in anger? At that why do you see this as a competition? why the need to claim i am "not a worthy opponent". Your decision to add that in there is very interesting it makes you come off as very hostile.

Again can i ask you.

Where does your disgust for me come from?[/QUOTE]


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wiltshireman said:


> You are correct about my location Hampshire is a next door county.
> 
> Pamela and ladies of her ilk where so far ahead of their times. Holding and expressing strong political and moral opinions as often as not opposing views to their husbands or families. Living their lives as they saw fit and not just conforming to that which society expected of them.
> 
> Wouldn't life be dull if we were all the same?


Had to look this woman up >>>



> Pamela Harriman -  Pamela Beryl Harriman (née Digby; 20 March 1920 – 5 February 1997), also known as Pamela Churchill Harriman, was an English-born socialite who was married and linked to important and powerful men. In later life, she became a political activist for the United States Democratic Party and a diplomat. Her only child, Winston Churchill, was named after his famous grandfather.
> 
> 
> *Romantic involvements and affairs*
> 
> Beside two additional marriages, Pamela Harriman had numerous affairs with men of prominence and wealth. During her marriage to Randolph Churchill, she had romantic involvements with men such as: Averell Harriman, who much later became her third husband; Edward R. Murrow; and John Hay "Jock" Whitney. Notable consorts after her divorce included Prince Aly Khan, Alfonso de Portago, Gianni Agnelli, and Baron Elie de Rothschild.[2][3]
> 
> Churchill became well known for her attention to detail with men. When involved romantically with a man, she paid extremely close attention to his desires, his preferences, and went to any lengths necessary to satisfy his needs during the affair. William S. Paley, briefly a consort during the war, said: "*She is the greatest courtesan of the century*", meaning it more as a compliment than a detraction.[2] According to Max Hastings, "she was unkindly described as having become 'a world expert on rich men's bedroom ceilings'."[4]
> 
> After her divorce from Randolph Churchill, she moved to Paris and in 1948 began her five-year-long affair with Gianni Agnelli. She described this as the happiest period of her life. Agnelli, however, was not faithful in this relationship. In 1952, Pamela found him with a young woman, Anne-Marie d'Estainville, and threw a rare fit about this. Agnelli sustained a severe leg injury in a car accident while bringing d'Estainville home. Pamela nursed him through his injury, and later became pregnant (although it was never confirmed that this was by Agnelli), but had an abortion in Switzerland.
> 
> Later, Princess Marella Caracciolo di Castagneto became pregnant by Agnelli, and Pamela Churchill ended the affair.[3]
> 
> Her next significant relationship was with Baron Elie de Rothschild, who was married. He supported her financially, and she was schooled in art history and wine-making during this clandestine and short relationship.[5] During this time she also entertained an affair with the writer Maurice Druon and with the shipping magnate Stavros Niarchos.[2]
> 
> Her life story has been the subject of a documentary film, and has been somewhat Hollywoodised in the 1998 TV movie The Life of the Party: The Pamela Harriman Story with Ann-Margret in the title role. In the biography of Madeleine Albright, Pamela Harriman is cited in contrast to Albright, as a socialite who slept her way to the top



Good article here >> 

Scandalous Women: The Last Courtesan: The Life of Pamela Digby Churchill Hayward Harriman



> Like her great-great aunt, Pamela refused to be hemmed in by the judgments of others. *She never apologized for her series of affairs with married men,* nor did she object when her name appeared in gossip columns. “I would rather have bad things written about me than be forgotten.” After her death, Jacques Chirac, the President of France, called her ‘probably one of the best ambassadors since Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson.” In the end, Pamela finally got everything she had ever wanted, fame, money, admiration and finally in the end respect.


 Really...so we should admire & applaud this, excuse her somehow....because she was beautiful, intelligent, a grand conversationalist, a highly sought after Courtesan who slept her way to Fame & fortune - gaining the Respect of a Political party ?


----------



## NextTimeAround

SimplyAmorous said:


> Really...so we should admire & applaud this, excuse her somehow....because she was beautiful, intelligent and a Grand conversationalist...a highly sought after Courtesan who slept her way to Fame & fortune?


Bill Clinton made her the US Ambassador to France. I read that she and Hillary didn't get along.

anyway, it's stuff like this that helps me to understand men just a wee better.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NextTimeAround said:


> Bill Clinton made her the US Ambassador to France. I read that she and Hillary didn't get along.


I know nothing about her really... So because she did GOOD, became this "Ambassador to France"....we can overlook her affairs, her defense of them even. For the Rich & famous, it adds to their Respect...she is Power.... so the multitudes continue to admire...despite even those who would be against such behaviors in their own marriages. 



> *NextTimeAround said*: it's stuff like this that helps me to understand men just a wee better.


 Not really sure what you mean .... I'd say it also teaches some about the Misuse of Power women use as well...and this is an ugly thing...as it is for Men to be caught in her snare....let's face it - they allowed themselves to be "caught". 

I just don't find it excusable. She may have been good at her Job/ Politics but I wouldn't call her a woman of character, due to how she handled her Private life. But that's just me.. I'd say the same of any Man.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I agree with the findings in most cases. Unconditional or nearly unconditional love are the only cases where these findings would be incorrect.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Simply Amorous...I have 100% respect for your relationship, and if I could have picked my own fairy tale, I would have picked to meet my beautiful husband in high school, married after college, had 8 kids together and a beautiful life and sex life (just as good as what we have now)....

....but not everyone is as lucky as you are.

In my case, I didn't go that route. The route I went instead though ended up VERY lovely and I am sooooo happy. The wonderful sex and love I have experienced in my life (and my husband has experienced) has done nothing but increase my overall joy and happiness, and then ultimately led me into his arms.

We now have a much stricter monogamous relationship than anyone else I know...we hold each other close and fiercely protect our boundaries.

And yet, there is not one single regret for anything in our pasts. It was all good, and it is all good now.

But again, if I could have chosen as a young girl, a life for myself and somehow knew my husband at that time...I certainly would have that as my FIRST choice!


----------



## CantePe

Goldmember357 said:


> You're not a s#ut. All i am saying is that i think its best that people exercise better caution and that being judgmental/picky would decrease divorce rates. Many men are very pick as are women, and a person's poor decisions could merit them unworthy in the eyes of some people.
> 
> I think more past actions/other traits are a better indicator of infidelity/ability to have a stable marriage.
> 
> http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=orpc&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dbig%25205%2520personality%2520traits%2520infidelity%2520promiscuity%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26cad%3Drja%26ved%3D0CEEQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarworks.gvsu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1041%2526context%253Dorpc%26ei%3DCZkiUafdOurp0AHQiYCoDA%26usg%3DAFQjCNH99Ah_wEl0qjoPBTpcTNCPNuXR5A%26bvm%3Dbv.42553238%2Cd.dmQ#search=%22big%205%20personality%20traits%20infidelity%20promiscuity%22
> 
> http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165862.pdf
> 
> http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep06246282.pdf
> 
> 
> These are good reads on relations to behavior and stability and infidelity and if if a correlation between the two exists.


If I gave a flying rats ass what people thought of me I'd be house bound. Take me as I am or flick off. My past is my business and no one else, that is why we call it a past.

I live in the now, the present. If I lived in the past I'd be an ineffectual human being with more baggage than I have now. Yes, the generalizations are calling me a s!ut strictly on the premises that I have had more sexual experience than other women. Don't sugar coat a generalization, it's patronizing.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.


----------



## Caribbean Man

To each his own.

People tend to speak speak based on their experience ,and I have experienced both sides of the coin.

I met and married a 26 year old woman who was a virgin and swore that she would remain that way until her honeymoon night.
She told me quite frankly, in the beginning that if I couldn't agree to _her conditions_ then there would be no relationship.
I couldn't help but respect a woman like that.
If I wanted sex I could have had it elsewhere, I have never had a problem getting sex before I met her.
But I wanted a good wife who respected herself and me enough to hold up a standard and stick to it.
18 years later, I'm glad that we chose each other , and we have never had any issues about jealousy or cheating, _ever_.

She does the GNO thing and girlfriends vacation thing and I have no worries.
She doesn't even bother with facebook or social networks.
I am the centre of her world and she is mine.
And oh,
The sex is great, has always been that way, insomuch that whenever other women come my way, 
I just tell them that I still having crazy sex with my wife.
It works well,_ everytime_.

As for my wife, she always said that she wasn't a virgin by mistake,nobody forced her. Not that she didn't have guys begging her, I knew she always had guys after her.
She _chose_ to keep it that way, so she didn't
" miss out " on anything.
_That was something she chose for herself_.

As for the other options I had beside her, who were way more 
" experienced " than her, their marriages have failed. In fact they sometimes ask us what's the secret?

The fact is, sexual experience before marriage is absolutely no guarantee of sexual compatibility or marital stability.
Emotionally healthy,and emotionally compatible people make for successful marriages.


----------



## KathyBatesel

Wiltshireman said:


> KathyBatesel has put forward some well thought out ideas and I would tend to agree with much of what she has said.
> 
> As a child my father told me that there were two types of people (both men and women can fall into either group), those who where promiscuous and those who were not, whilst promiscuous people might be fun to date they might not be as suitable as long term faithful partners.
> 
> I have found little evidence to dispute this and much to support it.


Love this! 

I think this is one of those topics that can be supported in either direction. The human mind works to make its owner "right" about their beliefs. 

"Promiscuous people might be fun to date (but) might not be as suitable as long term faithful partners" sort of captures the entire gist of this debate - at least to me. 

As a highly promiscuous woman, I suppose I was fun to date. I was asked to marry something like seven times! I don't think ther are that many men who value chastity as much as they claim to, when push comes to shove. 

I enjoy sex, so why should I wait if it's available but a quality man is not?

I always struggled with the chasm between what I wanted in a man and the oft-repeated "Relationships take hard work" and "Love conquers all" mentality. I generally knew that I did not want to marry men I slept with. In most cases, I just wanted to have fun, too, but some of them turned into long relationships and I did not have a good "picker" because I didn't know how to evaluate relationship potential well.

I married my first husband when I was 20 and he was 31. I had wanted to marry him for a long time, because we'd had children together. By the time I did marry him, I was unhappy and wanted out, but felt obligated because of family pressures and the belief that it would be better for the kids. I literally said to him, "Well, at least I'll get a better tax refund." I already knew he was an alcoholic philanderer and abuser early and moved on, but I bought in to those social ideas and found out just how much they don't work. 

Rinse and repeat... This was more or less a pattern. When I was single, I'd sleep with anything with three legs. A few captured my fancy enough to stick around for a while. I was what I called an "ethical ****." 

Now here's the kicker. Did my behavior alienate some men who otherwise would have been great matches? It's possible, yes. I don't believe this is the case. My second husband was a well-placed military officer. Another of the men who asked me to marry was an E-7 in the military. My husband now is a blue-collar worker who fell in love with me partly because I owned and knew how to operate my own power tools (including a floor sander.) 

I'd like to think that most people have enough intelligence to look at a human being as the sum of their parts. I have always been so much more than just what my sex life would indicate. Those women who talk casually and confidently about sex *are* fun... as long as they know where to draw the boundaries appropriately. Those who are desirable to men and love men (but are completely devoted to their guy) hold a great appeal for some men. Assertiveness and confidence are sexy in a woman, and promiscuity *can* demonstrate this to a degree, but it *can* also signal low self-esteem and drama-ridden lives.

Plus, the biggest difference between me and the person with 4 partners in her lifetime is that I'm likely to be more honest. But that's a whole other topic.


----------



## Caribbean Man

KathyBatesel said:


> * My husband now is a blue-collar worker who fell in love with me partly because I owned and knew how to operate my own power tools (including a floor sander.) *
> 
> This right there is what most men look for. The sexual past would not be a problem if the woman had a positive attitude towards it , and had other attributes that any man would admire in a woman beside being an entitled princess.....
> Any man would marry a woman with a kick ass attitude like yours.
> 
> I'd like to think that most people have enough intelligence to look at a human being as the sum of their parts. I have always been so much more than just what my sex life would indicate.
> 
> :iagree: x 100%!
> But your situation is not the norm. Each person's experience is different and people get burned
> 
> Plus, the biggest difference between me and the person with 4 partners in her lifetime is that I'm likely to be more honest. But that's a whole other topic.
> :lol:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kathy said: "I have always been so much more than just what my sex life would indicate."

I loved your whole post, except this line is confusing. "What your sex life would indicate" is an odd statement. What I'm reading as you described your story is "sexually self-aware woman"...which is something that a sexually self-aware man would consider a great asset.

When I was much younger, I do recall hearing things here and there about "what it means" about a person who has a lot of sexual experience....specifically, older women in my life (aunties and grandmas) were the ones saying it mattered. As I kept gaining maturity and a mind of my own, I started to realize "oh, I get it...these older women are from a different time and they cannot relate to being sexually free, therefore, they don't know what they are saying and I need not apply their limitations upon my own thinking for myself".


----------



## CantePe

KathyBatesel said:


> Plus, the biggest difference between me and the person with 4 partners in her lifetime is that I'm likely to be more honest. But that's a whole other topic.


I don't agree with your last statement. I will be honest here and say I've had at least 10 or more partners from age 13 (yes I was young, again sexual assault *can* cause a psychological symptom of promiscuity) to now. Now being the only partner I have had for 14+ yrs is my husband.

I've been on both sides of the coin for partners too, male and female. I am one of the most straight up, honest people you will likely meet. I am the type who says what I think and doesn't sugar coat a thing. I'm brutally honest at times to the point of fault (not that I see being honest as a fault but it does ruffle feathers and get people peeved off at me sometimes). I am very of the mind set of saying what I mean and meaning what I say. I don't apologize for anything I say or do when it comes to being honest in my words and actions. I won't.

I think it's about choices in different stages of life. The young modern woman who chooses multiple partners should not be viewed as a s!ut simply because she chooses multiple partners. The circumstances and variables of those choices should be taken into consideration.

What I find interesting... why is this debate one sided. Men are viewed as "manly" when they have multiple partners in their past - virile even yet we still hold this "women are s!uts and [email protected]" for the very same choices?

Are we not in 2013 where equality is the standard these days in modern westernized civilization? Why do we toss around the words s!ut and [email protected] at women when men who do the very same thing, make the same choices don't even see the bat of an eyelash... they get "oh boys will boys".

I do agree with your "to each their own" though. I am a fairly "lesser faire" kind of gal myself until it encroaches on my character and lumps me in with a generalization based on unfounded assumptions of who I am based on what I've done and not what I am now.


----------



## KathyBatesel

To clear up the two things that seem to have caused confusion: 

"than what my sex life would indicate" meant that if someone looked purely at my sex life, they'd think I was $2 prostitute. But anyone who judged me on that would miss a great deal about me, like a very high IQ, financial soundness, loyalty, courage, etc. 

The statement about honesty is because there are a LOT of women who will minimize their numbers, just as men often inflate theirs. The one-sided thing and the myths about numbers are something I researched a bit and wrote up in Am I Too Sexually Experienced for My Age (Or Not Enough?) .


----------



## Jack29

CantePe said:


> I think it's about choices in different stages of life. The young modern woman who chooses multiple partners should not be viewed as a s!ut simply because she chooses multiple partners. The circumstances and variables of those choices should be taken into consideration.
> 
> What I find interesting... why is this debate one sided. Men are viewed as "manly" when they have multiple partners in their past - virile even yet we still hold this "women are s!uts and [email protected]" for the very same choices?
> 
> Are we not in 2013 where equality is the standard these days in modern westernized civilization? Why do we toss around the words s!ut and [email protected] at women when men who do the very same thing, make the same choices don't even see the bat of an eyelash... they get "oh boys will boys"..


Its not true that men feel good if they've banged a lot o women. I had some brief relationships (not too many) and when they had ended i had felt very empty for a longer time than the relationship itself. Also last summer I visited in Italy with a woman i had met home and although I usually don't talk to my parents about this stuff this time i had to come clean since It wasnt a short trip and my father wasnt happy at all when i said that we agreed that Italy would be it since after that we had to go home country each of us!

Even the men who go around saying things like "what if I know her?! Hell yeah, I've f****d her!" they're making fools of themselfs they have been used and discarded more likely than gone after the woman and seduced her but they're too stupid to get it! So they're stupid (that might be even worse that [email protected])

For the record when i hear the expression "a young modern woman" I freak out (other men too probably), it might be to your benefit if you reconsider that!


----------



## CantePe

Jack29 said:


> Its not true that men feel good if they've banged a lot o women. I had some brief relationships (not too many) and when they had ended i had felt very empty for a longer time than the relationship itself. Also last summer I visited in Italy with a woman i had met home and although I usually don't talk to my parents about this stuff this time i had to come clean since It wasnt a short trip and my father wasnt happy at all when i said that we agreed that Italy would be it since after that we had to go home country each of us!
> 
> Even the men who go around saying things like "what if I know her?! Hell yeah, I've f****d her!" they're making fools of themselfs they have been used and discarded more likely than gone after the woman and seduced her but they're too stupid to get it! So they're stupid (that might be even worse that [email protected])
> 
> For the record when i hear the expression "a young modern woman" I freak out (other men too probably), it might be to your benefit if you reconsider that!


You know you could reconsider how you speak (type) at people. I reconsider nothing, like I said take me as I am or flick off - this is who and what I am based on my life experiences. If a simple phrase scares a man off then he isn't worth my time or effort.

I'm no feminist but I'm no traditionalist either. It seems strong, fully experienced women scare people (not just men). I am from both a family and a generation where the women do not put up with gender bias or set gender rolls.

I am in a predominately male oriented industry (my first industry) where I see this kind of double speak in this thread all the time. It's a pet peeve of mine, a big one.

I was once told after I completed college in IT tech that a pair of tits and box can't do a computer tech job. I did his job better than him and subsequently replaced him. It's that kind of gender bias that drives me nuts.

This whole debate is full of that same gender bias under a different "topic" of sexual experience equating women to [email protected] and s!uts. It goes both ways, you are right though it's not said to a mans face as much as it is to a womans face. More often than not women are degraded for knowing what they want and how they wanted than men are - it's society double standard.

You don't think there are women are there that have the same regrets as you did or men do? Again two way street.

Huge red button pet peeve of mine this topic. I think I need to ignore this thread soon.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> if I could have picked my own fairy tale, I would have picked to meet my beautiful husband in high school, married after college, had 8 kids together and a beautiful life and sex life (just as good as what we have now)


 People have no desire to marry young today....it is frowned upon.....we tell our kids to date till they are 26 + ....claiming emotional maturity sets in at this age (this is clearly individualized as well)... wait till your 30's to get married & have kids, what's the rush - I see this constantly on this forum......Sow your wild oats, get it out of your system or you'll regret it ...THIS is the overwhelming mentality so long as this is going on... Finding and waiting for a soul mate is ...well... looked upon as a waste of one's youth.  



> ....but not everyone is as lucky as you are.
> 
> In my case, I didn't go that route. The route I went instead though ended up VERY lovely and I am sooooo happy. The wonderful sex and love I have experienced in my life (and my husband has experienced) has done nothing but increase my overall joy and happiness, and then ultimately led me into his arms.


 I don't believe it was Luck...for me or you... it was still our choices, I prayed to meet a GOOD guy at the young age of 15.... He walked into my life 3 months later. Luck / destiny.... I don't know.... but I could have easily overlooked him as he was not an Alpha... I didn't. 

As you dismissed your Auntie & Grandma's thoughts as Old school ..... I was the opposite... my Grandmother was the 1 stable force in my life who had a Marriage to be admired....so I heeded her advice... It was my mother who slept with men who used her & threw her away .... I was taken off of her for her choices...it was very difficult to loose my Mother/ my best friend ...watching her self destruct at such a young age....I vowed to never go down that path...it even screwed with my views of sex, I can't blame it all on Religion. 

Less & less men care to marry today....the more we embrace Casual sex and speak lowly of those who don't.... it feeds the social pressure to conform. This is what saddens ME. 

I like a little PORN...so it's not like I judge these people, but I don't raise my children to embrace a lifestyle that I feel , is counterproductive.... to what has worked for us. The lessons of my mother will be told to my daughter as well.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes it was all my choice, Simply Amorous. And as I said, I don't have any regrets (except that my husband did not end up being the father of my kids...I really wish he would have been).

However, I'm of the opinion that the more we speak lowly of those who have had casual sex, the more we try to keep people into boxes that they will refuse and kick their way out of.

Why can't we accept and be understanding of both chastity and good, fun sexuality? Why should we stand in judgment of either?

My D got married too young and is likely to end up divorced one day. IMO, she should have waited until she was much older to get married AND I would have loved for her to experience more men in her life, as she ended up with a man who isn't right for her. So now I get to stand by and watch this train wreck until they end up spliting up, which will be an extremely painful wreck, full of casualties.

None of us can know if she had waited longer to get married if this would be the eventual outcome or if she would have chosen to marry the same man or not. But based on everything I've seen, she should have waited and she would not have picked the same man.

What worked for you won't always work for others, and full out chastity, IMO, is not the highest virtue one can aspire to.


----------



## ravioli

CantePe said:


> I don't agree with your last statement. I will be honest here and say I've had at least 10 or more partners from age 13 (yes I was young, again sexual assault *can* cause a psychological symptom of promiscuity) to now. Now being the only partner I have had for 14+ yrs is my husband.
> 
> I've been on both sides of the coin for partners too, male and female. I am one of the most straight up, honest people you will likely meet. I am the type who says what I think and doesn't sugar coat a thing. I'm brutally honest at times to the point of fault (not that I see being honest as a fault but it does ruffle feathers and get people peeved off at me sometimes). I am very of the mind set of saying what I mean and meaning what I say. I don't apologize for anything I say or do when it comes to being honest in my words and actions. I won't.
> 
> I think it's about choices in different stages of life. The young modern woman who chooses multiple partners should not be viewed as a s!ut simply because she chooses multiple partners. The circumstances and variables of those choices should be taken into consideration.
> 
> What I find interesting... why is this debate one sided. Men are viewed as "manly" when they have multiple partners in their past - virile even yet we still hold this "women are s!uts and [email protected]" for the very same choices?
> 
> Are we not in 2013 where equality is the standard these days in modern westernized civilization? Why do we toss around the words s!ut and [email protected] at women when men who do the very same thing, make the same choices don't even see the bat of an eyelash... they get "oh boys will boys".
> 
> I do agree with your "to each their own" though. I am a fairly "lesser faire" kind of gal myself until it encroaches on my character and lumps me in with a generalization based on unfounded assumptions of who I am based on what I've done and not what I am now.


2013 doesn't erase biology. Men and women aren't equal. Never will be. Equality for equal pay, voting rights, benefits and jobs are all well and good and much needed for the western civilization, but western civilization or any after won't erase how men and women attract each other.

The day that a man working at a quickie mart, or getting paid cash for street sweeping can attract, date and marry a vogue cover fashion model is the day that men won't blink twice about a women that has slept with many men.

What is a "young modern woman"?


----------



## Faithful Wife

"The day that a man working at a quickie mart, or getting paid cash for street sweeping can attract, date and marry a vogue cover fashion model is the day that men won't blink twice about a women that has slept with many men."

Is your hypothetical young man as hot as your hypothetical young woman? If yes, then this can very well happen and DOES happen all the time. This young man may be in medical school with an earning potential that far exceeds the young woman's modeling earning potential in the long term.


----------



## Jack29

ravioli said:


> What is a "young modern woman"?


Let me put it this way: the "young modern woman" is just the type of woman i wanted to meet when i was fresh out of the army (i did almost 7 brutal months in the FFL 2years back and the sexual frustration was rampant). I used to drop into parties several months following my military duty (to be exact the FFL is volonteers) and together with some other pals of mine we had a common mission to fall in love and f*ck!


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> Is your hypothetical young man as hot as your hypothetical young woman? If yes, then this can very well happen and DOES happen all the time. This young man may be in medical school with an earning potential that far exceeds the young woman's modeling earning potential in the long term.


When have you ever seen a "Hot" man working at a quickie mart or street sweeping? Then tell me a street sweeper that was in medical school?

Then proceed to give me an example of a vogue cover fashion model with a quickie mart worker/street sweeper?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> However, I'm of the opinion that the more we speak lowly of those who have had casual sex, the more we try to keep people into boxes that they will refuse and kick their way out of.


 As for the war on sexual Virtues.... YOU WIN Faithful Wife... and so does all of the other women on this thread with their views....Traditional values are frowned upon ...they've been beaten down so much by modern society.... I only come on here to defend the few.... the rare who are still trying to hold on to some semblance of what was... seeing value in such a set up...
WE ARE THE MINORITY NOW...really could anyone here deny this ??? I feel they need a voice too.

Honestly I fit in more on a Religious forum -other than I can't stomach the narrow minded Dogma & their views on a little Porn. I fit in no box myself. 

Be honest now... how many women on this thread would have any respect or notice of a Virgin male in college, would you make fun of him/ put him down for his choices - waiting for 1 special woman?? This goes both ways.... 

Heck even the







Sean Lowe, our newest Bachelor is getting "put down" by women...



> Former ‘Bachelorette’ star slams Sean’s Lowe’s no-sex stance Harris also said, "He’s not my type -- he looks a little too much like a Ken doll, but he seems nice. I just can’t get over the whole sex thing. What happens if he doesn't meet the right person -- he just won’t have sex until he does? This is crazy, as it's a huge part of a healthy relationship.


People on both sides of these "sexual lenses" will dismiss the other, beings their values/beliefs are not in line with their own..... Jillian would SPIT Sean out her mouth, she thinks he is CRAZY.... another woman may be WILD about his Romantic stance, find it beautiful... Yeah... MY TYPE !!! This idea that us Traditionalists are the only ones spewing some Judgement is simply... not the case. 



> Word on the street is that Sean Lowe is engaged ,but there's just one problem. Sean is celibate. Basically, he's a beautiful, virginal angel who refuses to sow his wild oats in his fiancee's lady pastures until they're man and wife. “Sean doesn’t want to have sex until he’s married,” a source tells Us Weekly. “He’s a ‘born-again-virgin.’ It’s very important to him.”...


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't watch any such shows.

I liked Burning Love better, and now Burning Love 2.


----------



## ravioli

SimplyAmorous said:


> Heck even the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sean Lowe, our newest Bachelor is getting "put down" by women...


Is this guy a virgin or just celibate?


----------



## Jasel

Faithful Wife said:


> Is your hypothetical young man as hot as your hypothetical young woman? If yes, then this can very well happen and DOES happen all the time. This young man may be in medical school with an earning potential that far exceeds the young woman's modeling earning potential in the long term.


They might be willing to have date/marry him if he's good looking AND has potential. That's one thing. 

But if he's a great looking guy pushing a mop barely making minimum wage with a high school diploma and no future job prospects? He can be the nicest, most charismatic guy in the world. Women on his level of attraction and above might be willing to have sex with him. Even if they're more successful and have better jobs. But those same women would most likely not want to marry him. 

Once again it comes down to what people value. Women do the exact same thing. What they might admire/look for in a man who they're perfectly fine sleeping with or having a good time with, they won't look for or will completely avoid when it comes to settling down and choosing a potential father to their children.

Hell I have a Bachelor's degree, am working on my 2nd, am told I'm good looking, I have a career, pretty good prospects (humble too ) but the second women find out I live with my parents they're not interested. While I think I have a lot of great qualities that shouldn't make that ONE thing the deciding factor of whether I'm a good potential partner, I don't hold it against women who do not want that in a partner. Nor would I attack them over it. Because I know a lot of women don't desire a partner who lives with his parents when he's damn near 30.

I've never heard of a female doctor, business woman, or upper level manager, etc marrying the waiter, or housekeeping guy, or maintenance man because he's arm candy. I've seen plenty of successful men with women who have barely held a steady job in their lives and have nothing going for them except their looks. The other way around? Not so much. Because men and women value different things in potential partners.

I don't care if it's a double standard or know if it's some remnant from the "old days", or whatever. Honestly I really don't care. Women have plenty of their own which they seem perfectly fine with keeping and living by. 

While there are plenty of men out there who date or even marry a woman with a high sex count (once again this depends on your definition of "high", everyone's is different) or are willing to just ignore it, most men just don't prefer it. And plenty actively avoid it. Period.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Jasel said:


> They might be willing to have date/marry him if he's good looking AND has potential. That's one thing.
> 
> But if he's a great looking guy pushing a mop barely making minimum wage with a high school diploma and no future job prospects? He can be the nicest, most charismatic guy in the world. Women on his level of attraction and above might be willing to have sex with him. Even if they're more successful and have better jobs. But those same women would most likely not want to marry him.
> 
> Once again it comes down to what people value. Women do the exact same thing. What they might admire/look for in a man who they're perfectly fine sleeping with or having a good time with, they won't look for or will completely avoid when it comes to settling down and choosing a potential father to their children.
> 
> Hell I have a Bachelor's degree, am working on my 2nd, am told I'm good looking, I have a career, pretty good prospects (humble too ) but the second women find out I live with my parents they're not interested. While I think I have a lot of great qualities that shouldn't make that ONE thing the deciding factor of whether I'm a good potential partner, I don't hold it against women who do not want that in a partner. Nor would I attack them over it. Because I know a lot of women don't desire a partner who lives with his parents when he's damn near 30.
> 
> I've never heard of a female doctor, business woman, or upper level manager, etc marrying the waiter, or housekeeping guy, or maintenance man because he's arm candy. I've seen plenty of successful men with women who have barely held a steady job in their lives and have nothing going for them except their looks. The other way around? Not so much. Because men and women value different things in potential partners.
> 
> I don't care if it's a double standard or know if it's some remnant from the "old days", or whatever. Honestly I really don't care. Women have plenty of their own which they seem perfectly fine with keeping and living by.
> 
> While there are plenty of men out there who date or even marry a woman with a high sex count (once again this depends on your definition of "high", everyone's is different) or are willing to just ignore it, most men just don't prefer it. And plenty actively avoid it. Period.


Very true. We all value different things. For some, it's money, looks, number of sex partners, career goals. For others it could be religious belief, shared hobbies, same education level or a combination of any of these. To each there own. For me, if somebody had an issue with my past that's their problem not mine.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ravioli said:


> Is this guy a virgin or just celibate?


Here is the scoop







....he had 4 previous partners in his College days but he has since changed his life / his views and his bedroom antics...this is why I wouldn't judge another's past.. as people can CHANGE... I have the utmost respect for someone like him...as once you have tasted of







....it's not easy to turn down... look at his body, he is loaded with TEST... has to be harder than hell.....but this is what he feels is RIGHT and honorable...for his future Bride, how he views Love, how he believes...... I see him as a pure man of Integrity.. and true to form.... in today's society... it begs the question asked at the bottom of the article for women to answer.... 

*1*. I would still marry Him

*2.* Virgins are weird. 

It does not give the details to what his specific sexual boundaries are, it could just be intercourse / oral ...we do not know. Many of us consider Intercourse >> "SEX". Some take a stricter stance than that... even this would be near impossible for me in my youth, I had no desire to be that "off limits", gotta have a little FUN! 




> Bachelor Sean Lowe Admits He's a Virgin:
> 
> "*I do think sex is something special and should be shared with the one you're going to spend the rest of your life with*," Sean tells Life & Style. "The physical stuff will always come later."
> 
> That's right, ladies, our boy Sean has revoked his own v-card. Basically, he's a born-again virgin who can drive. In fact, he didn't even do the hanky panky with his ex-girlfriend, Brooke Sorenson Nix! According to Brooke's bestie, former Bachelorette Melissa Rycroft, their relationship was never a "highly physical thing" because Sean was "waiting until marriage." According to a Star Magazine report, Sean has slept with four women but has now declared a born-again virgin until marriage.
> 
> So, what will Sean's ladies in waiting think of his rediscovered virginity? "I'm sure some of the girls probably wouldn't want to get engaged to him," a source tells Life & Style. "Knowing that they wouldn't have sex until getting married."
> 
> Of course, Sean is an extremely physical guy, so remaining virginal can be hard. Harder than his abs. "Being a man, that can get confusing," Sean says as we nod along. "Your body leads you one way, but your mind leads you another."


----------



## KathyBatesel

ravioli said:


> When have you ever seen a "Hot" man working at a quickie mart or street sweeping? Then tell me a street sweeper that was in medical school?
> 
> Then proceed to give me an example of a vogue cover fashion model with a quickie mart worker/street sweeper?


Oh, they're out there in plentiful numbers. If you haven't seen them, it's because you haven't been keeping your eyes open. I'm astounded at the number of young, attractive women who date far "beneath" themselves. Again... it's the overall package that people judge, not just sexuality.

As SA said, those with traditionally Christian views on sexuality are a minority now. I can count on one hand the number of men or women I know who held their virginity until marriage. I think I'm at one extreme, SA is at the other, and the vast majority of people fall somewhere between. In my opinion, there's no right or wrong as long as a person's true to their own values.


----------



## ravioli

KathyBatesel said:


> Oh, they're out there in plentiful numbers. If you haven't seen them, it's because you haven't been keeping your eyes open. I'm astounded at the number of young, attractive women who date far "beneath" themselves. Again... it's the overall package that people judge, not just sexuality.
> 
> As SA said, those with traditionally Christian views on sexuality are a minority now. I can count on one hand the number of men or women I know who held their virginity until marriage. I think I'm at one extreme, SA is at the other, and the vast majority of people fall somewhere between. In my opinion, there's no right or wrong as long as a person's true to their own values.


Street sweepers dating vogue fashion models are plentiful? Are you sure about this? 

I know a lot of people that remained virgins until they were married. I can name 50 off the top of my head. I don't think SA is extreme, she just had the discipline to be a virtuous woman, which I applaud her for. I think people still believe in those views on sexuality they just don't follow them or have the discipline to do so.


----------



## KathyBatesel

ravioli said:


> Street sweepers dating vogue fashion models are plentiful? Are you sure about this?
> 
> I know a lot of people that remained virgins until they were married. I can name 50 off the top of my head. I don't think SA is extreme, she just had the discipline to be a virtuous woman, which I applaud her for. I think people still believe in those views on sexuality they just don't follow them or have the discipline to do so.


People with menial jobs dating way out of their league? Yep, pretty sure. 

I'm surprised you can name 50, but that's cool. 

None of this changes my perceptions, I'm afraid.


----------



## norajane

SimplyAmorous said:


> Here is the scoop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....he had 4 previous partners in his College days but he has since changed his life / his views and his bedroom antics...this is why I wouldn't judge another's past.. as people can CHANGE... I have the utmost respect for someone like him...as once you have tasted of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....it's not easy to turn down...


So he's not a virgin at all; he's just chosen to be celibate lately until he gets married.

I'm sure many would mock a woman who called herself a virgin but had sex with 4 men. And there are men who would be upset that she "gave it up" to other guys, but "denies him" and "makes him wait".


----------



## 2ntnuf

norajane said:


> So he's not a virgin at all; he's just chosen to be celibate lately until he gets married.
> 
> I'm sure many would mock a woman who called herself a virgin but had sex with 4 men. And there are men who would be upset that she "gave it up" to other guys, but "denies him" and "makes him wait".


For some reason it seems hypocritical to me.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I must be backward or old-fashioned. I think if someone likes sampling all the different men/women out there, they will enjoy the chase and the reward so much, it will be difficult to settle down with one person they really love. It can't be easy to stick to only one person for sex once you have had so many to enjoy. I suppose I am speaking of ONS mostly. I'm sure someone will give me grief about this.

Can we then say this is 'settling'? Therefore, a relationship of convenience without much love, only feigned love?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

KathyBatesel said:


> As SA said, *those with traditionally Christian views on sexuality are a minority now. I can count on one hand the number of men or women I know who held their virginity until marriage.* I think I'm at one extreme, SA is at the other, and the vast majority of people fall somewhere between. In my opinion, there's no right or wrong as long as a person's true to their own values.










for that KathyBatesel .....

A day in our life....We hold Bonfires for Youth Groups in the summer....I get to hear the stories of these young people sitting around the







of what they face in high school...how they are ridiculed for being different. It is not an easy walk for them... if they didn't have each other...this fellowship of friends encouraging them, and Marital examples in their lives .... they would surely falter...The majority that hang at our house are GOOD teens... I enjoy them....These are not nameless faces to me.

Our oldest has never had Sex...he is in College...his choice, His Beliefs...he is a confident Good looking Guy ....but he is as stubborn as a MULE on this "waiting till marriage thing"....He is a Worship Leader -who struggles with porn now & then - this keeps him humble anyway. 

He would NEVER call a girl a Sl** or anything derogatory...he would also NOT hold a woman's past against her -if when they met...she & he were on the same page, shared dreams/ visions and of course her views in the sexual now was in line with his..(yes, this is very important to him, not the past but the PRESENT)...for their future & how to raise their children. 

He surely has no desire to be with a woman who feels his feelings on this are STUPID, a waste of his youth, and of no significance.... if she doesn't find it honorable that He has waited for one special woman (HER), or wants to mock that... why should he be with such a woman?? 



> *ravioli said* : I don't think SA is extreme, she just had the discipline to be a virtuous woman, which I applaud her for. I think people still believe in those views on sexuality they just don't follow them or have the discipline to do so.


 I was as stubborn as our son. It does take great discipline when you have a high sex drive, I remember thinking... how in the hell are we NOT going to go there, every fiber of my body wanted to "get it on" early in our relationship... . you just get used to what you have...and you long for what is to come. 



> *norajane said*: So he's not a virgin at all; he's just chosen to be celibate lately until he gets married.
> 
> I'm sure many would mock a woman who called herself a virgin but had sex with 4 men. And there are men who would be upset that she "gave it up" to other guys, but "denies him" and "makes him wait".





> *2ntnuf said:* For some reason it seems hypocritical to me.


We have NO idea if HE (Mr Bachelor) is calling himself that... chances are HE is NOT... but the tabloids are using that term... but this doesn't negate the fact that..... .He HAS changed his views..and it was not just lately, it has been years ...... 

But yes, I will agree if he is calling himself a "VIRGIN" - it is NOT true. Any good hearted non judgemental person will NOT hold another's past against them ...but it is wrong for Sean to now look at this College Days and say - he shouldn't have went there... this is probably how he feels.. .. Why he did the drastic and changed his behavior, or he would have kept "doing" his Girlfriends. See, this right here would cause feathers to be ruffled....because people are happy with their pasts and wouldn't change them. 

I know ME and had I slept with another and it didn't work out, I would regret it - I would have considered that a mistake - and something I couldn't then give to my husband ....my 1st time... That is just how I think and I felt strongly...... it's ingrained in me... so it was best I didn't go there.


----------



## FalconKing

I think someone who has a lot of sexual partners may not have the same values as I do. So I wouldn't want to take my chances. I don't give my time and effort or penis to just anyone. So I would want someone who is the same. Everyone has a past, but I also wouldn't want someone who would wait to I came along to change the way they live. Nor someone who doesn't want us to discuss our past. I'm not a fan of off limit topics.


----------



## BjornFree

One of the key differences between men and women is that men can really separate emotional attachment from sex. So for a man, he could have had a lot of partners in the past and still be quite capable of toning down the antics and getting hitched if and when he meets a woman with whom he has more than just sexual compatibility. 

Sadly, most women aren't capable of having "just" sex. This is one of the reasons why you hear of women who regret having one night stands the next day. So if a woman has had a lot of partners in the past, it only indicates that she's either incapable of having a meaningful long term relationship or she didn't realize the value of LTR's. Chances are that there are some women who are like the latter but a man can never be sure. But more often than not highly promiscuous women are simply not cutout for monogamy. Either way they're getting screwed in the marriage market.


----------



## 2ntnuf

SA: We have NO idea if HE (Mr Bachelor) is calling himself that... chances are HE is NOT... but the tabloids are using that term... but this doesn't negate the fact that..... .He HAS changed his views..and it was not just lately, it has been years ...... 

But yes, I will agree if he is calling himself a "VIRGIN" - it is NOT true. *Any good hearted non judgemental person will NOT hold another's past against them* ...but it is wrong for Sean to now look at this College Days and say - he shouldn't have went there... this is probably how he feels.. .. Why he did the drastic and changed his behavior, or he would have kept "doing" his Girlfriends. See, this right here would cause feathers to be ruffled....because people are happy with their pasts and wouldn't change them. 

I know ME and had I slept with another and it didn't work out, I would regret it - I would have considered that a mistake - and something I couldn't then give to my husband ....my 1st time... That is just how I think and I felt strongly...... it's ingrained in me... so it was best I didn't go there.

_________________________________

Hold it against him how? If I met a woman who became celibate and she was interested in marriage, my boundaries would force me to think long and hard. I would want to verify anything that came to mind. I don't think that is judgmental, just smart. If I decided that person was not right for me because one of my boundaries is I will not marry a person with high numbers of sexual partners or someone who is not a virgin, am I judging them or living up to my personal boundaries? If they say I am a prude or a hypocrite are they being judgmental or living by their boundaries? Notice I didn't call him a hypocrite. I said it seems hypocritical. 

I'm not talking about refusing him a raise or a job or food or shelter. I'm not saying he is a bad person, either. I'm just speaking about personal boundaries, not judgment. 

As far as whether he said he is a virgin or not, that's fine. He chooses to be celibate and that is his right. He isn't hurting anyone unless he says he is a virgin. That's deception and would not be a good foundation for marriage. Thank you for pointing out that you don't know if he calls himself a virgin.


----------



## 2ntnuf

BjornFree said:


> One of the key differences between men and women is that men can really separate emotional attachment from sex. So for a man, he could have had a lot of partners in the past and still be quite capable of toning down the antics and getting hitched if and when he meets a woman with whom he has more than just sexual compatibility.
> 
> Sadly, most women aren't capable of having "just" sex. *This is one of the reasons why you hear of women who regret having one night stands the next day.* So if a woman has had a lot of partners in the past, it only indicates that she's either incapable of having a meaningful long term relationship or she didn't realize the value of LTR's. Chances are that there are some women who are like the latter but a man can never be sure. But more often than not highly promiscuous women are simply not cutout for monogamy. Either way they're getting screwed in the marriage market.


I don't remember very many women I talked to saying this. Maybe a few did, but seemed like more than half had no trouble having FWB. I can remember one young woman, around 24 or so, bragging and talking about how her female friends did the same. She was talking with her mother at the time. I'm so confused. LOL


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

BjornFree said:


> One of the key differences between men and women is that men can really separate emotional attachment from sex. So for a man, he could have had a lot of partners in the past and still be quite capable of toning down the antics and getting hitched if and when he meets a woman with whom he has more than just sexual compatibility.
> 
> Sadly, most women aren't capable of having "just" sex. This is one of the reasons why you hear of women who regret having one night stands the next day. So if a woman has had a lot of partners in the past, it only indicates that she's either incapable of having a meaningful long term relationship or she didn't realize the value of LTR's. Chances are that there are some women who are like the latter but a man can never be sure. But more often than not highly promiscuous women are simply not cutout for monogamy. Either way they're getting screwed in the marriage market.


Ah, if a woman has many previous partners, it's because she doesn't value relationships but a guy behaving the same way jumping from partner to partner without committing means he would make a good partner? Both would probably make questionable long term partners. The rank and file beliefs here are really a sight to behold. :awink:


----------



## NextTimeAround

Regarding sex and both men and women...... it seems to me that during one's youth is a good time to "mess around" and test the boundaries.

I would like to know that my partner is ready to leave behind his freewheeling days and not wonder what it might have been like to try something or just not be ready to be on the straight and narrow.

Isn't that what a lot estranged married people who married right out of high school go back to........ that they didn't have their period of fun and independence, went straight from being a teenager under their parents' house and rules to being a responsible married partner........

People change all the time, especially going from adolescence to young adult hood.......

So I don't understand this belief that seems to come up on this thread that if a young woman is sexually adventurous in her 20s (like me...... I had an LTR, but also an FB, a couple of quickies, I wouldn't do that now and I also know that I am not missing anything) she must be damaged goods and unsuitable for marriage.


----------



## anonim

Goldmember357 said:


> In my experience....


/DRIVEL_MODE_OFF

OP has an agenda against women, else the post title would read "Good people who want to avoid divorce/cheating should not marry promiscuous people" Which still would not be correct, since promiscuity <> good/bad as people. Promiscuity also <> cheating.

You can be promiscuous and be a good person. You can be promiscuous and not be a cheater. 

I find your label of "good men" to be sketchy as is your definition of "not good women"

if, as you say, 70-75% of divorces are initiated by women for reasons of "physical/mental abuse/infidelity" then what is the basis and purpose of your post?

I have a suspicion that the reason why 'promiscuous' *people *are more likely to divorce, and less likely to commit, is because they know, from experience, that there is likely something better out there, when they are stuck with something they are unhappy with. And I don't mean cheating.


----------



## FalconKing

anonim said:


> I have a suspicion that the reason why 'promiscuous' *people *are more likely to divorce, and less likely to commit, is because they know, from experience, that there is likely something better out there, when they are stuck with something they are unhappy with. And I don't mean cheating.


You can do that without having sex with a lot of people.


----------



## anonim

FalconKing said:


> You can do that without having sex with a lot of people.


outside of cheating, what does it matter how many people someone has had sex with?

I don't think it does matter, that it just makes some people insecure and/or jealous and those people need to to work out their issues instead of slandering or labeling either gender.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> You can be promiscuous and be a good person. You can be promiscuous and not be a cheater.


^^^This is a type of _ normative moral relativism_.
However in marriages it CANNOT WORK unless two people share the same values.
For example,
A husband thinks nothing is wrong with wife having other sexual partners while married , so long as he knows, its not considered cheating to him.So he encourages her to do it.
Wife thinks that her husband does not value her body because he wants her to share it with other men. She placed a high premium on sexual intimacy. She doesn't feel she's
" special " to him, but she tolerates him, but deep inside she does not feel loved. She caves in and they have a threesome.
Marriage goes downhill.


The term " good" is a relative term and different people have their opinions. The term " cheating " also can be considered relative as some cultures are more tolerant of it. Some cultures allow men to have multiple wives if they are rich. They don't consider it cheating.
Promiscuity on the other hand is a lack of sexual discretion and control. The inability to say no.
A porn star is promiscuous. Porn stars and prostitutes, both male and female ,have trouble developing and keeping normal relationships because of how they view sex.They have sex for money, and with anybody.
People aren't born promiscuous, psychological issues and choices lead them into promiscuous behaviours.
If these issues are not resolved, marriage would NOT FIX THEM.
They CANNOT BE FAITHFUL if they place VERY LITTLE VALUE ON SEX and INTIMACY.

Saying that you can be promiscuous , and not a cheater is either wishful thinking or being a bit disingenuous.
What is more accurate is;
You could have been promiscuous in the past, worked on yourself and your issues, changed your views on sex, realigned your value system , and you most likely would not become a cheater in the future.


----------



## FalconKing

anonim said:


> outside of cheating, what does it matter how many people someone has had sex with?
> 
> I don't think it does matter, that it just makes some people insecure and/or jealous and those people need to to work out their issues instead of slandering or labeling either gender.


A lot to people who think sex is more than just a sharing of body fluids. It's just common values. I am not talking about people who expect something from a SO but don't hold themselves accountable. 

You and I can't tell anyone what should matter to them in a relationship. If it doesn't matter to you that's fine. But I want someone who was living a certain way before they met me. And I would prefer someone who think sex was an act served for someone special to them and is a physical and emotional connection.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> outside of cheating, what does it matter how many people someone has had sex with?
> 
> I don't think it does matter, that it just makes some people insecure and/or jealous and those people need to to work out their issues instead of slandering or labeling either gender.


And outside of cheating what does it matter if the man only had sex with lots of underaged girls, some as young as 13, before meeting his wife?
Or what does it matter if the wife had lots of sex with women before she met her husband?

Should these things really matter?
Do they really have no bearing on a marriage once that wedding rig goes on and they both say " I do?"


----------



## KathyBatesel

You can do a lot of things without having sex with people. 

Both virgins and ****s can cook a meal. 
Both can offer aid, understanding, and comfort to someone in emotional pain. 
Both can enjoy laughter and quiet times with someone they care about. 

Both can be completely incompatible with someone they're dating! 

There simply is no cause/effect relationship here. 

I find it offensive when people claim sexually experienced women can't be "good" long-term partners but sexually experienced men can. Double standard much?!? 

I can agree that a pretty high percentage of women equate sex with emotional feelings. I can attest that a high percentage of men do, too. Many of the men I've known (and the ones discussed in one thread after another on here) see sex as their primary way of feeling loved. How in the heck can someone say men separate the two but women don't? C'mon, really? 

When women regret that one-nighter, it's sometimes due to them setting up false expectations. Ok, true enough. But I believe they set up those expectations even before they had sex. They'd already worked up the guy as a great catch and thought way ahead BEFORE they had sex. And for the guy's part, if he thought the sex with her was blow-his-mind-fantastic, guess what? He wouldn't be ditching her afterward.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> And outside of cheating what does it matter if the man only had sex with lots of underaged girls, some as young as 13, before meeting his wife?


I agreed with your previous post but you lost me with this one. This is illegal activity and suggests to me that the guy is a pedophile and should be locked up not married.


----------



## KathyBatesel

Caribbean Man said:


> Saying that you can be promiscuous , and not a cheater is either wishful thinking or being a bit disingenuous.
> What is more accurate is;
> You could have been promiscuous in the past, worked on yourself and your issues, changed your views on sex, realigned your value system , and you most likely would not become a cheater in the future.


I agreed with most of your post, but your last part, not so much.

If I became single today, I would have sex when, where, and with whomever I want to. I don't believe I need to "work" on issues or that I'm flawed because I like sex. I have refused to engage in sexual acts that did not appeal to me, but I've been sexually adventurous my whole life - with men, women, multiple people, various places, positions, and props. 

I have never cheated on a partner. 

So what exactly would I need to work on?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Sorry, I don't believe a high number of sexual partners equates to experience in satisfying sex. Sometimes it doesn't. I've experienced this. 

I also know that there are men who would not believe sexual satisfaction alone equates to long term marriage.


----------



## norajane

KathyBatesel said:


> I agreed with most of your post, but your last part, not so much.
> 
> If I became single today, I would have sex when, where, and with whomever I want to. I don't believe I need to "work" on issues or that I'm flawed because I like sex. I have refused to engage in sexual acts that did not appeal to me, but I've been sexually adventurous my whole life - with men, women, multiple people, various places, positions, and props.
> 
> I have never cheated on a partner.
> 
> *So what exactly would I need to work on?*


Finding a man who values you as you are, doesn't have a double standard about men and women and sexual experience, doesn't call you names (like promiscuous) nor believes you'd be a cheater simply because you like sex. 

And there are plenty out there, so no worries.


----------



## FalconKing

KathyBatesel said:


> You can do a lot of things without having sex with people.
> 
> Both virgins and ****s can cook a meal.
> Both can offer aid, understanding, and comfort to someone in emotional pain.
> Both can enjoy laughter and quiet times with someone they care about.
> 
> Both can be completely incompatible with someone they're dating!
> 
> There simply is no cause/effect relationship here.
> 
> I find it offensive when people claim sexually experienced women can't be "good" long-term partners but sexually experienced men can. Double standard much?!?
> 
> I can agree that a pretty high percentage of women equate sex with emotional feelings. I can attest that a high percentage of men do, too. Many of the men I've known (and the ones discussed in one thread after another on here) see sex as their primary way of feeling loved. How in the heck can someone say men separate the two but women don't? C'mon, really?
> 
> When women regret that one-nighter, it's sometimes due to them setting up false expectations. Ok, true enough. But I believe they set up those expectations even before they had sex. They'd already worked up the guy as a great catch and thought way ahead BEFORE they had sex. And for the guy's part, if he thought the sex with her was blow-his-mind-fantastic, guess what? He wouldn't be ditching her afterward.


I am not promoting the double standard. Never have. 

And I like your last paragraph. Sometimes the most off putting thing about people is their defensiveness and pride in things that they know they are embarrassed about. I would rather hear someone telling me that they slept with a guy hoping he would like them. That's real. That tells me that maybe sex is important to that person too but they were at a time in their life where they really wanted someone so they often tried to move things too fast. I can understand that. I would rather hear that then, "yeah I sleep with a lot of guys. So what? My past my business blah blah..and if you can't accept that you should leave!" Without a doubt I would definitely leave.

I just want someone to be real with me. I will say this though, a lot of women i have known who have had a lot of partners tend to have unhealthy tendencies in relationships and broken pickers. They have to fix this themselves. I am not trying to be any woman's Knight. Those relationships aren't balanced enough for me.


----------



## Trickster

I've had very few relationships before my wife. Two of the best sexual ones was with a strippr/dancer (I didn't know she was a stripper at first) I never ever spent a dime on her. It was just the sex. The last one before my wife was a nurse. We never ever went out on a date. I wanted to though. So after hanging out with the guys, I would call her and she would always come over. She would leave around 2 or 3 in the morning. She never ever stayed all night.

I enjoyed out time together but I don't think I would have married them. The last one left me when I talked about my childhood. Never saw her again.

Soo I met and married a virgin and after 20 years, we are still together. She has no sex drive...I know she tries. 

SOMETIMES, I feel like I am missing out on sex. All the single women my age has way too many past partners fo me to handle for a LTR. If I were to D, I would have fun for a short time, but in the end, I would crave the bond along with the sex.

At my age, I would never expect a virgin, ( I do have a friend of a friend who at 44 years, was devirginized. How does a woman stay a virgin that long?) but I would like them to have a few LTR. I wish my wife had a few experiences before me so she would value my needs and desires more. She has nothing to compare me to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I agreed with your previous post but you lost me with this one. This is illegal activity and suggests to me that the guy is a pedophile and should be locked up not married.


Exactly so!
That's why a person's sexual history should matter before two people commit.
They must first place the same value on sex and intimacy, in order for it to work.

So if the woman loved having lots of sex with other women before marriage, obviously the man would know not just that she loves sex, but that she also loves having sex with women.

One person was promiscuous and decided he / she wanted to settle down with someone who was more judicious because they are in love. Any issues that caused the promiscuity should be worked out first. People can and do change, sometimes all they need is a little help.

But to say it does not or should not matter is just courting danger.


----------



## FalconKing

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I agreed with your previous post but you lost me with this one. This is illegal activity and suggests to me that the guy is a pedophile and should be locked up not married.


I think he is pointing out an example of what could happen if you married someone who's sexual past you have no clue of.


----------



## Caribbean Man

KathyBatesel said:


> I agreed with most of your post, but your last part, not so much.
> 
> If I became single today, I would have sex when, where, and with whomever I want to. I don't believe I need to "work" on issues or that I'm flawed because I like sex. I have refused to engage in sexual acts that did not appeal to me, but I've been sexually adventurous my whole life - with men, women, multiple people, various places, positions, and props.
> 
> I have never cheated on a partner.
> 
> So what exactly would I need to work on?


Well I guess everyone is different.
Even while I was single, and having lots of sexual partners, I knew something was not right with my behaviour. I couldn't stay long in any relationship and I got bored pretty quickly. Sex meant very little to me.
If I became single today, I cannot have sex with just anybody,anywhere, anytime. I would be very discriminatory about who I have sex with ,because of the level of intimacy my wife and I now share.
Its difficult for me to separate sex from the emotional aspect of a relationship.
Sex now means a lot more to me, and I cannot go back to that lifestyle.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Exactly so!
> That's why a person's sexual history should matter before two people commit.
> They must first place the same value on sex and intimacy, in order for it to work.
> 
> So if the woman loved having lots of sex with other women before marriage, obviously the man would know not just that she loves sex, but that she also loves having sex with women.
> 
> One person was promiscuous and decided he / she wanted to settle down with someone who was more judicious because they are in love. Any issues that caused the promiscuity should be worked out first. People can and do change, sometimes all they need is a little help.
> 
> But to say it does not or should not matter is just courting danger.


Oh, I'm all for telling the truth about sexual history. I don't think I said I wasn't. I was confused because you added in criminal activity which trumps sexual activity to me. Plus, child touchers rarely admit to being one so I didn't understand why that was in there.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FalconKing said:


> I think he is pointing out an example of what could happen if you married someone who's sexual past you have no clue of.


Well that is criminal activity, not sexual activity so to me that was apples to Q-tips. 
Yes, I want to know about a persons past if I am going to invest in the relationship. I think criminal activity goes without saying.


----------



## FalconKing

Ok. Well I think all activity is important then. Arrest warrants, credit, major life decisions...etc..


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Oh, I'm all for telling the truth about sexual history. I don't think I said I wasn't. I was confused because you added in criminal activity which trumps sexual activity to me. Plus, child touchers rarely admit to being one so I didn't understand why that was in there.


I was just using an extreme example !
Just like bisexual partners also rarely admit to being bisexual until problems show up in the relationship, much later.


----------



## KathyBatesel

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I guess everyone is different.
> Even while I was single, and having lots of sexual partners, I knew something was not right with my behaviour. I couldn't stay long in any relationship and I got bored pretty quickly. Sex meant very little to me.
> If I became single today, I cannot have sex with just anybody,anywhere, anytime. I would be very discriminatory about who I have sex with ,because of the level of intimacy my wife and I now share.
> Its difficult for me to separate sex from the emotional aspect of a relationship.
> Sex now means a lot more to me, and I cannot go back to that lifestyle.


^ That's just it, isn't it? Everyone *is* different. 

So many different views in this thread, and not one of them is "wrong," yet not one of them applies universally, either.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Okay, I'm convinced.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> I was just using an extreme example !
> Just like bisexual partners also rarely admit to being bisexual until problems show up in the relationship, much later.


Tone doesn't come across well on boards like this so I didn't know if you were serious. My reaction was


----------



## Caribbean Man

KathyBatesel said:


> ^ That's just it, isn't it? Everyone *is* different.
> 
> So many different views in this thread, and not one of them is "wrong," yet not one of them applies universally, either.


There is no " wrong or right " in this world. 
We choose which ever value system we want to live by and we either prosper by it or suffer from the consequence of our choices.
A person without a value system is like a ship without a rudder.

The second noble truth of Buddhism states that;

"..._*The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof*. _...."

At some point in our short lives we should figure out what is transient and what is eternal. True love is a system with rules to safeguard it.
It is better to be in love with someone and have very little sex than to have lots of sex with one or lots of people and not know true love.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I guess everyone is different.
> Even while I was single, and having lots of sexual partners, I knew something was not right with my behaviour. *I couldn't stay long in any relationship and I got bored pretty quickly. Sex meant very little to me.*
> If I became single today, I cannot have sex with just anybody,anywhere, anytime. I would be very discriminatory about who I have sex with ,because of the level of intimacy my wife and I now share.
> Its difficult for me to separate sex from the emotional aspect of a relationship.
> Sex now means a lot more to me, and I cannot go back to that lifestyle.


So how did you learn how to stay in relationships longer so that you could have sex within a mutually exclusive relationship?


----------



## Caribbean Man

2ntnuf said:


> Okay, I'm convinced.


2n, 
You are a difficult person to convince.
What exactly are you convinced about?


----------



## Caribbean Man

NextTimeAround said:


> So how did you learn how to stay in relationships longer so that you could have sex within a mutually exclusive relationship?


When I started dating my wife , she simply said no sex before marriage, even before the issue came up.
We both knew each other before we started dating. we were good friends for years before.
I'm not saying this should be the rule for anybody, but the only woman I saw worth spending the rest of my life with was her.
Even though she was sexually attracted to me, and she admitted it, she had the willpower to say no, because she [ and even I] thought it would spoil _our_ relationship.
To us , it was special.
I had to work on how I viewed sex , and learn to appreciate the finer things.
I am saying that I had to work on ME.
She wasn't an 18 or 19 year old virgin.
She was 26 years old, and she wasn't fat or ugly. In fact she was a fitness freak with a hot body.
To me, that said something about her values.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Caribbean Man said:


> 2n,
> You are a difficult person to convince.
> What exactly are you convinced about?


I was being sarcastic. I will not agree that many sexual partners equates to better sex. I will not agree that because someone says they have changed, they actually have. 

I believe those who were most promiscuous will be the first to leave fidelity behind when tough times come in a marriage. At the very least, they will be the first to consider infidelity as a coping mechanism while issues are worked out.

I believe the majority of the time promiscuity is a red flag that needs further consideration before getting married. I do believe there are those who will be very faithful They are not the norm.

I do _not_ believe promiscuous folks are evil. I do believe they would be better suited to a partner who has like numbers and experience. It levels the playing field and they will understand each other much better. They will know the signs to look for when something is wrong. They will understand how that person thinks to some extent.

Edit: You made me chuckle with that comment about me being difficult to convince. It is true. Once convinced, I am all in and extremely vulnerable to deception. I've been there, I'm not going back.


----------



## KathyBatesel

2ntnuf said:


> I do _not_ believe promiscuous folks are evil. I do believe they would be better suited to a partner who has like numbers and experience. It levels the playing field and they will understand each other much better. They will know the signs to look for when something is wrong. They will understand how that person thinks to some extent.


Hmm... now that's an interesting point I haven't thought about. My first husband had quite a gallery of "pasts" and we have a very conflict-laden relationship. Husband 2 of 10+ years and husband now have had few partners (but had very BAD partners before). 

I *have* sometimes thought that because of having been involved with many men, that I became too demanding and picky. I tolerated so much more "bad" behavior from my first husband, when I was still quite young (17 when we got together and 21 when we split) than I have since. Maybe husbands 2 & 3 were more tolerant of ME because they didn't have fifty women to compare me to! :scratchhead:


----------



## 2ntnuf

KathyBatesel said:


> Hmm... now that's an interesting point I haven't thought about. My first husband had quite a gallery of "pasts" and we have a very conflict-laden relationship. Husband 2 of 10+ years and husband now have had few partners (but had very BAD partners before).
> 
> I *have* sometimes thought that because of having been involved with many men, that I became too demanding and picky. I tolerated so much more "bad" behavior from my first husband, when I was still quite young (17 when we got together and 21 when we split) than I have since. *Maybe husbands 2 & 3 were more tolerant of ME because they didn't have fifty women to compare me to! *:scratchhead:



More likely they were afraid it would be very easy for you to leave and find someone else, so they minded their 'peas and ques' better. Maybe they didn't have the desire to be with many women so they never learned how to play that game. I don't know. I'm not them.


----------



## NextTimeAround

2ntnuf said:


> I was being sarcastic. I will not agree that many sexual partners equates to better sex. I will not agree that because someone says they have changed, they actually have.
> 
> *I believe those who were most promiscuous will be the first to leave fidelity behind when tough times come in a marriage.* At the very least, they will be the first to consider infidelity as a coping mechanism while issues are worked out.
> 
> I believe the majority of the time promiscuity is a red flag that needs further consideration before getting married. I do believe there are those who will be very faithful They are not the norm.
> 
> I do _not_ believe promiscuous folks are evil. I do believe they would be better suited to a partner who has like numbers and experience. It levels the playing field and they will understand each other much better. They will know the signs to look for when something is wrong. They will understand how that person thinks to some extent.
> 
> Edit: You made me chuckle with that comment about me being difficult to convince. It is true. Once convinced, I am all in and extremely vulnerable to deception. I've been there, I'm not going back.


There are examples that show that the opposite can be true as well. If we look at that long thread in the private members' section.... it is a about a wife who did a GNO and slept with the guy she met at the bar the next day. She said that he husband was the first and only man she had had sex with before the incident that brought her here. How would you explain that?


----------



## Caribbean Man

2ntnuf said:


> I believe the majority of the time promiscuity is a red flag that needs further consideration *before* getting married. * I do believe there are those who will be very faithful They are not the norm*.
> .


:iagree:

There things are not rules, but should be taken into consideration by both parties before.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Maybe mentioned already but I skimmed a few pages vs. reading all fo them -

How many virginal or limited experience partners due to their lack of experience are prudish and fearful in the bedroom thereby resulting in an unhappy sex life for both of them?

Too many factors aren't addressed as many have pointed out. I have had enough partners to put me in the high risk category yet I was faithful to my husband all 15 years, even with the abuse. I think I will make a GREAT wife again some day and a faithful one AGAIN. My sexual history was the result of being naive and hopeful that guy of the moment was Mr. Right followed by marriage, and then hopeful again, a WTF period, back to a slower pace. But it doesn't make me wanton.


----------



## 2ntnuf

NextTimeAround said:


> There are examples that show that the opposite can be true as well. If we look at that long thread in the private members' section.... it is a about a wife who did a GNO and slept with the guy she met at the bar the next day. She said that he husband was the first and only man she had had sex with before the incident that brought her here. How would you explain that?


I rarely go to the private members section. If I am there, it is because I have accidentally clicked on an interesting topic from the recent posts menu and didn't look at where it was located. I don't know anything about that particular one. If I was there, I don't remember.

In any case, a lack of sexual partners, in my opinion, is about as bad as promiscuity. 

My first wife was 13 when I met her. I was a month from sixteen. She said I was her first. I don't believe it, but she might have told the truth. She was my first. I don't care if you believe me. She cheated on me. I did not cheat on her. There were other factors that played a role. 

One of the factors I consider is I never dated before her. There was one girl in junior high, 7th grade, I was attracted to for a while. I never had sex with her. I think I kissed her on the lips. Stop laughing..LOL....

My first wife had dated several boys and there were rumors something had happened. I did not want to believe them and investigated through her close friends. I found out something did happen, although I don't know if it was intercourse.

How does that matter? It only mattered to me. The thing is, it is an example. It is not the only one. It is not the standard. It is my experience. 

I do believe there is a middle ground that works best. Virgins and prostitutes are at the edges. A few monogamous relationships are what I consider to be the best chance for continued fidelity in marriage. One or two ONS are probably not much of a factor. Many ONS are, in my opinion. Many relationships are a red flag. Very few are a red flag as well depending on the length of each compared to the age of the person.

I think is is best to have similar experiences. That doesn't mean it can't work otherwise. It just means you have the best possible chance when you are similar in experience.

There was a thread in the men's clubhouse similar to this discussion. Something about 'affair proofing' was the topic. I stated, I believe, similar thoughts there. Nothing guarantees faithfulness. All we can do is prepare ourselves for a relationship and pick the best possible partner with the knowledge we have acquired. Then, do the things we need to do to keep that marriage solid. We cannot control our spouse. We can only be aware of what is going on and be prepared for whatever comes along. We can reduce our chances of a bad marriage, but nothing guarantees we will not have trouble which leads to infidelity.


----------



## Caribbean Man

NextTimeAround said:


> There are examples that show that the opposite can be true as well. If we look at that long thread in the private members' section.... it is a about a wife who did a GNO and slept with the guy she met at the bar the next day. She said that he husband was the first and only man she had had sex with before the incident that brought her here. How would you explain that?


Not everyone who cheats was promiscuous before, and not everyone who was promiscuous before is a cheat.
The important thing is what value _*you*_, the person place on sex and intimacy?
There could be a ton of reasons for cheating , but there is only one reason not to cheat.
That is because its wrong.
But it all boils down to where there values are.
A person who justifies cheating because they had no prior sexual experience, is both blameshifting and cake eating.


----------



## 2ntnuf

It's that 'holier than thou' attitude that makes them feel special. It's in many churches. I have experience with that kind of thing as well. Not in a counseling situation, but in just donating my time with the church to help the less fortunate. They haven't 'taken the plank from their own eye'. They have issues as well. They just keep them to themselves. They have 'conquered' their demons and believe themselves to be greater than the sum of the whole.


----------



## 2ntnuf

swetecynamome said:


> Yes, and I think it's a shame. For this reason and other reasons I have a hard time getting myself to a church though I am a believer. I want to find other people to be "real" with. It will take a special situation to convince me I'm better off in a church, but I haven't given up hope just like I won't give up hope that eventually I will be ready for the second relationship go around and there will be the right person for me.
> 
> My sweet child is concerned I go to church. It pains me. Thanks for your feedback.


You might start a thread in politics and religion about this.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EnjoliWoman said:


> How many virginal or limited experience partners due to their lack of experience are prudish and fearful in the bedroom thereby resulting in an unhappy sex life for both of them?


Probably quite a few...and I hate to say this about those I share these views with....it is one thing I would hope to spare women from in their youth..... I did a thread on *Sexual Repression* -it is the greatest REGRET of my life with my husband. In MY case, I had a Good healthy sex drive (thankfully, never LD, and I always initiated).. been orgasming since I was 11 and literally NEEDED it like a GUY every so many days or I'd be climbing the freaking walls.. but because of 2 factors...

*I was hindered*...

*1. * seeing 1st hand the UGLINESS of "casual sex" (I didn't say ROMANTIC, I said "CASUAL" - no strings attached... my Mother being banged (hearing it through the paper thin walls of our tiny house).... with random men that USED her... nothing about that was beautiful to me, there was no relationship, no tenderness, no playfulness, no emotion..even at that age, it just reeked as WRONG....UGLY







... then she had a nervous breakdown shorty after.

*2.* Going to Youth Group...wanting to take a Purer route with the boys.... where Me with the BIG mouth likes to hear others tell me how PURE I am expected to be...I'd ASK these questions you see, always the inquisitive one.. and of course no Youth Pastor is going to tell you ...."Go ahead young girl.. you can touch each other, just don't stick it in"...so I struggled with feeling ashamed for LUSTING after my sweet boyfriend...GUILTY [email protected]#$%^& We should just be holding hands! 

And really... why repent...it would just be a LIE.... because I knew darn well I was going to stick my hands down his pants the next time we got together & enjoy his doing the same, so we rode the fence... Religious thinking is a merry go round...I had this extra baggage in my youth, I had no desire what so ever to be as pure as the Driven Snow.. but I could see the goodness of waiting for HIS member to ENTER my body...some may feel that is stupid, why stop there... but I didn't see it that way - we still had something NEW to bring to our Wedding night....that was MY boundary... 

I could LIVE with that..thrive with that even....the rest was difficult (the nagging condemnation that I am a DIRTY girl) but I should be a GOOD GIRL, God is displeased with me - "What would Jesus do" [email protected]#$% So going into marriage, he had trouble getting it in, I kinda blamed that on being "dirty" while dating... (this is all asinine I realize).... 

But also just the stuff I seen in the world was no better... it made sex look CHEAP... so I associated Oral sex, kinky seduction with Strippers, Porn, more being DIRTY... 

All wrong thinking. Looking back, I just needed a Darn good book on Sex & Intimacy in Marriage - could have straightened me out, something showing the beauty of oral sex, when you love someone... Like this for instance... Sheet Music: Uncovering the Secrets of Sexual Intimacy in Marriage: 

One thing I can say though... when we were together, it was always a fulfilling mountain top experience, the emotional connection was there -SEX was good! Even if I wanted the lights out, and a sheet over my body, we were happy. We were very vanilla though- for many yrs - till I decided.. what the hell was wrong with us.. we missed so much! 

*************************

Now on the other end... would it be fair to say....those who've had many partners without the attachment of Love, the high emotions with another... they might know & have experienced many positions, every sex act... BUT their struggle would be more in the Vulnerable ...if feelings start to flood them for another person....they may not want to feel like they "NEED"... love and care about this person......it may ruin the FUN... many RUN from this....

So on this side of the fence...the struggle is not in the bedroom but in the heart - showing ones full self to another... getting in deep, opening the heart. I talked to a Swinger on here in PM...his way of viewing this was completely opposite of mine.. he said sex is EASY, we can give that to ANYONE... "but what I share with my wife is the EMOTIONAL". So basically he was saying... that for him, shutting off his emotions was commonplace in Sex. 

That I can not in any way, shape or form RELATE too. As Sex to me = high emotion and full vulnerability. We might as well be from 2 different planets. 

So is it fair to say....Whether Inexperienced ....or whether many partners /high experience (but not necessarily Romantically attached -just enjoying SEX for SEX)..... both of these women could have some issues to sort out...but their issues are very different.


----------



## KathyBatesel

SimplyAmorous said:


> Now on the other end... would it be fair to say....those who've had many partners without the attachment of Love, the high emotions with another... they might know & have experienced many positions, every sex act... BUT their struggle would be more in the Vulnerable ...if feelings start to flood them for another person....they may not want to feel like they "NEED"... love and care about this person......it may ruin the FUN... many RUN from this....
> 
> So on this side of the fence...the struggle is not in the bedroom but in the heart - showing ones full self to another... getting in deep, opening the heart.


I admit that this is definitely true of me. ^


----------



## anonim

Home from work, can finally respond to all the comments!



Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^This is a type of _ normative moral relativism_.


can you define this in layman's terms?



Caribbean Man said:


> However in marriages it CANNOT WORK unless two people share the same values.
> For example,
> A husband thinks nothing is wrong with wife having other sexual partners while married , so long as he knows, its not considered cheating to him.So he encourages her to do it.
> Wife thinks that her husband does not value her body because he wants her to share it with other men. She placed a high premium on sexual intimacy. She doesn't feel she's
> " special " to him, but she tolerates him, but deep inside she does not feel loved. She caves in and they have a threesome.
> Marriage goes downhill.


This is a rather extreme example and I dont see its relevance to whether a person can be promiscious and a good person too.

I would say the wife was being a doormat though.



Caribbean Man said:


> The term " good" is a relative term and different people have their opinions. The term " cheating " also can be considered relative as some cultures are more tolerant of it. Some cultures allow men to have multiple wives if they are rich. They don't consider it cheating.
> Promiscuity on the other hand is a lack of sexual discretion and control. The inability to say no.
> A porn star is promiscuous.


I'm pretty sure that porn stars have the ability to say no, else they would be doing what they do for free, right? 

That places them outside of your definition of promiscuous, so I have to say, _No_, a porn star is not promiscuous, they are just doing their *job.*



Caribbean Man said:


> Porn stars and prostitutes, both male and female ,have trouble developing and keeping normal relationships because of how they view sex.


Same as the rest of us. Funny though how no porn stars have come to TAM though, now you say that...



Caribbean Man said:


> They have sex for money, and with anybody.
> People aren't born promiscuous, psychological issues and choices lead them into promiscuous behaviours.
> If these issues are not resolved, marriage would NOT FIX THEM.
> They CANNOT BE FAITHFUL if they place VERY LITTLE VALUE ON SEX and INTIMACY.
> 
> Saying that you can be promiscuous , and not a cheater is either wishful thinking or being a bit disingenuous.


prostitutes and porn stars have sex for the money, not for the sex.

I understand that this is your opinion. But its just your opinion, not any kind of scientific fact. Other posters have shown that they have and can be promiscuous without cheating.

-------



FalconKing said:


> A lot to people who think sex is more than just a sharing of body fluids. It's just common values. I am not talking about people who expect something from a SO but don't hold themselves accountable.
> 
> You and I can't tell anyone what should matter to them in a relationship. If it doesn't matter to you that's fine. But I want someone who was living a certain way before they met me. And I would prefer someone who think sex was an act served for someone special to them and is a physical and emotional connection.


I can understand and respect that perspective.

------



Caribbean Man said:


> And outside of cheating what does it matter if the man only had sex with lots of underaged girls, some as young as 13, before meeting his wife?


...wow. Once again, I do not understand why you relate a man having sex with minors to adults having consensual, non-cheating, sex with other adults.



Caribbean Man said:


> Or what does it matter if the wife had lots of sex with women before she met her husband?


If its ok with him and its ok with her, then screw everybody else. They can mind their own beeswax. It doesnt determine that she (or he) will cheat.



Caribbean Man said:


> Should these things really matter?
> Do they really have no bearing on a marriage once that wedding rig goes on and they both say " I do?"


It depends on the people getting married. 
Being married doesnt mean the past gets buried.

What you're really asking is "doesn't that mean that he/she will cheat?"

You are probably better off finding out if the person has cheated to determine if they will cheat.

You are probably better off finding out if the person has molested children to determine if they will molest.

You are probably better off finding out if the person has been attracted to their own gender to determine if they will attracted to their own gender.


-----




norajane said:


> Finding a man who values you as you are, doesn't have a double standard about men and women and sexual experience, doesn't call you names (like promiscuous) nor believes you'd be a cheater simply because you like sex.


I think this stuff is about control.


----------



## Wiltshireman

We are all different, unique if you will and I am sure that there is someone out there for each of us.

I would advise people not to rule anyone out as a potential friend but if you are looking for a long term partner then you must be more selective. Do not choose someone just because you find them exciting and then think that you can change parts of their personality to fit in with your wants / desires/ plans.

I think that partners stand a much better chance if they share similar (not necessarily the same) long term goals.

For myself I have always thought that full sex would be the ultimate expression of love between husband and wife. I did not marry until I was 29 and I was a virgin up to that point. I had had a couple of girl friends at school but never got passed 2nd base and having served 10 years in the military I had been to plenty of foreign ports / big cities were the temptations were laid out for you to pick from if you so chose. I chose to restrict my "messing around" to everything short of a "home run".

I do not think I could have married a woman with a string of failed / short term sexual relationships behind her. I know that we do not all find the right person first time and that even the best of relationships can come apart but a person with a track record of repeatedly having sex with people before they found out if they were compatible or who treated sex as a game would not have been for me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> I'm pretty sure that porn stars have the ability to say no, else they would be doing what they do for free, right?
> 
> That places them outside of your definition of promiscuous, so I have to say, _No_, a porn star is not promiscuous, they are just doing their *job.*
> 
> 
> 
> If its ok with him and its ok with her, then screw everybody else. They can mind their own beeswax. It doesnt determine that she (or he) will cheat.


Dude I really appreciate the fact that you took the time to post that lengthy response, and I am eternally grateful for that!
I respect your * deep moral convictions ,* I really do.:smthumbup:

Its just that I have not reached that stage of * enlightenment* and may never be able to reach it, so I'll just stick with plain old,
common sense and self respect.

I've spent way too much time and money investing in my health to go around sticking my penis, tongue or any appendage of my body into just any type of woman , maybe I'm wrong but I don't like the idea of herpes , or any other STD's.
I also cannot constantly live in the shadows of a woman with tons unresolved emotional traumas, who has not invested in herself like I have, doesn't matter if she's not a cheater,I want a
*_happy_* , emotionally fulfilling marriage.

But its all good, 
Everybody's different and some of us have not reached that level in our personal development where we could just have sex with anybody, anywhere, anytime for anything. Maybe we never would, but I can see _your_ perspective.
If it works for you guys , then I must agree with you.
Its none of my " beeswax ."

^^= " _Normative Moral Relativism_ "


----------



## NextTimeAround

Considering the fact that I dated for about 2 years a guy that I am sure now is hiding in the closet ........even from himself....... there is no way I would marry anyone without having started a sexual relationship with them. and of course, to get past even the initial "can't get my clothes off fast enough" period.

somethings that I noticed about him..

1 he always wanted me to go down on him.... which I didbut then he would avoid doing the same for me. He even avoided digital stimulation.

when I asked him why, his constant response was "I don't know what you're comfortable with." What a great way to turn around that vague manipulative comeback of "I'm not comfortable with that."

He told me that communication was key to a good relationship. I told him that I have tried every which way -- verbally and through pantomine what I am comfortable with........ HE shot back "Well, I guess you're poor communicator." To which I shot back"then why you do you keep whining about wanting more out of the relationship when I am a poor communicator and you have said that value communication in a relationship." 

Since I had sensed some stalkerish tendencies from him, I really just wanted him to stop calling me. Because of course, when you try to break up someone stalkerish, that puts them into overdrive.

He finally pushed me to do the hatchet job, coming over to my place in apissy mood and then telling me that my kitchen smelled like fish and that my hallway smelled like sex. We had not had sex in about 4 months by then. Despite the fact that he was ahppy to have sex with me for the first time without a condom "What are the chances" he asked me. (FTR, I made him go out and buy condoms before we did anything.)

when I started repeating my dissatisfaction regarding oral sex, he then tried to make a deal with me. That is, if I got an aids test, and showed him the results, he would show me his and then he would go down on me. I never got the test. He kept pawing after me for sex. and I told him that I was looking into private health insurance and didn't want to get tested before I got that settled.

He laughed, he giggled. He said he was just joking.

so on the weekend when he told me that my hallway smelled like sex and my kitchen smelled like fish, I told him to f*ck off and to never call me again. (I am black American) and I would have to say of all the guys that I have dated and just heard talking smack, it seems like black men constantly want to insult women in a sexual way. I find it so offensive. In this last conversation, he said he didn't realise that what he had said was so offensive. I told him that that was a good reason for us to split up because I did not have the energy to explain to him why it was offensive. He was 49 at the time.

2 years later, he came back around, asking if we could see each other but just as friends. I told him to f*ck off.

Imagine if I had spent years dating him but avoiding sex all the while that he told my family that he was on the marriage track.


----------



## Wiltshireman

NextTimeAround said:


> Considering the fact that I dated for about 2 years a guy that I am sure now is hiding in the closet ........even from himself....... there is no way I would marry anyone without having started a sexual relationship with them. and of course, to get past even the initial "can't get my clothes off fast enough" period.


"can't get my clothes off fast enough"

I am sorry but I would have had a hard time accepting a prospective partner who felt the need to do this.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Wiltshireman said:


> "*can't get my clothes off fast enough"*
> 
> I am sorry but I would have had a hard time accepting a prospective partner who felt the need to do this.


that remark was to account for the first few months of sexual relationship (whenever it starts in a committed relationship) when the passions is greater. and then it cools down. this happens in marriages as well you know.

Or how did you interpret it?


----------



## tobio

FalconKing said:


> And I like your last paragraph. Sometimes the most off putting thing about people is their defensiveness and pride in things that they know they are embarrassed about. I would rather hear someone telling me that they slept with a guy hoping he would like them. That's real. That tells me that maybe sex is important to that person too but they were at a time in their life where they really wanted someone so they often tried to move things too fast. I can understand that. *I would rather hear that then, "yeah I sleep with a lot of guys. So what? My past my business blah blah..and if you can't accept that you should leave!"* Without a doubt I would definitely leave.
> 
> I just want someone to be real with me. I will say this though, a lot of women i have known who have had a lot of partners tend to have unhealthy tendencies in relationships and broken pickers. They have to fix this themselves. I am not trying to be any woman's Knight. Those relationships aren't balanced enough for me.





BjornFree said:


> One of the key differences between men and women is that men can really separate emotional attachment from sex. So for a man, he could have had a lot of partners in the past and still be quite capable of toning down the antics and getting hitched if and when he meets a woman with whom he has more than just sexual compatibility.
> 
> Sadly, most women aren't capable of having "just" sex. This is one of the reasons why you hear of women who regret having one night stands the next day. *So if a woman has had a lot of partners in the past, it only indicates that she's either incapable of having a meaningful long term relationship or she didn't realize the value of LTR's.* Chances are that there are some women who are like the latter but a man can never be sure. But more often than not highly promiscuous women are simply not cutout for monogamy. Either way they're getting screwed in the marriage market.





Caribbean Man said:


> People aren't born promiscuous, psychological issues and choices lead them into promiscuous behaviours.
> *If these issues are not resolved, marriage would NOT FIX THEM.
> They CANNOT BE FAITHFUL if they place VERY LITTLE VALUE ON SEX and INTIMACY.
> *
> *Saying that you can be promiscuous , and not a cheater is either wishful thinking or being a bit disingenuous.*
> What is more accurate is;
> You could have been promiscuous in the past, worked on yourself and your issues, changed your views on sex, realigned your value system , and you most likely would not become a cheater in the future.


I have highlighted some interesting (to me) quotes.

Firstly, some women sleep with men without a commitment because that is how they want it. I'm not saying it doesn't happen like FalkonKing said, because I know it does. But some women DO want no strings because they are single and want sex. It happens.

The "So if a woman has had a lot of partners in the past, it only indicates that she's either incapable of having a meaningful long term relationship or she didn't realize the value of LTR's" comment from BjornFree, I respectfully disagree with. I would suggest that women CAN exist in a realm where they are able to commit in a long-term relationship, be functional in such relationships, be happy to commit to such relationships, yet outside of these relationships, have sex for sex's sake because she wants to. It isn't either/or. It CAN be BOTH at different times in a woman's life.

And CM's quote, I would suggest the same. Again I am not suggesting promiscuous people DO NOT resort to cheating. I am saying that things DO NOT exist as an "either/or" situation for all women. It is perfectly feasible for a woman to "value" sex within a committed relationship in the context many posters have referred to it here, AND have sex in a non-committed situation, such as when young and experiencing long-term relationships and then breaking up, with a gap between that and the next one, leading eventually to the relationship that ends up in marriage.

ETA I don't consider it also means a woman has something "wrong" with her either.


----------



## Cosmos

NextTimeAround said:


> Considering the fact that I dated for about 2 years a guy that I am sure now is hiding in the closet ........even from himself....... there is no way I would marry anyone without having started a sexual relationship with them.


I was a virgin when I married at age 25, and I have to agree with you. Whilst my (now) ex-H was all over me like a rash whilst we were dating (2 years), there was very little sex after our wedding day. Actually, not even on our wedding day! If my memory serves me correctly, we were into the second day of our honeymoon when he actually managed to muster up the passion to have sex with (mainly because I was in tears about it). It turned out he was asexual, which is something I would have far preferred to have known about before marrying and subsequently having to divorce him.


----------



## Wiltshireman

NextTimeAround said:


> that remark was to account for the first few months of sexual relationship (whenever it starts in a committed relationship) when the passions is greater. and then it cools down. this happens in marriages as well you know.
> 
> Or how did you interpret it?


I am sorry if I misunderstood you.

I had taken the expression 
"can't get my clothes off fast enough"
to mean 
"with undue haste" 
Or
"without due regard"

Sorry for that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tobio said:


> *It is perfectly feasible for a woman to "value" sex within a committed relationship in the context many posters have referred to it here, AND have sex in a non-committed situation, such as when young and experiencing long-term relationships and then breaking up, with a gap between that and the next one, leading eventually to the relationship that ends up in marriage*.
> 
> ETA I don't consider it also means a woman has something "wrong" with her either.


If its perfectly feasible for a woman or lets say even a man to place high value on sex within a committed relationship., whilst at the same time have sex without any commitment,
What would prevent them from wanting/ desiring the same arrangement whilst they are married ?
To me , there would be some sort of " cognitive distortion," especially when either partner gets bored in the bedroom, and in marriages, that could happen pretty fast.
What would keep a husband from wanting to bring in another partner to 
" spice things up ", because he knows someone who's willing and ready?

See where these problems in marriage begin?

See why some men feel that they're entitled to threesomes and so on, while the poor wife doesn't even know how to deal with it?

That type of mindset leads to the situation like in the example I gave of the husband who wants his wife to have a threesome , because he thinks its 
"... _perfectly feasible for a person to value committed sexual relationship whilst at the same time having sex in a non committed situation_..."

A lot of times our minds plays tricks on us,wreak havock with our lives and those we love..
I believe in keeping it real.

IMO, both people need to talk about these things first.
A woman who feels that way , lived that way , and believes in that way would be better off with a man who also believes in that.


----------



## tobio

Caribbean Man said:


> If its perfectly feasible for a woman or lets say even a man to place high value on sex within a committed relationship., whilst at the same time have sex without any commitment,
> What would prevent them from wanting/ desiring the same arrangement whilst they are married ?
> To me , there would be some sort of " cognitive distortion," especially when either partner gets bored in the bedroom, and in marriages, that could happen pretty fast.
> What would keep a husband from wanting to bring in another partner to " spice things up?"
> That type of mindset leads to the situation like in the example I gave of the husband who wants his wife to have a threesome , because he thinks its
> " perfectly feasible for a person to value committed sexual relationship whilst at the same time having sex in a non committed situation."
> 
> IMO, both people need to talk about these things first.
> A woman who feels that way and lived that way would be better off with a man who believes in that.


That last quote isn't exactly what I said and misconstrues what I mean.

I am talking about context. I am saying that it is perfectly feasible for a woman to "value" sex within a committed relationship in the context many posters have referred to it here, AND have sex in a non-committed situation. Context. I am not talking about someone who wants sex for sex's sake whilst in a committed relationship. I am talking about the mindset where whilst in a committed relationship, a woman values sex as we have been talking about here. She is a committed and loyal partner, straight down the line.

When NOT in a committed relationship, she has sex, because she wants sex. No emotional component. It is possible for a woman to separate the two states.

I highlighted this because I'm surprised it hasn't really come up before. People discuss it like a dichotomy, one-or-the-other. I suppose I'm surprised that some posters on here aren't more open-minded.


----------



## Caribbean Man

swetecynamome said:


> I interpreted this a different way. The "and" did not to me signify two things happening at the same time.


Its like saying,

"..I am an honest , hard working person, I believe in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay,
*But if I'm unemployed and hungry, I will steal to survive* until I get another job..."


----------



## swetecynamome

Caribbean Man said:


> Its like saying,
> 
> "..I am an honest , hard working person, I believe in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay,
> *But if I'm unemployed and hungry, I will steal to survive* until I get another job..."


Nope. Not what I meant at all.


----------



## Caribbean Man

swetecynamome said:


> Nope. Not what I meant at all.


Has it ever occurred to you that sex only become a problem for lots of couples....
After marriage?
Before both partners had lots of wild sex, lots of partners, lots of fun.
And after marriage , suddenly the sex stops?
Have you ever wondered why?


----------



## tobio

Caribbean Man said:


> Its like saying,
> 
> "..I am an honest , hard working person, I believe in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay,
> *But if I'm unemployed and hungry, I will steal*..."


No, it isn't. In that example you are putting your own value judgement in the equation by equating non-committed sex with stealing, ie bestowing non-committed sex with a negative value.

That is what it means TO YOU. That does not mean because you think it, it IS. There are women out there who can be and do value sex within a committed relationship, and then have sex in a non-committed relationship. The feelings surrounded sex in this instance are contextual dependent on the relationship situation.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tobio said:


> I'm surprised that some posters on here aren't more open-minded.


Whenever people I hear people use this term I usually become very alert.

Open minded to lots of people simply means " get with the programme even though you don't agree with it ."

I am one of the few posters on Tam that believes that some couples actually do well in open marriages.

I am one of the few posters on TAM that firmly believes that prostitution should be legalized , and that prostitutes are no less " moral " than people who engage in lots of casual sex. They just charge money for their services. 

But when a person tells me that a person could believe in two diametrically opposed concepts at the same time or switch between these two positions at will whenever it suits them....

Then:scratchhead:

Doesn't seem logical to me, whether male or female.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyAmorous 

Now on the other end... would it be fair to say....those who've had many partners without the attachment of Love, the high emotions with another... they might know & have experienced many positions, every sex act... BUT their struggle would be more in the Vulnerable ...if feelings start to flood them for another person....they may not want to feel like they "NEED"... love and care about this person......it may ruin the FUN... many RUN from this....

So on this side of the fence...the struggle is not in the bedroom but in the heart - showing ones full self to another... getting in deep, opening the heart.




KathyBatesel said:


> I admit that this is definitely true of me. ^



I hope this helps you to understand. I don't think anyone is saying, 'everyone who is promiscuous will cheat'. I think it's more, 'the is a much greater chance a promiscuous person will cheat'. Individual results may vary. How does one know their fiancee will not cheat? I suppose we don't. That is the reason for looking at things like this, in my opinion. 

No one wants to be cheated on. It hurts and can even harm the BS emotionally and mentally. That is not something to take lightly. 

You prove your love by your actions. Why then are the chances for infidelity not proven through actions as well? I believe they are. You may well believe otherwise. People can and do change. How then do you prove you have changed?

Maybe this is the question you need answered, instead of so vehemently arguing against what has been said? Good luck to you. I don't mean to hurt you by what I have said. Sometimes we need a different perspective. I know I do many times.


----------



## tobio

I actually meant open-minded as in considering there may be more possibilities out there than you currently consider possible.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tobio said:


> * There are women out there who can be and do value sex within a committed relationship, and then have sex in a non-committed relationship. The feelings surrounded sex in this instance are contextual dependent on the relationship situation.*


^^^^That is called relativism.
In essence what you are saying is that a person's morality depends on the context or situation.

So I don't steal because I'm employed.If I'm unemployed I would steal.

It is the same reason why people cheat. They don't cheat when they satisfied, if they become dissatisfied, cheating becomes an option.


----------



## mildlyperplexed

Caribbean Man said:


> Its like saying,
> 
> "..I am an honest , hard working person, I believe in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay,
> *But if I'm unemployed and hungry, I will steal to survive* until I get another job..."


No its like saying "I would ideally like a job with a long term contract and full benefits but while I'm looking for that dream job I will take a days casual work to tide me over."


----------



## Caribbean Man

tobio said:


> I actually meant open-minded as in considering there may be more possibilities out there than you currently consider possible.


I love exploring ideas and possibilities.
But they must be based on sound logic.


----------



## Cosmos

swetecynamome said:


> Wow. This is really difficult.


Yes, it is difficult. On the one hand the OP is basically saying that it's best for men to marry virgins (lower incidence of divorce/cheating), but what of women, such as myself, who then end up having to divorce because of less than adequate sex when they marry?

This was all many years ago, but whilst I continued to maintain high standards/values throughout my life (I can count my previous sexual partners on less than one hand), no way would I marry someone without knowing that we are sexually compatible.


----------



## FalconKing

tobio said:


> That last quote isn't exactly what I said and misconstrues what I mean.
> 
> I am talking about context. I am saying that it is perfectly feasible for a woman to "value" sex within a committed relationship in the context many posters have referred to it here, AND have sex in a non-committed situation. Context. I am not talking about someone who wants sex for sex's sake whilst in a committed relationship. I am talking about the mindset where whilst in a committed relationship, a woman values sex as we have been talking about here. She is a committed and loyal partner, straight down the line.
> 
> When NOT in a committed relationship, she has sex, because she wants sex. No emotional component. It is possible for a woman to separate the two states.
> 
> I highlighted this because I'm surprised it hasn't really come up before. People discuss it like a dichotomy, one-or-the-other. I suppose I'm surprised that some posters on here aren't more open-minded.


I am heterosexual man. So when i'm speaking about women it's because i'm interested in dating women, not men. So a woman can do whatever she wants, and my judgement be damned. But i'm saying what I want and value in a relationship. Someone doesn't have to be damaged to enjoy sex for sex sake. I like sex too. But I don't want people to have sex with just because I want sex. I'd rather be alone. It's all or nothing for me. I don't have to please people who feel empowered or liberated to have casual sex. This is what I want. 

This kind of reminds me of people that are porn and non-porn. Some women(and men) don't want that in their relationship. But most men they meet will tell them to just get over it and stop being so insecure. They can be black and white about it if they want to. As long as they are rational and you can understand where they are coming from. That's between them and whomever they are in a relationship with.


----------



## Caribbean Man

mildlyperplexed said:


> No its like saying "I would ideally like a job with a long term contract and full benefits but while I'm looking for that dream job I will take a days casual work to tide me over."


Funny,
I was on another thread the other day, where quite a few females were flaming out a man who had that exact, same approach to women. He only wanted casual sex, until he was ready for something else.
They told him something was seriously wrong with his approach to women and relationships, and he was " objectifying women."


----------



## 2ntnuf

Cosmos said:


> Yes, it is difficult. On the one hand the OP is basically saying that it's best for men to marry virgins (lower incidence of divorce/cheating), but what of women, such as myself, who then end up having to divorce because of less than adequate sex when they marry?
> 
> This was all many years ago, but whilst I continued to maintain high standards/values throughout my life (I can count my previous sexual partners on less than one hand), no way would I marry someone without knowing that we are sexually compatible.


This is the reason I was commenting that it seems best to marry those with similar experience. I believe it helps us to understand our partner better and provides a better chance of living a more satisfying life.


----------



## mildlyperplexed

Caribbean Man said:


> Funny,
> I was on another thread the other day, where quite a few females were flaming out a man who had that exact, same approach to women. He only wanted casual sex, until he was ready for something else.
> They told him something was seriously wrong with his approach to women and relationships, and he was " objectifying women."


Ive seen you disagree with other men on here too but I don't see the relevance to this thread. Neither of us are connected to the hive mind clearly.

My opinion is so long as its not hurting anyone its absolutely none of their business.


----------



## swetecynamome

Caribbean Man said:


> Funny,
> I was on another thread the other day, where quite a few females were flaming out a man who had that exact, same approach to women. He only wanted casual sex, until he was ready for something else.
> They told him something was seriously wrong with his approach to women and relationships, and he was " objectifying women."



Given what you seem to be saying throughout the thread it seems if you use logic, you would side with the women in this instance. Unless you are into the double standard.


----------



## FalconKing

swetecynamome said:


> Given what you seem to be saying throughout the thread it seems if you use logic, you would side with the women in this instance. Unless you are into the double standard.


No, I think he was pointing out how interesting it is that people are saying a woman can just have sex for sex sake and it's not a big deal. A guy was BLASTED HARD for that in another thread. I find it interesting too. But probably someone who thinks like you do, wouldn't even post in that thread. Because you understand that men and women are capable of doing the same thing to each other


----------



## swetecynamome

Yup.


----------



## 2ntnuf

mildlyperplexed said:


> Ive seen you disagree with other men on here too but I don't see the relevance to this thread. Neither of us are connected to the hive mind clearly.
> 
> *My opinion is so long as its not hurting anyone its absolutely none of their business.*



I think it is their business because they are taking a chance that you have some illness. The person you marry deserves to know your past and you deserve to know theirs. Think about what is important to you when you consider someone for marriage. Would you want to know about that very important matter? How would you react if they said, "It's none of your business"? I think I would say, "Okay, it's been nice knowing you."


----------



## Caribbean Man

swetecynamome said:


> Given what you seem to be saying throughout the thread it seems if you use logic, you would side with the women in this instance. Unless you are into the double standard.


Logic has absolutely nothing to do with either gender politics or double standards.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

tobio said:


> *Firstly, some women sleep with men without a commitment **because that is how they want it*.


 I agree this IS very true in our society today, more than in the past... we like our partying..... but this is something I could NEVER NEVER NEVER relate too myself... 

When I read stories of men & women *who wanted more* - but the other left them in the dust, they were hurt, I can ONLY relate to the one who was HURT... I always wanted those who TIED SEX with commitment / Love / high emotion... all of it... doesn't it stand to reason those who FEEL LIKE ME would only seek those who FEEL the same, and even have a HISTORY of feeling the same....it's surely seems the safer path. 

How does one change these views... I do not believe I could change my stripes in this. 

My husband has told me, even in his youth when he was REALLY horny...







up to 3 times a day....he doesn't feel he could have just had sex with anyone...even if the girl was offering (not that this happened)....He is the type that NEEDS LOVE with sex....it's just not in him. 

I feel the same - he is my perfect match ...but we are both the "*Hopeless Romantic*" type... finding LOVE was ...well ...what life and living is all about!! Without this, we would feel lonely, a piece of life missing...

Sex "for just sex" would be utterly hollow to us, yes, even while younger. 

When I did my thread on *Romance *(which is yet another incompatibility that causes suffering in marriage)... with a scale of 1-5... I can only bet that those Lower on the scale in Romance are more open to " this freedom" with more partners somehow... this not yearning for attachment with another ...It only makes sense. 











> I respectfully disagree with. I would suggest that women CAN exist in a realm where they are able to commit in a long-term relationship, be functional in such relationships, be happy to commit to such relationships, yet outside of these relationships, have sex for sex's sake because she wants to. It isn't either/or. It CAN be BOTH at different times in a woman's life.


 What brings on this change ? Since I can not relate to this at all...I am asking....Is it Deciding one day to settle down... a woman is getting older now..it's just life's course ...time to do the whole "Marriage/ family" thing ? 



EnjoliWoman said:


> Too many factors aren't addressed as many have pointed out. I have had enough partners to put me in the high risk category yet I was faithful to my husband all 15 years, even with the abuse. I think I will make a GREAT wife again some day and a faithful one AGAIN. *My sexual history was the result of being naive and hopeful that guy of the moment was Mr. Right followed by marriage, and then hopeful again,* a WTF period, back to a slower pace. But it doesn't make me wanton.


 Now this is yet another perspective....as women like Enjoliwoman clearly DID want more... hoped for more, wanting to believe these men were Mr Right / her future ......I can relate to her feelings... but this is one reason I didn't JUMP Because I didn't want this aftermath in my life. I believe it would have hurt me much more to get my hopes that high, to be dashed, but one thing is certain, I would have had those hopes EVERY SINGLE LAY... cause that is how I am made.


----------



## Caribbean Man

mildlyperplexed said:


> *My opinion is so long as its not hurting anyone its absolutely none of their business*.


:iagree: x 100%
And so we come right back to square one, or the op's original post.

Men have a right to choose a woman for marriage whom THEY FEEL would remain faithful to them irrespective of what anybody says.

Women have a right to express their sexuality in whichever way they see fit. It is their lives.

However,
With respect to marriage, it is usually the_ man_ who does the prepositioning......


----------



## Caribbean Man

swetecynamome said:


> No, because this is not my sexual history and history of my married life nor the sexual/marital history of a lot of my girlfriends - who are my girlfriends platonically, let me clarify - I have had no cause to contemplate it. It didn't apply to me for most of my marriage. The crumbling of my marriage was related to the loss of emotional connection. And I did marry as a virgin so you will see how this has not been my concern.


Ok then,
Fine.

People fascinate me.

I tend to read, ask questions, research, compare notes, on these things even though things are fine with our marriage...

I just like to learn.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cosmos said:


> I was a virgin when I married at age 25, and I have to agree with you. *Whilst my (now) ex-H was all over me like a rash whilst we were dating (2 years), there was very little sex after our wedding day. * Actually, not even on our wedding day! If my memory serves me correctly, we were into the second day of our honeymoon when he actually managed to muster up the passion to have sex with (mainly because I was in tears about it). It turned out he was asexual, which is something I would have far preferred to have known about before marrying and subsequently having to divorce him.


WOW, what an awful BLOW Cosmos  .. I am curious to HOW he was all over you (details?)... that must mean you was the one who put on the sexual brakes. 

I could say the same with my husband ...but there was no doubting he was ALL into women....I wondered back then if it EVER went down..it was like a running joke. He also had 300 Playboy mags under his bed. 

I don't think any women would even entertain the idea a man could be Asexual... how RARE ! 

Do you feel your EX was clueless to this... was he diagnosed as such afterwards... It's just so odd to be like that BEFORE...antsy, seems like he is dying for IT... then


----------



## mildlyperplexed

2ntnuf said:


> *I think it is their business because they are taking a chance that you have some illness*. The person you marry deserves to know your past and you deserve to know theirs. Think about what is important to you when you consider someone for marriage. Would you want to know about that very important matter? How would you react if they said, "It's none of your business"? I think I would say, "Okay, it's been nice knowing you."


1. Condoms

2. Perhaps its different in America but here people tend to get tested regularly if they take risks. Its not a big ask to get your partner to go to the clinic.

No one 'deserves' to know anything more than I am comfortable telling them. If someone wants my confidence they have to work for it.


----------



## FalconKing

swetecynamome said:


> I watched a documentary on netflix recently because I had been going out with a man with Asperger's and sometimes Asperger's is linked to asexuality though this man was into women. The documentary is interesting. I think it's just called Asexual.


Interesting! How was the relationship? Any challenges or frustrations? I think there is a poster here who's wife has Aspergers's. She was not asexual but she was also not very loyal.


----------



## Caribbean Man

swetecynamome said:


> So would you advocate this as a means to holding on in a long marriage, when the going gets rough? I'm curious. Or under what circumstances do you feel this would be helpful?


I did a thread on this and found out that some couples, even right here on TAM have been involved in that lifestyle _for years._

Many didn't post on the thread but they PM'd me and I asked them candid questions, and they answered me honestly.

I maintained on the thread that I would NEVER advocate that as a coping mechanism to fix any problems in a marriage, and those involved also agreed with me.

IT WOULD JUST CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS.

Just like normal successful marriages, people who are able to live that lifestyle have a high degree compatiblity and they have the exact , same moral values, so issues of jealousy never arise.
If they arise, there is a hiatus in the activity until consensus is reached on the way forward , either stop, or continue. No one is coerced or blackmailed.

Logically, I canot argue with such people because they are living proof that it works, or is working for them.
I understand exactly what it takes, but my opinion is that a normal, monogamous marriage takes tremendous work and there is a tremendous failure rate.
So then logically,
Why would anyone want to put more stress in an already stressful environment?
Again, not every marriage has the same dynamics.
It all depends on the dynamics of the marriage, but those marriages involved in that lifestyle are risky because there is an even higher failure rate than normal , monogamous marriages.

I would not recommend it for anyone under any situation, but I'm open minded enough to accept that it can work , even just for a minority.


----------



## Cosmos

SimplyAmorous said:


> WOW, what an awful BLOW Cosmos  .. I am curious to HOW he was all over you (details?)... that must mean you was the one who put on the sexual brakes.
> 
> I could say the same with my husband ...but there was no doubting he was ALL into women....I wondered back then if it EVER went down..it was like a running joke. He also had 300 Playboy mags under his bed.
> 
> I don't think any women would even entertain the idea a man could be Asexual... how RARE !
> 
> Do you feel your EX was clueless to this... was he diagnosed as such afterwards... It's just so odd to be like that BEFORE...antsy, seems like he is dying for IT... then


SA, it's always remained a mystery to me - even all these years later. Before we were married, we did everything but have penetrative sex. I had absolutely no reason to suspect that anything was amiss, particularly as he obviously didn't suffer from any signs of ED.

The diagnosis of asexuality was later made by two therapists and a psychiatrist, two of which had interviewed us separately and together. 

Throughout our marriage (6 years) he was very affectionate and into foreplay, but didn't seem to have any desire whatsoever for actual intercourse and, as a young woman, this upset me deeply. Penetrative sex would take place, however, providing I took the initiative (which I often did), but it always felt like a very lonely and sad experience to me... He would lie there motionless and passionless - his body responding, but somehow totally cut off and dispassionate... 

After my divorce, it took me many years to be able to have an orgasm without feeling a deep emptiness and a vague sense of guilt afterwards... It makes me cringe even thinking about it.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Dude I really appreciate the fact that you took the time to post that lengthy response, and I am eternally grateful for that!
> I respect your * deep moral convictions ,* I really do.:smthumbup:


Ditto 



Caribbean Man said:


> Its just that I have not reached that stage of * enlightenment* and may never be able to reach it, so I'll just stick with plain old,
> common sense and self respect.


Its just a matter of not tarring the whole world with one brush.



Caribbean Man said:


> I've spent way too much time and money investing in my health to go around sticking my penis, tongue or any appendage of my body into just any type of woman , maybe I'm wrong but I don't like the idea of herpes , or any other STD's.


most people who would be at risk for STDs would protect themselves accordingly i would imagine.



Caribbean Man said:


> I also cannot constantly live in the shadows of a woman with tons unresolved emotional traumas, who has not invested in herself like I have, doesn't matter if she's not a cheater,I want a
> *_happy_* , emotionally fulfilling marriage.
> But its all good,
> Everybody's different and some of us have not reached that level in our personal development where we could just have sex with anybody, anywhere, anytime for anything. Maybe we never would, but I can see _your_ perspective.
> If it works for you guys , then I must agree with you.
> Its none of my " beeswax ."


I'm not referring specifically to me and anony2, its just a generalization.



Caribbean Man said:


> ^^= " _Normative Moral Relativism_ "


But I will add, that the ignored side of this discussion is that it is impossible for a person to be promiscuous by themselves, what of the other person then? are they responsible for contribution to anothers promiscuity? If you find it immoral for someone to be promiscuous, why dont you find it immoral for someone to 'take advantage' of someones promiscuity?


----------



## SpinDaddy

Goldmember357 said:


> . . . . Id advice men to NOT look exclusively at the most beautiful women who only make up like 5% of the population. In my opinion many great women are overlooked by men, and the same goes for many good men being overlooked by women. Only difference is that smart/good/inexperienced men seem to fall victim to good looking/party girls, while good/inexperienced women seem more judgmental and likely to marry an equally good guy. . . .


In the words of Jimmy Soul . . . .

Jimmy Soul - If you wanna be happy - YouTube


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> SA, it's always remained a mystery to me
> I had absolutely no reason to suspect that anything was amiss, particularly as he obviously didn't suffer from any signs of ED.
> 
> Penetrative sex would take place, however, providing I took the initiative (which I often did), but it always felt like a very lonely and sad experience to me... He would lie there motionless and passionless - his body responding, but somehow totally cut off and dispassionate... It makes me cringe even thinking about it...


Cosmos, 
Your story is baffling to me. Usually it's the other way around , with the woman lying motionless and passionless...
Something was seriously wrong with him.
First time I'm hearing anything like this.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Cosmos,
> Your story is baffling to me. Usually it's the other way around , with the woman lying motionless and passionless...
> Something was seriously wrong with him.
> First time I'm hearing anything like this.


I'm not surprised that you find it baffling, CM, because all these years later it still baffles me. The diagnosis of asexuality didn't sit well with me and I refused to accept it for a very long time.

The one therapist blamed his stiff upper lip English boarding school education, telling me that my (then) H had learned to bury his feelings / emotions from a very early age (started boarding school at age 7). The therapist (who had seen us individually and together) told me that if I were to "die tomorrow," my H would find it impossible to grieve for me, even, because he is incapable of experiencing either "the depths of despair, nor the pinnacle of happiness. Your H resides somewhere in the middle - in a vacuum.."


----------



## Cosmos

swetecynamome said:


> From what I learned from the documentary a person can sometimes do what sexually normal people do in order to have close, committed relationships which is what many asexual people still want though some prefer to live alone. Asexual people just don't want to have sex with someone else, though some or many do masturbate.


I must find that documentary, because the above makes sense to me. My ex went on to remarry after our divorce - twice...


----------



## NextTimeAround

Cosmos said:


> SA, it's always remained a mystery to me - even all these years later. Before we were married, we did everything but have penetrative sex. I had absolutely no reason to suspect that anything was amiss, particularly as he obviously didn't suffer from any signs of ED.
> 
> The diagnosis of asexuality was later made by two therapists and a psychiatrist, two of which had interviewed us separately and together.
> 
> Throughout our marriage (6 years) he was very affectionate and into foreplay, but didn't seem to have any desire whatsoever for actual intercourse and, as a young woman, this upset me deeply. Penetrative sex would take place, however, providing I took the initiative (which I often did), but it always felt like a very lonely and sad experience to me... He would lie there motionless and passionless - his body responding, but somehow totally cut off and dispassionate...
> 
> After my divorce, it took me many years to be able to have an orgasm without feeling a deep emptiness and a vague sense of guilt afterwards... It makes me cringe even thinking about it.


It's examples like this that make me wonder why anyone would take the risk to avoid sex before marriage.


----------



## Caribbean Man

NextTimeAround said:


> It's examples like this that make me wonder why anyone would take the risk to avoid sex before marriage.


Quite obviously, at least to me the problem was deeper than just sex.
Based on her account , the guy was deceptive and psychologically damaged.

"...._The one therapist blamed his stiff upper lip English boarding school education, telling me that my (then) H had learned to bury his feelings / emotions from a very early age (started boarding school at age 7). *The therapist (who had seen us individually and together) told me that if I were to "die tomorrow," my H would find it impossible to grieve for me, even, because he is incapable of experiencing either "the depths of despair, nor the pinnacle of happiness. Your H resides somewhere in the middle - in a vacuum*_....."

Well i took the " risk " of no sex before marriage, and I can tell you that it was well worth it.
In fact, if I had gotten married to any those whom I had sex with,
based on what I'm seeing with their lives now, my story would have been much different.
I know for certain that we are have more than the average share of sex , compared to those who did all that there was to do and more when they were single and after marriage, became sexless.
BTW, and our marriage is a happy one.

Sex before marrige , neither no sex before marriage is no guarantee of what would happen after marriage.
If it were, then the SIM section on TAm would be filled with success stories, instead of WTF happened stories.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I must find that documentary, because the above makes sense to me. *My ex went on to remarry after our divorce - twice...*


Jeez!
Imagine what those poor women went through!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Well i took the " risk " of no sex before marriage, and I can tell you that it was well worth it.
> In fact, if I had gotten married to any those whom I had sex with,
> based on what I'm seeing with their lives now, my story would have been much different.
> I know for certain that we are have more than the average share of sex , compared to those who did all that there was to do and more when they were single and after marriage, became sexless.
> BTW, and our marriage is a happy one.
> 
> Sex before marrige , neither no sex before marriage is no guarantee of what would happen after marriage.
> If it were, then the SIM section on TAm would be filled with success stories, instead of WTF happened stories.


You bring up some interesting points. Having sex prior to marriage by no means is a guarantee of a happy sex life in marriage. Cosmos is one example and I am another. Basically the moment the ring went on his finger, he was a completely different person sex wise. I won't derail with details, I've posted them before.

If you read around here for just a post or two, you will see hundreds of them that boil down to: Sex was great prior to marriage and now it is sexless or near sexless. I can only glean two things from those posts. Either the denier was pretending during courtship or the relationship has had a shift in dynamic where sex is no longer valued with that partner.....not to be mistaken for lack of sex drive.


----------



## KathyBatesel

2ntnuf said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by SimplyAmorous
> 
> So on this side of the fence...the struggle is not in the bedroom but in the heart - showing ones full self to another... getting in deep, opening the heart.
> 
> 
> *(Here, you had quoted my statement where I validated that I'm no prone to emotional intimacy easily then wrote what's below. I had a couple thoughts on what you wrote, which I'll type in bold within the context.)*
> 
> 
> I hope this helps you to understand. I don't think anyone is saying, 'everyone who is promiscuous will cheat'. I think it's more, 'the is a much greater chance a promiscuous person will cheat'.
> 
> *I don't believe I ever misunderstood. I continue to think that it's inaccurate to believe promiscuity and cheating have ANY cause/effect relationship. Let me try to offer an analogy...
> 
> Let's pretend I have diabetes, and I have been in a comatose state because of it. Years later, I have my toes amputated, again because of diabetes. It would be absurd to say that "people who have been in a comatose state are more likely to have their toes amputated than people who haven't experienced a coma." Diabetes is the case. Coma is a symptom. Amputation is a symptom.
> 
> Promiscuity is the coma in this analogy. Cheating is the amputation. Not all diabetics experience both of these symptoms. There are other conditions that can cause comas or amputations. When it comes to cheating, there can be a shared cause, as in this analogy where diabetes caused both.
> 
> However, the only universal underlying factors that could possibly the symptoms of promiscuity and cheating together are "low self esteem" or "a person's value systems." If these two things are possible causes, it'd be fair to say, "A person who has low self esteem is more likely to cheat," or "a person's values could lead them to be promiscuous" but to tie the symptoms together is a fallacy of logic. *
> 
> Individual results may vary. How does one know their fiancee will not cheat? I suppose we don't. That is the reason for looking at things like this, in my opinion.
> 
> *The way I personally gauge a partner's fidelity is to evaluate his value systems as they're reflected in how he has consistently treated other people. If I met a man who is like me - sexually experienced but never cheated on a partner - I would not think he is a high risk for being a cheater. On the other hand, if I see him attend church and say he wants to save himself for marriage, then observe him tell small lies to avoid potentially uncomfortable situations, I will think he's MORE likely to be a cheater.*
> 
> No one wants to be cheated on. It hurts and can even harm the BS emotionally and mentally. That is not something to take lightly.
> 
> You prove your love by your actions. Why then are the chances for infidelity not proven through actions as well? I believe they are. You may well believe otherwise. People can and do change. How then do you prove you have changed?
> 
> Maybe this is the question you need answered, instead of so vehemently arguing against what has been said? Good luck to you. I don't mean to hurt you by what I have said. Sometimes we need a different perspective. I know I do many times.
> 
> *I wasn't aware that I'm arguing vehemently against anyone's opinion, but if so, I suppose it's because it's insulting to hear such a broad stroke of judgment when it's based on fallacious logic. I don't feel hurt by anyone's views. I'm not fragile like that  but I'm not trying to change anyone, either. If they're asking questions, I'm putting in my opinions just like others, that's all.
> 
> Someone used another analogy about wanting a job with full benefits but being willing to take temp work in the meantime, and another poster said a guy got blasted for having a similar attitude toward casual sex... that he was told he was objectifying women.
> 
> I don't know if I "objectified" anyone. I've never slept with someone whose company was unpleasant to me. I've never led anyone on, as far as I can recall. I certainly never lied about my motives. Once... in 30 years... a man told me he felt like I would only want sex with him and not a relationship. I admitted it and we didn't go there. I had pretty high expectations of what I deserved in exchange for what I gave.
> 
> For me, sex is sex. Sex with my husband isn't sex. It's something more that encompasses vulnerability, emotion, and communication, which are things that I do not experience in casual affairs. The difference between sex and lovemaking, I guess. *


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You bring up some interesting points. Having sex prior to marriage by no means is a guarantee of a happy sex life in marriage. Cosmos is one example and I am another. Basically the moment the ring went on his finger, he was a completely different person sex wise. I won't derail with details, I've posted them before.
> 
> If you read around here for just a post or two, you will see hundreds of them that boil down to: Sex was great prior to marriage and now it is sexless or near sexless. I can only glean two things from those posts. *Either the denier was pretending during courtship or the relationship has had a shift in dynamic where sex is no longer valued with that partner.....not to be mistaken for lack of sex drive.*


Exactly so!
Sometimes I try to figure what happens but always come up blank.
Some stories like the one Cosmos just posted and yours are simply astounding.
A few others that I've read also.
I can't understand how something so natural before marriage could become so problematic, afterwards.
* sigh * life.


----------



## Cosmos

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You bring up some interesting points. Having sex prior to marriage by no means is a guarantee of a happy sex life in marriage. Cosmos is one example and I am another. Basically the moment the ring went on his finger, he was a completely different person sex wise. I won't derail with details, I've posted them before.
> 
> If you read around here for just a post or two, you will see hundreds of them that boil down to: Sex was great prior to marriage and now it is sexless or near sexless. I can only glean two things from those posts. Either the denier was pretending during courtship or the relationship has had a shift in dynamic where sex is no longer valued with that partner.....not to be mistaken for lack of sex drive.


Personally, TRB, I think on some level people like this possibly *know* they have a problem, but are desperate not to be denied a close long term relationship... Perhaps they hope that they can somehow 'fix' themselves, or perhaps they hope that sex will somehow become of little importance to the other party as it is to them...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Exactly so!
> Sometimes I try to figure what happens but always come up blank.
> Some stories like the one Cosmos just posted and yours are simply astounding.
> A few others that I've read also.
> I can't understand how something so natural before marriage could become so problematic, afterwards.
> * sigh * life.


That's the thing though, for many it wasn't natural so they faked it. Those who were genuine and now are not having sex with their partners have either built up resentment, are no longer sexually attracted to their partners or have a medical issue. It really is that simple.


----------



## anony2

KathyBatesel said:


> For me, sex is sex. Sex with my husband isn't sex. It's something more that encompasses vulnerability, emotion, and communication, which are things that I do not experience in casual affairs. *The difference between sex and lovemaking, I guess. *


This is 100% spot on IMO Kathy. There is a huge difference between the two. 

If we use the ideology of some people on this thread, WOMEN who masturbated before marriage are highly likely to cheat and have unresolved sexual issues.  Of course, that wouldn't apply to men though, because they have values if they masturbated before marriage. LOL


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Cosmos said:


> Personally, TRB, I think on some level people like this possibly *know* they have a problem, but are desperate not to be denied a close long term relationship... Perhaps they hope that they can somehow 'fix' themselves, or perhaps they hope that sex will somehow become of little importance to the other party as it is to them...


Yup.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Personally, TRB, I think on some level people like this possibly *know* they have a problem, but are desperate not to be denied a close long term relationship... Perhaps they hope that they can somehow 'fix' themselves, or perhaps they hope that sex will somehow become of little importance to the other party as it is to them...


I think actions like that are wicked and dishonest.
These people are users just like those who use people for sex or money. 
They use unsuspecting people for the emotional comfort and suport of a long term relationship, ie marriage . 
Sometimes they lack the social kills to play the dating game effectively and hide behind the " values and moral " charade. Then after marriage, they expect the partner , who swore to be faithful to them sexually, to put up wit their shyt.


----------



## 2ntnuf

mildlyperplexed said:


> 1. Condoms
> 
> 2. Perhaps its different in America but here people tend to get tested regularly if they take risks. *Its not a big ask to get your partner to go to the clinic.*
> 
> I believe you are agreeing with me in part, at least.
> 
> *No one 'deserves' to know anything more than I am comfortable telling them. If someone wants my confidence they have to work for it.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> This concept is true. It is not a concept I value in a long term marriage. I require openness and honesty among many other things. It limits my selection of suitable partners in the same manner as your values limit your selections.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Exactly so!
> Sometimes I try to figure what happens but always come up blank.
> Some stories like the one Cosmos just posted and yours are simply astounding.
> A few others that I've read also.
> I can't understand how something so natural before marriage could become so problematic, afterwards.
> * sigh * life.


CM, I think it's so astounding because it's so little talked about... Not many women are going to tell people that they got divorced because their H couldn't bring themselves to have sex with them. It sounds too unbelievable and simply goes against all that we've been led to believe about men and sex. My mindset was if my H didn't want me, there had to be something radically wrong - *with me*!

When I think of all the money spent on therapy during those six years - desperately trying to find out what that 'something' was! Fortunately for me, I found the answer when I plucked up the courage to have a wild and woolly (post divorce) relationship - absolutely zilch


----------



## Caribbean Man

anony2 said:


> This is 100% spot on IMO Kathy. There is a huge difference between the two.
> 
> If we use the ideology of some people on this thread, WOMEN who masturbated before marriage are highly likely to cheat and have unresolved sexual issues.  Of course, that wouldn't apply to men though, because they have values if they masturbated before marriage. LOL


That seems like a logic break to me.
Sex is not the same as masturbation, nor does it feel like it.
For sex to feel like masturbation , something has to be wrong.

It probably means there is no emotional connection, so the warm sexy , " _fcuk me like you need me_ " feelings one gets from their partner's dominance / submission and desire i,during the act, is not there.


----------



## anonim

tobio said:


> I have highlighted some interesting (to me) quotes.
> 
> Firstly, some women sleep with men without a commitment because that is how they want it. I'm not saying it doesn't happen like FalkonKing said, because I know it does. But some women DO want no strings because they are single and want sex. It happens.
> 
> The "So if a woman has had a lot of partners in the past, it only indicates that she's either incapable of having a meaningful long term relationship or she didn't realize the value of LTR's" comment from BjornFree, I respectfully disagree with. I would suggest that women CAN exist in a realm where they are able to commit in a long-term relationship, be functional in such relationships, be happy to commit to such relationships, yet outside of these relationships, have sex for sex's sake because she wants to. It isn't either/or. It CAN be BOTH at different times in a woman's life.
> 
> And CM's quote, I would suggest the same. Again I am not suggesting promiscuous people DO NOT resort to cheating. I am saying that *things DO NOT exist as an "either/or" situation for all women. It is perfectly feasible for a woman to "value" sex within a committed relationship in the context many posters have referred to it here, AND have sex in a non-committed situation, such as when young and experiencing long-term relationships and then breaking up, with a gap between that and the next one, leading eventually to the relationship that ends up in marriage.*
> 
> *ETA I don't consider it also means a woman has something "wrong" with her either.*


QFT. in bold


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> My mindset was if my H didn't want me, there had to be something radically wrong - *with me*!


^^This is why I said earlier that its a wicked thing for someone to do to another person.
People should at least have the decency to be honest with themselves. They pretend to be normal and then,
The innocent party blame themselves.
This could do damage to a person, especially a woman's self esteem.
She looks herself in the mirror an does not see her real self but a reflection of what her husband " thinks" of her.
She sees herself through his eyes, and thinks something _has_ to be wrong...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> Well i took the " risk " of no sex before marriage, and I can tell you that it was well worth it.
> In fact, if I had gotten married to any those whom I had sex with,
> based on what I'm seeing with their lives now, my story would have been much different.
> I know for certain that we are have more than the average share of sex , compared to those who did all that there was to do and more when they were single and after marriage, became sexless.
> BTW, and our marriage is a happy one.
> 
> Sex before marrige , neither no sex before marriage is no guarantee of what would happen after marriage.
> If it were, then the SIM section on TAm would be filled with success stories, instead of WTF happened stories.


I agree, with every word of this .... .We are another success story as well... and I would not change the way we handled it in any way shape or form....as far as his "ENTERING ME"...

We have a very unique story...I am sure this has happened to others.. but I have yet to read a case like it. 

We had trouble with my HYMEN ...he couldn't get it in...this is funny looking back but at the time it wasn't ....he was very patient.... I was like :wtf: (and it hurt like hell)....After 3 months of this..... I was getting TICKED......made an appointment with the OBGYN...how utterly EMBARRASSING to say... "Hey Doc, my husband can't get it in!".... 

He examines me & says ..."You have a rigid one alright" & scheduled me for a hymenectomy... but wait.."here is your script for a Pregnancy test ". 

Imagine the shock to learn I was expecting !!







No surgery now.... so we kept working at it...

Had I allowed another man to break my cherry, it could have broken his pecker (Just kidding) but it would have been an *awful experience for me*... plus he might have left me not wanting to deal with it/felt I was broken ...how would I have handled that......and with my beliefs to go through that before I was married.... Oh NO....

My husband was loving, patient, he never got upset, and well...when we felt that sweet Breakthrough.... we went out and Celebrated...







I was 5 months pregnant ... he finally got it in ! My stepmother was calling our son the "immaculate conception"...had to make a few jokes. They are not religious people. 

It all worked out and I was loved all the way through that....I feel *FOR US*... we did the right thing.


----------



## Goldmember357

NextTimeAround said:


> There are examples that show that the opposite can be true as well. If we look at that long thread in the private members' section.... it is a about a wife who did a GNO and slept with the guy she met at the bar the next day. She said that he husband was the first and only man she had had sex with before the incident that brought her here. How would you explain that?


generally speaking its less though i believe. But that's because many people are trained to live a certain way.



Caribbean Man said:


> Funny,
> I was on another thread the other day, where quite a few females were flaming out a man who had that exact, same approach to women. He only wanted casual sex, until he was ready for something else.
> They told him something was seriously wrong with his approach to women and relationships, and he was " objectifying women."


Exactly. I dont really get that either but i imagine that many of them women critiquing him are those who find that behavior unacceptable in general. 



FalconKing said:


> I think someone who has a lot of sexual partners may not have the same values as I do. So I wouldn't want to take my chances. I don't give my time and effort or penis to just anyone. So I would want someone who is the same. Everyone has a past, but I also wouldn't want someone who would wait to I came along to change the way they live. Nor someone who doesn't want us to discuss our past. I'm not a fan of off limit topics.


I think the double standard makes perfect sense and is completely understandable. I feel many women hurt themselves because they think the double standard should not exist, but reality is it does exist and won't go away anytime soon. 

*Although I agree with you above all else I feel people should marry those who are most similar to them. As in having their similar beliefs, morals etc. *

So when some men are incredibly promiscuous and sleep with tons of women they should not be too harsh on promiscuous women. How can you demand something when you are partaking in the same behavior? Now with that said that type of thinking wont change anytime soon and its understandable when someone takes into account how much harder it is for a man to be promiscuous. Its the fact that its harder for a man to do than a woman is why he is looked at in a better light. 

Unfair yes but its understandable.

I don't like the whines. I think being critical, and having high standards will prevent future instances of distress.


----------



## anony2

Caribbean Man said:


> That seems like a logic break to me.
> Sex is not the same as masturbation, nor does it feel like it.
> For sex to feel like masturbation , something has to be wrong.
> 
> It probably means there is no emotional connection, so the warm sexy , " _fcuk me like you need me_ " feelings one gets from their partner's dominance / submission and desire i,during the act, is not there.


My point is it is just as viable to say that about masturbation as it is to say that women whom have sex before marriage do not value marriage or sex. I mean, if we are going to make assumptions and ride down those slippery slopes of fallacy, we might as well go all the way and not just part way.


----------



## mildlyperplexed

2ntnuf said:


> I believe you are agreeing with me in part, at least.


I agree everyone should take responsibility for their own sexual health but completely disagree that any detail needs to be given.



> No one 'deserves' to know anything more than I am comfortable telling them. If someone wants my confidence they have to work for it.





> This concept is true. It is not a concept I value in a long term marriage. I require openness and honesty among many other things. It limits my selection of suitable partners in the same manner as your values limit your selections.


It would be a pretty poor marriage if there wasn't any trust. My point was that it takes time and its not something I would want to go into with a new partner.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Cosmos;1471298 My mindset was if my H didn't want me said:


> with me[/B]!


It's not just your mindset, it's the mindset of others. The first and last time I posted about this, the comments were: You must be fat, you must be ugly, you must be terrible in bed, he's cheating and you're too dumb to figure it out and you're 40 years old.....what do you expect. Not surprising, those exact same people never gave that kind of criticism towards men with sexless wives.


----------



## Trickster

Cosmos said:


> Personally, TRB, I think on some level people like this possibly *know* they have a problem, but are desperate not to be denied a close long term relationship... Perhaps they hope that they can somehow 'fix' themselves, or perhaps they hope that sex will somehow become of little importance to the other party as it is to them...



This is me. My wife was a virgin when we met. I got the impression that she was a good girl. She was Jewish, didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't cuss, has a sweet family who doesn't drink or smoke. All seem morally wonderful. I was ready for somebody who wasn't promiscuous, like my previous GF's. I was a good guy and waited until she was ready. So it took over a year before PIV. 

For 18 years, I convinced myself sex wasn't important. She was happy with that.

For a couple of years now I have been much more assertive and it's better *for me.* She just seems to be in misery during sex. I don't know what to do! She doesn't even like to use tongue when we kiss. I hoped eventually she would enjoy intimacy, so I waited and waited and waited.

I was her first BF. or the first to stick around even without the sex. I knew what I was getting in to even before we married. I just convinced myself the friendship was more important.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anony2 said:


> My point is it is just as viable to say that about masturbation as it is to say that women whom have sex before marriage do not value marriage or sex. I mean, if we are going to make assumptions and ride down those slippery slopes of fallacy, we might as well go all the way and not just part way.


Ok,

But really,
How do you equate sex with masturbation?
And who said that women who have sex before marriage do not value marriage sex?


----------



## 2ntnuf

*1471192*

Kathy, I haven't read this entire post yet. I will. My quote and response were not to you. I did not make that clear and I aplogize for that. I am looking for the post by another member which I was answering. I will be certain to make it more clear in the future.

My point to that poster was that your answer seemed to back up the statement that it would be easier for a person who has had many partners to be unfaithful since they, as I believe you described in your case, do not like being vulnerable. I think you meant it is difficult for you to be close emotionally, so when that comes up for you, it is easier to run from the relationship. If I am wrong, I apologize. I am not saying that is what you do. 

It was not my intention to hurt you or harm you in any way. 

I'm doing my best to piece this together for you. What I have between the lines is what I have found so far. There may be more.

___________________________________________________

Talk About Marriage - View Profile: swetecynamome

It does feel like the whole of the discussion, on the whole, has been based on a projection onto this vague band of wild, crazy, destructive women who seek to wreak havoc on the world. When one wishes to do what is forbidden them by their own mores to do it gets magnified and projected onto this larger than life "other" who is then turned into a monster. Salem witch trials come to mind, the mentality of.

Talk About Marriage - View Profile: 2ntnuf

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyAmorous 

Now on the other end... would it be fair to say....those who've had many partners without the attachment of Love, the high emotions with another... they might know & have experienced many positions, every sex act... BUT their struggle would be more in the Vulnerable ...if feelings start to flood them for another person....they may not want to feel like they "NEED"... love and care about this person......it may ruin the FUN... many RUN from this....

So on this side of the fence...the struggle is not in the bedroom but in the heart - showing ones full self to another... getting in deep, opening the heart.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KathyBatesel 
I admit that this is definitely true of me. ^


I hope this helps you to understand. I don't think anyone is saying, 'everyone who is promiscuous will cheat'. I think it's more, 'the is a much greater chance a promiscuous person will cheat'. Individual results may vary. How does one know their fiancee will not cheat? I suppose we don't. That is the reason for looking at things like this, in my opinion. 

No one wants to be cheated on. It hurts and can even harm the BS emotionally and mentally. That is not something to take lightly. 

You prove your love by your actions. Why then are the chances for infidelity not proven through actions as well? I believe they are. You may well believe otherwise. People can and do change. How then do you prove you have changed?

Maybe this is the question you need answered, instead of so vehemently arguing against what has been said? Good luck to you. I don't mean to hurt you by what I have said. Sometimes we need a different perspective. I know I do many times.

_______________________________________________

This part below was your response to my statements using SA's and your quotes. I have to try and figure out where it came from and what I meant. Seems like there is more than just one quote from me and you have strung them together. It's difficult to say for certain. 




Talk About Marriage - View Profile: KathyBatesel

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ntnuf 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyAmorous 

So on this side of the fence...the struggle is not in the bedroom but in the heart - showing ones full self to another... getting in deep, opening the heart.


(Here, you had quoted my statement where I validated that I'm no prone to emotional intimacy easily then wrote what's below. I had a couple thoughts on what you wrote, which I'll type in bold within the context.)


I hope this helps you to understand. I don't think anyone is saying, 'everyone who is promiscuous will cheat'. I think it's more, 'the is a much greater chance a promiscuous person will cheat'. 

*I don't believe I ever misunderstood. I continue to think that it's inaccurate to believe promiscuity and cheating have ANY cause/effect relationship. Let me try to offer an analogy...*

This statement of yours is a bit irrelevant since I wasn't directing my statement at you. I will read and comment. 

Let's pretend I have diabetes, and I have been in a comatose state because of it. Years later, I have my toes amputated, again because of diabetes. It would be absurd to say that "people who have been in a comatose state are more likely to have their toes amputated than people who haven't experienced a coma." Diabetes is the case. Coma is a symptom. Amputation is a symptom. 

*Promiscuity is the coma in this analogy. Cheating is the amputation. *

Okay, but can you tell me who the diabetics represent? 

Not all diabetics experience both of these symptoms. There are other conditions that can cause comas or amputations. When it comes to cheating, there can be a shared cause, as in this analogy where diabetes caused both. 

However, the only universal underlying factors that could possibly the symptoms of promiscuity and cheating together are "low self esteem" or "a person's value systems." If these two things are possible causes, it'd be fair to say, "A person who has low self esteem is more likely to cheat," or "a person's values could lead them to be promiscuous" but to tie the symptoms together is a fallacy of logic. 

1 Now, bear with me here, please.

So, what you are saying in the paragraph above is cheating has nothing to do with sex and neither does promiscuity? That was the tie for me. I know cheating does not always include sex, as in the case of EA's. When it does, and that is the only correlation I can find to the topic in the op, does promiscuity play any role in the decision to cheat versus an individual who has few sexual partners outside of long-term relationships or marriage? 1

Individual results may vary. How does one know their fiancee will not cheat? I suppose we don't. That is the reason for looking at things like this, in my opinion. 

The way I personally gauge a partner's fidelity is to evaluate his value systems as they're reflected in how he has consistently treated other people. If I met a man who is like me - sexually experienced but never cheated on a partner - I would not think he is a high risk for being a cheater. 1How would you feel if you had a low number of sexual partners in this instance? Would you give everyone that same trust? How does this tie into your statement about your personal thoughts which I quoted?1On the other hand, if I see him attend church and say he wants to save himself for marriage, then observe him tell small lies to avoid potentially uncomfortable situations, I will think he's MORE likely to be a cheater.1So, what you are saying is, if anyone has ever told a lie, they are probably a cheater as well?1

No one wants to be cheated on. It hurts and can even harm the BS emotionally and mentally. That is not something to take lightly. 

You prove your love by your actions. Why then are the chances for infidelity not proven through actions as well? I believe they are. You may well believe otherwise. People can and do change. How then do you prove you have changed?

Maybe this is the question you need answered, instead of so vehemently arguing against what has been said? Good luck to you. I don't mean to hurt you by what I have said. Sometimes we need a different perspective. I know I do many times.<<<<< Again, this part wasn't typed for you, Kathy. I will read your response anyway.

I wasn't aware that I'm arguing vehemently against anyone's opinion, but if so, I suppose it's because it's insulting to hear such a broad stroke of judgment when it's based on fallacious logic. I don't feel hurt by anyone's views. I'm not fragile like that but I'm not trying to change anyone, either. If they're asking questions, I'm putting in my opinions just like others, that's all.

1This above is irrelevant since I was not responding to you in my original post which caused this. You don't need to defend yourself here. It wasn't an attack on anyone. It was supposed to be a discussion with differing opinions. If you can pursuade me that I am wrong, good on you. That is why I am responding to these as best I can. Also, so you might understand better the idea I was trying to convey. 1 

Someone used another analogy about wanting a job with full benefits but being willing to take temp work in the meantime, and another poster said a guy got blasted for having a similar attitude toward casual sex... that he was told he was objectifying women. <<<<<<< 1Again, I wasn't telling you, Kathy, that you objectify anyone. However, I remember typing this, but I don't remember it being in the same context as it is here. I will have to go back and look. It seems a little out of place.1

I don't know if I "objectified" anyone. I've never slept with someone whose company was unpleasant to me. I've never led anyone on, as far as I can recall. I certainly never lied about my motives. Once... in 30 years... a man told me he felt like I would only want sex with him and not a relationship. I admitted it and we didn't go there. I had pretty high expectations of what I deserved in exchange for what I gave.<<<<<<< 1This is irrelevant, also, since I wasn't addressing you, Kathy.

For me, sex is sex. Sex with my husband isn't sex. It's something more that encompasses vulnerability, emotion, and communication, which are things that I do not experience in casual affairs. The difference between sex and lovemaking, I guess.<<<<<<This isn't necessary, but I do appreciate your mention of your husband. I am sure you are a good and faithful wife. I think he is a lucky man to have you. Now I am going to have to eat. I will look at any responses later. Thanks. 

________________________________________________

Hope you can understand where you have responded to my statements. I might be able to if I try hard enough. It's a shame I had to quote you this way. It makes it difficult to understand what either of us are trying to convey.

Edit: I have taken the time necessary to try and separate our text. I hope I have done well. I will respond to what you have typed, even though my original post that caused this was not directed at you. This is a start, anyway.


----------



## damiana879

You know, I may have skimmed over quite a bit of this article, but from what I am seeing it is biased. "A man who doesn't want to divorce shouldn't marry a promiscuous woman.." where is the other side of that coin? When I got married to my current husband, I could still count my sexual partners on one hand (still can, and I married 2 of the other ones, which ended up in divorce anyway), however, my husband has been the one that has been in the military, been around the world as a single man and could give me every conceivable story possible on his "sexcapades" but everyone calls that "he's sowing his wild oats" and SWEAR that once a guy has the chance to do that, he will calm down, become tame and be a one woman man....uh....I hate to disappoint, but that is NOT TRUE in any means of the word. But my issue is this...why is it ok for a man to "sow his wild nature" because some primal instinct tells him to spread his seed no matter what, even if it's a hole in the wall or a happy sock, and then he's ok, but a woman does that in her younger days and she's all of a sudden a bad idea to marry because she has had so many sexual partners? What happened to her sowing her wild oats? Are women not allowed to do that? But it's ok for a man to do it? I'm not getting it here....


----------



## Cosmos

Therealbrighteyes said:


> It's not just your mindset, it's the mindset of others. The first and last time I posted about this, the comments were: You must be fat, you must be ugly, you must be terrible in bed, he's cheating and you're too dumb to figure it out and you're 40 years old.....what do you expect. Not surprising, those exact same people never gave that kind of criticism towards men with sexless wives.


And this is why it's so difficult to talk about, isn't it? I'm only doing so here because I'm anonymous!

I was a slim (106lbs), 5'4" attractive young woman who worked out daily and took great pride in my clothes and appearance. I loved sex and, given the opportunity, would've been _highly_ adventurous.

Perhaps the "cold fish" in bed is more prevalent amongst women (I really don't know), but man or woman - my heart goes out to anyone faced with this sort of scenario.


----------



## Caribbean Man

swetecynamome said:


> This could have happened to me, CM. My Asperger's boyfriend was rushing me along commitment-wise so fast there may very well have been something to hide. I was a little stand-offishy at first, then got into it, then realized dating-wise we weren't able to hold it together. I was keeping him pretty far away from my life before I knew him better and he had talks with me about major commitment pretty early on. hmmmm.....


Sorry you fall into that of victims.
I think the best thing is to talk to a partner before marriage to find exactly where they stand on sexual issues.
But even though a person has that disposition and wants to decieve, they would have sex and then when they are married, simply stop having sex for whatever reasons.

My wife and I didn't have sex, but she was always a very touchy, kissy, feely , huggy kind of person.
[Thank goodness she's still that way with me today.]
She always talked about sex and lovemaking. We even talked about positions etc. Sometimes we did phone sex if we didn't see each other because of my job.
I knew she was a very sexual person, even though she wanted to remain a virgin till marriage.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Cosmos said:


> And this is why it's so difficult to talk about, isn't it? I'm only doing so here because I'm anonymous!
> 
> .


For me, it's been easier to talk about in real life. 

Sent you a PM.


----------



## FalconKing

anony2 said:


> My point is it is just as viable to say that about masturbation as it is to say that women whom have sex before marriage do not value marriage or sex. I mean, if we are going to make assumptions and ride down those slippery slopes of fallacy, we might as well go all the way and not just part way.


I see where you are coming from but this is where I stand on that. A woman who masturbates but doesnt do casual sex is something I would be attracted to. It would tell me that she has a high drive and rather than meet a man and have them use each other for sex, she'd please herself. She wouldn't be looking for someone to only get her off. In her periods of singlehood she wouldnt be seeking men just to have sex with. She just does her thing and when she has a need she takes care of it herself. Thats a value thing I relate to, appreciate and respect. Someone who's comfortable with her sexuality but is not intimate with a man unless they are emotionally invested with each other. That's exactly what I want.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Goldmember357

damiana879 said:


> You know, I may have skimmed over quite a bit of this article, but from what I am seeing it is biased. "A man who doesn't want to divorce shouldn't marry a promiscuous woman.." where is the other side of that coin? When I got married to my current husband, I could still count my sexual partners on one hand (still can, and I married 2 of the other ones, which ended up in divorce anyway), however, my husband has been the one that has been in the military, been around the world as a single man and could give me every conceivable story possible on his "sexcapades" but everyone calls that "he's sowing his wild oats" and SWEAR that once a guy has the chance to do that, he will calm down, become tame and be a one woman man....uh....I hate to disappoint, but that is NOT TRUE in any means of the word. But my issue is this...why is it ok for a man to "sow his wild nature" because some primal instinct tells him to spread his seed no matter what, even if it's a hole in the wall or a happy sock, and then he's ok, but a woman does that in her younger days and she's all of a sudden a bad idea to marry because she has had so many sexual partners? What happened to her sowing her wild oats? Are women not allowed to do that? But it's ok for a man to do it? I'm not getting it here....


Read whole thread. I say that I should of edited/remove somethings in addition i further elaborate on my main point which is that people should marry those who have similar "morals". 

I also say that its fine for women to have sex, but that the double standard of male vs female promiscuity is not going away anytime soon and its unfair but understandable. 



I really should of renamed the thread. I was mostly trying to tell "nice guys" who get cheated on that its best they avoid narcissistic, damaged, selfish, ex party girls because in my experience those women cheat the most. Also same goes for women avoid the damaged, narcissistic, jealous, passive aggressive, ex party guys. Those guys often have a very raunchy past and often have cheated before.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

2ntnuf said:


> My point to that poster was that your answer seemed to back up the statement that it would be easier for a person who has had many partners to be *unfaithful* since they, as I believe you described in your case, do not like being vulnerable. I think you meant it is difficult for you to be close emotionally, so when that comes up for you, it is easier to run from the relationship. If I am wrong, I apologize. I am not saying that is what you do.


If you are meaning in reference to MY post.... I never said anything about ... unfaithfulness.... I was only saying in contrast to the Inexperienced Virgins (who might struggle with some repression /inhibitions / fear of Oral - plagued with "good girl" thinking ) ....that those on the other side ....they do NOT have those struggles..

Their struggle is more likely to be in the ...emotionally vulnerable sense...a fear of intimacy....you have to toughen yourself a little if you just want "Sex for Sex"... if you fell in







with every man you engaged with... it could be heartbreak after heartbreak after heartbreak...so you learn to not "get entangled emotionally"...if that is not what you want to do in that phase of your life. 

Both of these, obviously can be OVERCOME... as I clearly overcame every inhibition I ever had......and many other women who have had "sex for just sex" - also go on to Marry and remain Faithful to their husbands. 



> Originally Posted by* damiana879 *: however, my husband has been the one that has been in the military, been around the world as a single man and could give me every conceivable story possible on his "sexcapades" but everyone calls that "he's sowing his wild oats" and SWEAR that once a guy has the chance to do that, he will calm down, become tame and be a one woman man....uh....I hate to disappoint, but that is NOT TRUE in any means of the word.


 I was never one to believe this about a man with such a past, I would be extremely leery and feel such men need "Tested" ...by







- just like CB's wife did... made the former Playboy wait a whole YEAR -while they grew to know each other in all the ways that are needed in a healthy thriving relationship ..He passed the test of Love. :smthumbup:



> But my issue is this...why is it ok for a man to "sow his wild nature" because some primal instinct tells him to spread his seed no matter what, even if it's a hole in the wall or a happy sock, and then he's ok, but a woman does that in her younger days and she's all of a sudden a bad idea to marry because she has had so many sexual partners? What happened to her sowing her wild oats? Are women not allowed to do that? But it's ok for a man to do it? I'm not getting it here..


 Not everyone believes this is OK... My husband doesn't, nor does our 1st 3 sons. I feel those of *integrity* would not expect anything more from a woman that they do not expect from themselves...even judging themselves MORE harshly... every man can WHACK it in the meantime -when you get down to it.

And so can a woman buy plenty of toys... But it seems to me, when I hear this argument from women... it is more in the direction of not necessarily wanting to change MEN and their ways.... but for MEN to just accept this new Freedom with women. I have yet to read a post where women are clammering for men to be "putting out" less. 

Let's face it...the majority of women are more emotional & seek to win a man through sex... while men just want to get laid... 

This is never going to change. Men have 10- 50 times more *Testosterone *flowing through their bodies over women...this greatly affects their Needing to "get off" . That is just biology. I heard one poster say a young man would screw Jello if he could. Then I thought of that movie "American Pie"... everything they LOOK at is a possible "get off".


----------



## Cosmos

Goldmember357 said:


> I really should of renamed the thread. I was mostly trying to tell "nice guys" who get cheated on that its best they avoid narcissistic, damaged, selfish, ex party girls because in my experience those women cheat the most. Also same goes for women avoid the damaged, narcissistic, jealous, passive aggressive, ex party guys. Those guys often have a very raunchy past and often have cheated before.


I'm definitely one of those women who wouldn't go for a guy with an overly steamy past.

Whether we like it or not, there is a double standard, but it doesn't mean that we have to lower our own values and/or make allowances for it.


----------



## BrockLanders

16 pages all summed up:

"You can't turn a 'ho into a housewife"


----------



## anony2

FalconKing said:


> I see where you are coming from but this is where I stand on that. A woman who masturbates but doesnt do casual sex is something I would be attracted to. It would tell me that she has a high drive and rather than meet a man and have them use each other for sex, she'd please herself. She wouldn't be looking for someone to only get her off. In her periods of singlehood she wouldnt be seeking men just to have sex with. She just does her thing and when she has a need she takes care of it herself. Thats a value thing I relate to, appreciate and respect. Someone who's comfortable with her sexuality but is not intimate with a man unless they are emotionally invested with each other. That's exactly what I want.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is the problem with that though, all too many times there have been people that come on to TAM saying that their partner was willing to masturbate to porn, but has no interest in their partner sexually. So does this mean that these people are just "comfortable" with their own sexuality or does it mean that they have a problem with intimacy? 

Some people say that women who can have casual sex ARE comfortable with their own sexuality that they can be intimate with a man but not so emotionally invested that they expect marriage. If a man can do this, surely a woman can also...after all, both men and women are from EARTH.


----------



## anony2

BrockLanders said:


> 16 pages all summed up:
> 
> "You can't turn a 'ho into a housewife"




It seems to me that this is perpetuated by men who are petrified of a woman with a healthy sexual appetite. 

Who determines who is a 'ho' and who isn't? Is there a cut off line of the amount of partners that one can have? Does this same ideology also apply to men?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cosmos said:


> I'm definitely one of those women who wouldn't go for a guy with an overly steamy past.
> 
> *Whether we like it or not, there is a double standard*, but it doesn't mean that we have to lower our own values and/or make allowances for it.


Due to the nature of Attraction --this Double standard will NEVER die.....Why ...because the ACTIONS Of women themselves....FEED IT.... 

I will never forget a post by Costa200 -he is gone now.....but he had it nailed down in one of his posts... it pi$$ed the women off... but all of us see it every day... in the choices women make time after time after time after time. 

Women go for the HOT guys who BED many women, it seems the more they bed, the more they are wanted ...... some allure to win that BAD BOY going on in the female Psych... (now in my opinion, this is asinine.... people think I'm crazy for believing in Fairy Tales... I would be if I wanted one of those Jokers!)....

Also ....if the man is highly successful, has "Presence", can whine & dine her driving her around in his mercedes , taking her on lavish vacations.....you think these women give a hoot how many partners he had before.... ha ha ha ... it's not on their radar... they are thrilled to be in the presence of an Alpha.... 

Men are not attracted by those things.

Hell, the men who aren't bedding the chicks get ignored... so Please.... until women change what attracts them... men will continue to push up the ALPHA dog.. cause this is generally the ticket to being THE


----------



## anony2

SimplyAmorous said:


> Due to the nature of Attraction --this Double standard will NEVER die.....Why ...because the ACTIONS Of women themselves....FEED IT....
> 
> I will never forget a post by Costa200 -he is gone now.....but he had it nailed down in one of his posts... it pi$$ed the women off... but all of us see it every day... in the choices women make time after time after time after time.
> 
> Women go for the HOT guys who BED many women, it seems the more they bed, the more they are wanted ...... some allure to win that BAD BOY going on in the female Psych... (now in my opinion, this is asinine.... people think I'm crazy for believing in Fairy Tales... I would be if I wanted one of those Jokers!)....
> 
> Also ....if the man is highly successful, has "Presence", can whine & dine her driving her around in his mercedes , taking her on lavish vacations.....you think these women give a hoot how many partners he had before.... ha ha ha ... it's not on their radar... they are thrilled to be in the presence of an Alpha....
> 
> Men are not attracted by those things.
> 
> Hell, the men who aren't bedding the chicks get ignored... so Please.... until women change what attracts them... men will continue to push up the ALPHA dog.. cause this is generally the ticket to being THE


Men also go for the HOT woman that beds every man, EXCEPT he doesn't want to MARRY her, he just wants to have sex with her...so it is mostly MEN that perpetuate this double standard, not women. 

I know many women who have *married* what you would consider bad boys some have remained married, others have divorced.

The problem is that *some* men think that they can bed multiple women but still think that they should marry a virgin.

A good example of this would be how many names for women who sleep around compared to the names for men who sleep around.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

BrockLanders said:


> 16 pages all summed up:
> 
> "You can't turn a 'ho into a housewife"


According to this "study", a woman with any partners prior to marriage is a ho. You seem to agree with that which isn't shocking given that you are quoting a Ludacris song about what makes a good wife.


----------



## BrockLanders

anony2 said:


> It seems to me that this is perpetuated by men who are petrified of a woman with a healthy sexual appetite.
> 
> Who determines who is a 'ho' and who isn't? Is there a cut off line of the amount of partners that one can have? Does this same ideology also apply to men?


There are good biological reasons why women should be held to a different standard.

1. It's easier for women to get STDs than men.
2. Many of them affect them more than men (HSV, etc)
3. Men can't get pregnant

That being said I don't think anyone could come up with a "limit".


----------



## FalconKing

anony2 said:


> This is the problem with that though, all too many times there have been people that come on to TAM saying that their partner was willing to masturbate to porn, but has no interest in their partner sexually. So does this mean that these people are just "comfortable" with their own sexuality or does it mean that they have a problem with intimacy?
> 
> Some people say that women who can have casual sex ARE comfortable with their own sexuality that they can be intimate with a man but not so emotionally invested that they expect marriage. If a man can do this, surely a woman can also...after all, both men and women are from EARTH.


That can go both ways. Someone who can just have sex for sex can also have a problem investing emotionally. Maybe someone can be comfortable enough in their sexuality to just use another person to give them an orgasm, leave and never speak to that person again unless its to rendevous and repeat. I am not interested. And I personally dont think porn should have a place in a relationship. I think all that energy that was put into using porn to arouse you should now go towards your significant other. Of course its important for each to have an understanding of each other appetite. And please! I am not defending men who do casual sex! I understand that people are pointing to the double standard. But as I have said, I ,FalconKing, don't agree with casual sex in general. I have never said men get a pass and women do not. If so many women have a problem with the double standard then stop dating and marrying men who sleep with a sh!tload of women. Or if you do date a man who sleeps with a lot of women but wouldn't want a woman with a high number, accept it. If the double standard didn't bother you enough to end the relationship then leave it alone. I don't speak for all men and I can't be held accountable for what other men and people accept. Especially if I don't live my life like that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anony2

BrockLanders said:


> There are good biological reasons why women should be held to a different standard.
> 
> 1. It's easier for women to get STDs than men.
> 2. Many of them affect them more than men (HSV, etc)
> 3. Men can't get pregnant
> 
> That being said I don't think anyone could come up with a "limit".


1. Who do you think women get the STD's from? 
2. Again, who are they getting the STD's from?
3. MEN can get women pregnant, women do not do it on their own...


"Of overall chlamydia diagnoses reported in 2009, the rate of infection among women was almost three times higher than the rate among men: 592.2 cases per 100,000 population compared to a rate of 219.3 among men. This is thought to be due to the higher number of women screened for chlamydia. For gonorrhea, the rate among women was 105.5 (cases per 100,000 population) compared to a rate of 91.9 among men. The rate of primary and secondary stage syphilis was higher among men - 7.8 cases (per 100,000) were reported for men in 2009, compared to 1.4 for women."

STDs in America


----------



## BrockLanders

Therealbrighteyes said:


> According to this "study", a woman with any partners prior to marriage is a ho. You seem to agree with that which isn't shocking given that you are quoting a Ludacris song about what makes a good wife.


Do you disagree with his methodology or the study he cited? Do you think that your ad hominem rebuttal repudiates the OP's findings?


----------



## norajane

> But as I have said, I ,FalconKing, don't agree with casual sex in general.


What is casual sex, though? I've never really been into the idea of ONS's, but I certainly have had my share of short term relationships that started out just fine and with promise for something great, and that included sex at some point in the relationship. But after a while, we realized that we weren't right for each other and ended things. 

It was never my intention to have sex with more than one man, really, but things turned out differently. Yes, I suppose I could have remained a virgin, but sex is important to me and sexual compatibility is a big factor in choosing who to marry.

So, I don't see casual sex as a simile for ho or anything else.


----------



## BrockLanders

anony2 said:


> 1. Who do you think women get the STD's from?
> 2. Again, who are they getting the STD's from?
> 3. MEN can get women pregnant, women do not do it on their own...
> 
> 
> "Of overall chlamydia diagnoses reported in 2009, the rate of infection among women was almost three times higher than the rate among men: 592.2 cases per 100,000 population compared to a rate of 219.3 among men. This is thought to be due to the higher number of women screened for chlamydia. For gonorrhea, the rate among women was 105.5 (cases per 100,000 population) compared to a rate of 91.9 among men. The rate of primary and secondary stage syphilis was higher among men - 7.8 cases (per 100,000) were reported for men in 2009, compared to 1.4 for women."
> 
> STDs in America


Why are you acting as if this were a zero-sum game? This is not men vs women and no one receives a prize in the end. It's about simple logic and data. It behooves a woman to be more careful in choosing (and limiting) her partners because it's easier for her to get an STD than a man (a vagina is much bigger than a pee-hole, it's really that simple). 

A man is not stuck with a baby from a one night stand with a woman he doesn't know. If a man gets HSV it will not give him cancer. A man is not likely to get HIV from a woman.


----------



## norajane

BrockLanders said:


> A man is not stuck with a baby from a one night stand with a woman he doesn't know.


Oh, really? Ask all the guys who are pissed off that women get to choose if they have the baby and then men are forced to pay child support and be fathers.


----------



## anony2

BrockLanders said:


> Why are you acting as if this were a zero-sum game? This is not men vs women and no one receives a prize in the end. It's about simple logic and data. It behooves a woman to be more careful in choosing (and limiting) her partners because it's *easier for her to get an STD* than a man (a vagina is much bigger than a pee-hole, it's really that simple).
> 
> A man is not *stuck* with a baby from a one night stand with a woman he doesn't know. If a man gets HSV it will not give him cancer. A man is not likely to get HIV from a woman.


I thought you were acting as if it were some zero-sum game actually. I know it isn't men vs women. It is SOME men thinking that women are HO's because they are promiscuous and thus would not make a good housewife. 

A woman isn't stuck with a baby either, there is such a thing as birth control and most consenting adults that have casual sex use it. 

You keep missing the point that if a woman is getting an STD she is getting it from the MAN that she sleeps with....


----------



## anony2

FalconKing said:


> That can go both ways. Someone who can just have sex for sex can also have a problem investing emotionally. Maybe someone can be comfortable enough in their sexuality to just use another person to give them an orgasm, leave and never speak to that person again unless its to rendevous and repeat. I am not interested. And I personally dont think porn should have a place in a relationship. I think all that energy that was put into using porn to arouse you should now go towards your significant other. Of course its important for each to have an understanding of each other appetite. And please! I am not defending men who do casual sex! I understand that people are pointing to the double standard. But as I have said, I ,FalconKing, don't agree with casual sex in general. I have never said men get a pass and women do not. *If so many women have a problem with the double standard then stop dating and marrying men who sleep with a sh!tload of women.* Or if you do date a man who sleeps with a lot of women but wouldn't want a woman with a high number, accept it. If the double standard didn't bother you enough to end the relationship then leave it alone. I don't speak for all men and I can't be held accountable for what other men and people accept. Especially if I don't live my life like that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That is my point, it CAN go both ways so as Kathy said, correlation is not causation. 

The double standard is NOT the women's side, it is on the MEN'S side whom want to have sex with many women, but will only marry a virgin. Most women do not care if the man is a virgin or not....but that may be because society says it is okay if men have casual sex, but then call the women that those men have sex with HO's.


----------



## BrockLanders

norajane said:


> Oh, really? Ask all the guys who are pissed off that women get to choose if they have the baby and then men are forced to pay child support and be fathers.


Please pay attention to my wording. How can you seek child support from someone you can't find?


----------



## BrockLanders

anony2 said:


> I thought you were acting as if it were some zero-sum game actually. I know it isn't men vs women. It is SOME men thinking that women are HO's because they are promiscuous and thus would not make a good housewife.
> 
> A woman isn't stuck with a baby either, there is such a thing as birth control and most consenting adults that have casual sex use it.
> 
> You keep missing the point that if a woman is getting an STD she is getting it from the MAN that she sleeps with....


What does the source of the STD matter? The point is that it could have been prevented from not having sex with that man. I don't think virgin marriages are practical or even a good idea in our society, but individuals should have some limits on their behavior.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

BrockLanders said:


> Do you disagree with his methodology or the study he cited? Do you think that your ad hominem rebuttal repudiates the OP's findings?


Yes, entirely. For one, he left out 4 other key components to determine odds of divorce from the study. They are: age at the time of marriage, income, education level and co-habitation prior to marriage. I'd like to know why he left those out. 

As for the study itself, it is questionable at best. It was paid for by The Heritage Foundation which is an ultra conservative think tank that promotes traditional values among other things. The actual data, controls and other variables have never been released despite requests from several noted sociologists. Legitimate studies provide this. 
Something to think about when reading "studies" that have been paid for by those with an agenda, take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## anony2

BrockLanders said:


> What does the source of the STD matter? The point is that it could have been prevented from not having sex with that man. I don't think virgin marriages are practical or even a good idea in our society, but individuals should have some limits on their behavior.


If there was no MAN for the woman to have sex with, she would not get STD's, which is why the source of the STD is important. 

EACH person sets their own limit.


----------



## FalconKing

norajane said:


> What is casual sex, though? I've never really been into the idea of ONS's, but I certainly have had my share of short term relationships that started out just fine and with promise for something great, and that included sex at some point in the relationship. But after a while, we realized that we weren't right for each other and ended things.
> 
> It was never my intention to have sex with more than one man, really, but things turned out differently. Yes, I suppose I could have remained a virgin, but sex is important to me and sexual compatibility is a big factor in choosing who to marry.
> 
> So, I don't see casual sex as a simile for ho or anything else.


I dunno...... I mean I've tried to say its not really my thing. Even in my post where you got that quote from I said I don't give men a pass. But you think I'm trying to call a woman a ho? That's what you got from me typing all of that on a IPhone? ....sigh... 

To me casual sex is something you do often with different people with varying degrees of emotional investment or lack thereof. Apply it to your situation. If you find that your relationships escalate to sex very quickly perhaps sex is something independent of you getting to know someone. MY interpretation of that would be that perhaps you don't mind casual sex. But if you are a one man woman then maybe you just have a string of short lived romances. I personally would be worried that you are never truly single. But hey! That is your right. It's values. Not who is better than whom. You can do whatever you want and most obviously you are not short on admirers. 

Is there anyway I can say what I want and point out that everybody has a right to what they want, without someone becoming insulted? Maybe every woman wants me to like them! Oh no not again! Brb. I have to meditate because my ego has expanded again and engulfed everything in a 10 mile radius.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BrockLanders

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes, entirely. For one, he left out 4 other key components to determine odds of divorce from the study. They are: age at the time of marriage, income, education level and co-habitation prior to marriage. I'd like to know why he left those out.
> 
> As for the study itself, it is questionable at best. It was paid for by The Heritage Foundation which is an ultra conservative think tank that promotes traditional values among other things. The actual data, controls and other variables have never been released despite requests from several noted sociologists. Legitimate studies provide this.
> Something to think about when reading "studies" that have been paid for by those with an agenda, take it with a grain of salt.


Thank you!


----------



## inarut

anony2 said:


> It seems to me that this is perpetuated by men who are petrified of a woman with a healthy sexual appetite.
> 
> Who determines who is a 'ho' and who isn't? Is there a cut off line of the amount of partners that one can have? Does this same ideology also apply to men?


I make no judgements about anyones sexual activity I will say that first. I just want to point out that it would be a mistake to assume women who arent interested in casual sex for whatever reason do not have healthy sexual appetites. They can love sex as much as anyone and be high drive as well.


----------



## anony2

inarut said:


> I make no judgements about anyones sexual activity I will say that first. I just want to point out that it would be a mistake to assume women who arent interested in casual sex for whatever reason do not have healthy sexual appetites. They can love sex as much as anyone and be high drive as well.


I totally agree.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

anony2 said:


> The problem is that some men think that they can bed multiple women but still think that they should marry a virgin.


 1st of all, I don't think there is many men seeking virgins, they are more looking for what Falcon King describes.... a woman who attaches the emotional in Sex...similar to the "Romantic View" ( 6 sexual views described HERE )



> *Romantic View*
> Sex should be reserved for those who are deeply in love with the strings of emotional attachment/commitment. Loveless sex is not appropriate, People should be sexually faithful as long as love lasts.
> 
> The romantic view emphasizes interpersonal intimacy, but sees the duration of commitment as contingent. Commitment lasts for as long as romantic love lasts. But commitment is a must. A one-time encounter with a stranger may be consensual -but it would not be appropriate for those who hold the Romantic view.


I could be a smart a$$ here and say more women ought to follow MY wisdom & not accept these men, push them aside...Would that help? Their $$ would not tempt me... I deeply cared about the guys philandering...that's my choice... we all have our choices and preferences....

What does it matter, how many virgins do you know?... It's not like even the GOOD men have much of a pick these days... Frankly, I think it's very sad, and I don't see much incentive for men to even get married - being the climate of free lovin' sex offered everywhere they turn. 



> *Inarut said:* I just want to point out that it would be a mistake to assume women who aren't interested in casual sex for whatever reason do not have healthy sexual appetites. *They can love sex as much as anyone and be high drive as well*.










...I could write a book on how much I LOVE Sex [email protected]#$%^&* I bet few women on this site has as many sex books on their shelf as I- no sweeter subject under the sun. I've been boy crazy since I was probably 10 yrs old... I wanted to marry younger - likely cause I loved the Idea of Sex & Pleasure so much, it was surely a part of it.


----------



## FalconKing

anony2 said:


> That is my point, it CAN go both ways so as Kathy said, correlation is not causation.
> 
> The double standard is NOT the women's side, it is on the MEN'S side whom want to have sex with many women, but will only marry a virgin. Most women do not care if the man is a virgin or not....but that may be because society says it is okay if men have casual sex, but then call the women that those men have sex with HO's.


I see. Point made. You know in the courting phase of the relationship it's generally expected for men to wine and dine the women. Some women don't like that because they don't feel it's fair. And some men don't like it because a lot of women equate that to love and that's expensive love. I hate it. I hate that some women expect to be given a prize for giving me their attention. So I avoid this kind of woman. This could change but I doubt it because so many women benefit from this and like this arrangement. It's a double standard. But one society accepts. I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though some things are unfair about what is acceptable for a gender to do to each other the best we can do is not have it. IMO. That way when we see it and become frustrated by it we can take solice in the fact that we don't have that foolishness in our relationship. Otherwise we can exhaust ourselves calling foul on how men and women treat each other and try not to let push your buttons. If you take 4 dudes and talk to them a bout your past. If 2 out of 4 of them are not judgemental would you appreciate that? I think most would just argue and fight with the ones that were judgemental. And probably ignore the one's they "won over" until they wanted support in their conflict.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anony2

SimplyAmorous said:


> 1st of all, I don't think there is many men seeking virgins, they are more looking for what Falcon King describes.... a woman who attaches the emotional in Sex...similar to the "Romantic View" ( 6 sexual views described HERE )
> 
> 
> 
> I could be a smart a$$ here and say more women ought to follow MY wisdom & not accept these men, push them aside...Would that help? Their $$ would not tempt me... I deeply cared about the guys philandering...that's my choice... we all have our choices and preferences....
> 
> What does it matter, how many virgins do you know?...* It's not like even the GOOD men have much of a pick these days*... Frankly, I think it's very sad, and I don't see much incentive for men to even get married - being the climate of free lovin' sex offered everywhere they turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I could write a book on how much I LOVE Sex [email protected]#$%^&* I bet few women on this site has as many sex books on their shelf as I- no sweeter subject under the sun. I've been boy crazy since I was probably 10 yrs old... I wanted to marry younger - likely cause I loved the Idea of Sex & Pleasure so much, it was surely a part of it.


Well, they aren't seeking women with sexual experience either...so who are these men seeking? I knew a LOT of virgins when I was younger and *men* were always after them to have sex. I didn't know ANY virgin men when I was younger or at least, none that admitted to it and the women were NOT chasing them to have sex...why is that? 

In my 45+ years on this earth, I have heard COUNTLESS men say that they could not take a "ho" home to mommy, but I have NEVER heard a woman say that she couldn't take a "bad boy" home to daddy. 

Why is it always overlooked that these women that are being promiscuous are being promiscuous WITH MEN who are also being promiscuous? Why are there no studies on men who were promiscuous and how they do not make good husbands? 

Think of it this way...how would some of you like it if I posted a study on the amount of Christian divorces and a study on how many husbands/wives cheat on their spouses and correlate the two and determine that since there is correlation that Christianity CAUSES cheating/divorces therefore avoid Christians if you want to avoid divorces/cheating spouses? 

Why put people in a box and label it when there are MANY cases coming to TAM daily that show similar AND different patterns?

Also, what makes you think that a woman that has had promiscuous sex CANNOT have the romantic view of sex? Maybe that is what they were searching for but could not find in the MEN that they were having promiscuous sex with...

The "GOOD" women do not have much pick these days either...being as so many men think it is okay for them to be promiscuous with women then call her names like HO...


----------



## anony2

FalconKing said:


> I see. Point made. You know in the courting phase of the relationship it's generally expected for men to wine and dine the women. Some women don't like that because they don't feel it's fair. And some men don't like it because a lot of women equate that to love and that's expensive love. I hate it. I hate that some women expect to be given a prize for giving me their attention. So I avoid this kind of woman. This could change but I doubt it because so many women benefit from this and like this arrangement. It's a double standard. But one society accepts. I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though some things are unfair about what is acceptable for a gender to do to each other the best we can do is not have it. IMO. That way when we see it and become frustrated by it we can take solice in the fact that we don't have that foolishness in our relationship. Otherwise we can exhaust ourselves calling foul on how men and women treat each other and try not to let push your buttons. If you take 4 dudes and* talk to them a bout your past. If 2 out of 4 of them are not judgemental would you appreciate that? I think most would just argue and fight with the ones that were judgemental. And probably ignore the one's they "won over" until they wanted support in their conflict.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But yet....here the opening post is judgmental on what is deemed promiscuous WOMEN. 

I don't know how much simpler this can be...but it is just like the whole argument about Gay Marriage....if you do not want a promiscuous woman/man...then don't get one. 

No one is forcing men to go with promiscuous women... So why is there a weekly post about this?


----------



## damiana879

I just think that whether a woman cheats on a man or not is not dependent on her past as a "promiscuous" woman. Nor do I think that a man's past affects his decision to cheat or not cheat on a woman...they had an interesting discussion one day on the radio about "Women that men want to take home to mom" and in the discussion, it was stated that a man doesn't want to take a woman home that is "wild" in the bedroom. They prefer a wholesome girl, but then they go out and cheat on her with the wild one they didn't want to take home, and they complain that the wholesome girl is too "vanilla" in the bedroom. Maybe I'm just damaged because I'm the wild one that has the healthy sexual appetite but I focus it on one man, but even then, I have been told the same thing that I'm too wild and he thinks I would do something like cheat on him because my appetite is so healthy (Uh...does THIS phrase sound off??? "I should have NEVER told my friends I was going to marry a nympho when I got older...but be careful when you get what you wish for..") and I have never been unfaithful to him, but because I'm always chasing him for a bit of physical action, I must be the promiscuous cheating wife....so maybe I am a bit jaded about saying a woman who has a healthy appetite for sex is not a good kind of woman to marry because unless it's an addiction, I believe anyone can control their urges, no matter what their past presents.  Anyway, I hope everyone has a good day.


----------



## inarut

anony2 said:


> Well, they aren't seeking women with sexual experience either...so who are these men seeking? I knew a LOT of virgins when I was younger and *men* were always after them to have sex. I didn't know ANY virgin men when I was younger or at least, none that admitted to it and the women were NOT chasing them to have sex...why is that?
> 
> In my 45+ years on this earth, I have heard COUNTLESS men say that they could not take a "ho" home to mommy, but I have NEVER heard a woman say that she couldn't take a "bad boy" home to daddy.
> 
> Why is it always overlooked that these women that are being promiscuous are being promiscuous WITH MEN who are also being promiscuous? Why are there no studies on men who were promiscuous and how they do not make good husbands?
> 
> Think of it this way...how would some of you like it if I posted a study on the amount of Christian divorces and a study on how many husbands/wives cheat on their spouses and correlate the two and determine that since there is correlation that Christianity CAUSES cheating/divorces therefore avoid Christians if you want to avoid divorces/cheating spouses?
> 
> Why put people in a box and label it when there are MANY cases coming to TAM daily that show similar AND different patterns?
> 
> Also, what makes you think that a woman that has had promiscuous sex CANNOT have the romantic view of sex? Maybe that is what they were searching for but could not find in the MEN that they were having promiscuous sex with...
> 
> The "GOOD" women do not have much pick these days either...


Sexual experience doesnt necessarily equate to the number of partners a person has. I think the majority on this forum are married, divorced even remmarried. Nobody in their right mind as an adult expects a virgin. Yes, a double standard exists and it is not fair and wrong to make blanket statements about who will or wont make a good wife based soley on their previous number of partners. Nobody should be boxed and labeled based on one aspect. There is more to a man and a woman than his or her "number"


----------



## Jasel

> Well, they aren't seeking women with sexual experience either...so who are these men seeking? I knew a LOT of virgins when I was younger and *men* were always after them to have sex. I didn't know ANY virgin men when I was younger or at least, none that admitted to it and the women were NOT chasing them to have sex...why is that?


Men were after them to have sex. Not necessarily marry. I've never heard of a man over the age of 23, from Western Civilization anyway, who have said they want to settle down with or marry a virgin unless they're extremely religious. Or granted just extremely insecure but 9.5/10 it's the former. And men are a hell of a lot more interested in nailing virgins in their teenage years and _maybe _early 20s. Most grow out of that by the mid 20s. Either because they don't care anymore or it's a completely unrealistic expectation in today's world.



> In my 45+ years on this earth, I have heard COUNTLESS men say that they could not take a "ho" home to mommy, but I have NEVER heard a woman say that she couldn't take a "bad boy" home to daddy.


It's "You can't turn a "ho" into a housewife." Not the same thing. I've noticed women are more open to hope that a man will "change" or think they can "change him" from his bad boy/promiscious ways. Or that he'll "settle down" once he's actually married or has kids with her. 

Men generally are not under this illusion when it comes to women. Men are not interested in "changing" women for the better or waiting for them to change into someone who syncs up with their expectations and desires.



> Why is it always overlooked that these women that are being promiscuous are being promiscuous WITH MEN who are also being promiscuous? Why are there no studies on men who were promiscuous and how they do not make good husbands?


Because it's double standard. And?? A man can be promiscious and it's not going to look nearly as bad societal wise. Just like a woman can live with her parents in her 30s and it's not going to look nearly as bad as a man in the same situation. A man who cries because he's stressed out is going to be seen as weak and pathetic, a woman who does the same thing for the same reason? More likely to get sympathy and a shoulder to cry on. Life is filled with plenty of these double standards. Many (not saying most) of which that work in favor of women which they have absolutely no complaints about.



> Think of it this way...how would some of you like it if I posted a study on the amount of Christian divorces and a study on how many husbands/wives cheat on their spouses and correlate the two and determine that since there is correlation that Christianity CAUSES cheating/divorces therefore avoid Christians if you want to avoid divorces/cheating spouses?
> 
> Why put people in a box and label it when there are MANY cases coming to TAM daily that show similar AND different patterns?


Correlation does not equal causation. Pretty much everyone familiar with the concept knows this. Studies show that children of divorce are far more likely to be divorced themselves. Does that mean all are? Obviously not. Studies show children of child abuse are far more likely to be promiscuous and unfaithful in relationships. Does that mean all are? Obviously not.

Anyone who reads this study and takes from it "All promiscuous women are not marriage material and never can be, and you'll have a successful marriage if you avoid a promiscous woman and marry one more suited to the married life or a less freewheeling lifestyle" has a good chance of being dissapointed no doubt about it. That doesn't mean the correlation is in itself completely without merit just because individuals feel it doesn't pertain to themselves, paints with a broad brush, or just "isn't fair".


----------



## FalconKing

anony2 said:


> But yet....here the opening post is judgmental on what is deemed promiscuous WOMEN.
> 
> I don't know how much simpler this can be...but it is just like the whole argument about Gay Marriage....if you do not want a promiscuous woman/man...then don't get one.
> 
> No one is forcing men to go with promiscuous women... So why is there a weekly post about this?


Because people are often disillusioned. Because I guess he's a man that's seen a lot of women hurt men. So he's trying to warn men but it flamed women. I read post all the time that flame men but is to protect women. Some posters here feel that all the problems in a marriage start and end with the man and offer no help if a man discusses how he is mistreated by his wife. I just take into account that it's probably a bitter woman who doesn't trust men. No skin off my back. I just don't like people asking me to defend double standards. That's not my fight.

People glorify and romanticize obviously unhealthy relationships that limp along. Then when it finally decimates they look at all the flaws because their love goggles broke. So then they have to let others know not to do what they did. The personal is what people like them can relate to. The general is what offends everybody else, I suppose.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anony2

Jasel said:


> Men were after them to have sex. Not necessarily marry. I've never heard of a man over the age of 23, from Western Civilization anyway, who have said they want to settle down with or marry a virgin unless they're extremely religious. Or granted just extremely insecure but 9.5/10 it's the former. And men are a hell of a lot more interested in nailing virgins in their teenage years and _maybe _early 20s. Most grow out of that by the mid 20s. Either because they don't care anymore or it's a completely unrealistic expectation in today's world.
> 
> 
> 
> It's "You can't turn a "ho" into a housewife." Not the same thing. I've noticed women are more open to hope that a man will "change" or think they can "change him" from his bad boy/promiscious ways. Or that he'll "settle down" once he's actually married or has kids with her.
> 
> Men generally are not under this illusion when it comes to women. Men are not interested in "changing" women for the better or waiting for them to change into someone who syncs up with their expectations and desires.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's double standard. And?? A man can be promiscious and it's not going to look nearly as bad societal wise. Just like a woman can live with her parents in her 30s and it's not going to look nearly as bad as a man in the same situation. A man who cries because he's stressed out is going to be seen as weak and pathetic, a woman who does the same thing for the same reason? More likely to get sympathy and a shoulder to cry on. Life is filled with plenty of these double standards. Many (not saying most) of which that work in favor of women which they have absolutely no complaints about.
> 
> 
> 
> *Correlation does not equal causation*. Pretty much everyone familiar with the concept knows this. Studies show that children of divorce are far more likely to be divorced themselves. Does that mean all are? Obviously not. Studies show children of child abuse are far more likely to be promiscuous and unfaithful in relationships. Does that mean all are? Obviously not.
> 
> Anyone who reads this study and takes from it "All promiscuous women are not marriage material and never can be, and you'll have a successful marriage if you avoid a promiscous woman and marry one more suited to the married life or a less freewheeling lifestyle" has a good chance of being dissapointed no doubt about it. That doesn't mean the correlation is in itself completely without merit just because individuals feel it doesn't pertain to themselves, paints with a broad brush, or just "isn't fair".


I agree, correlation does not mean causation, which is what I agreed with Kathy about. 

Studies also show that women (and men) who were molested as *children *are more likely to be promiscuous. There must have been a reason why some full grown men molesti children.... :scratchhead:


----------



## Caribbean Man

swetecynamome said:


> "What seems so natural" is complicated because people are complicated. But still the world and people are interesting to me. That's why I'm a writer. I'm happy for your good marriage. Blessings.


Thanks for sharing your experience. Surprising you don't sound bitter, and you decided to put your energy into something positive,
Writing.
I wish you best of luck in your life's journey and hope you meet someone who loves and really appreciate what you have to offer!
The world is full of selfish, greedy people who take all you have to offer and give you only hurt and pain in return.
Women are vulnerable in many ways.
Yes people are complicated, but still , 
".._with all its sham ,drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world_..."

Thanks for your blessings on our marriage and I wish you the best in your endeavours, whatever they may be.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Quite a lot of women are making the same mistake regarding men and the double standard that exists with regard to promiscuity and sex.
Men view sex differently.
It can be explained this way.

Place 10 women ranging from hottie to just plain in a bar seated together.
Send in one hot guy to approach them and without any introduction or any pleasantries , just say that he wants a woman to fcuk.
Most likely no woman would take up his offer. In fact, they would probably douse him and his ego with their drinks.

Place 10 guys ranging from good looking and fit to beer belly and slob and turn the tables. Hot woman walks in , approaches them and says she wants to fcuk , now.
Those guys would start to fight amongst themselves even if she assures them that she's willing to have sex with all of them at the same time.

It is way easier for a woman to get sex than a man. Women can afford to be picky,and generally are. She would get hit on 100 times more than the average good looking guy.
Hence the perceived " double standard."


----------



## SimplyAmorous

anony2 said:


> In my 45+ years on this earth, I have heard COUNTLESS men say that they could not take a "ho" home to mommy, *but I have NEVER heard a woman say that she couldn't take a "bad boy" home to daddy. *


 Well our daughter will know WE would not be pleased with her choosing to date this type.....She thinks the world of her Father and he was not one of those ....We can only do our best to Mentor her for her own welfare & future. 



> Why is it always overlooked that these women that are being promiscuous are being promiscuous WITH MEN who are also being promiscuous?


 Who is saying it is overlooked.... not by me [email protected]#$



> Think of it this way...how would some of you like it if I posted a study on the amount of Christian divorces and a study on how many husbands/wives cheat on their spouses and correlate the two and determine that since there is correlation that Christianity CAUSES cheating/divorces therefore avoid Christians if you want to avoid divorces/cheating spouses?


 There are plenty of Christian divorces and hiding of cheating, a label means nothing to me, it's the character of a person I look at - are they Honest? Can they admit their faults, what are their values... without this, why would I even want to get to know them. I wouldn't have a problem with any study, I'd give my opinion, as well as the next person, opinions are like A -holes, that is what they say. I just know what worked for me and my husband, so I speak. Just like anyone else here. 



> Why put people in a box and label it when there are MANY cases coming to TAM daily that show similar AND different patterns?


 Absolutely...who am I boxing...I've said on this thread that people can change their ways/ their views/ their beliefs... I just wouldn't choose to be with someone who enjoys & thinks nothing of sex without Love & commitment.. 



> Also, what makes you think that a woman that has had promiscuous sex CANNOT have the romantic view of sex?


 Because in that view, it is clearly UNACCEPTABLE to have promiscious sex, why do you feel the need to disagree with the heart of the view....which basically *Taints* the validity of it. *The Romantic view* does not require Marriage. But it DOES require emotion and commitment in the relationship... if your threshold is beyond this, you can not HOLD the Romantic view... you have now entered the "*Sex is just sex*" view . 

Listen...according to those 6 views given & explained (on my thread)... the Woman who wrote that book has taught Sexology for 20 yrs in College, I think she knows what the hell she is talking about.... more than Me.... more than you. Sure people who have sex "just to have sex" can fall in love and be committed, I am NOT saying they can't... 

But when they have kids... they will likely teach them -" Hey, daughter.. you are 16 now, lets get some birth control & you can enjoy sex with your boyfriends, its good, it's expressive, you need to see what you like, it's empowering", whatever... or would you teach your children to WAIT FOR LOVE , to not have sex unless, God forbid, if a pregnancy occurred, that Boy who stuck it in, loves her enough to marry her...and raise that baby. 



> Maybe that is what they were searching for but could not find in the MEN that they were having promiscuous sex with...


 I agree many *ARE* doing this ....but few has admitted it...Enjoliwoman is one >>>



EnjoliWoman said:


> My sexual history was the result of being naive and hopeful that guy of the moment was Mr. Right followed by marriage, and then hopeful again, a WTF period, back to a slower pace. But it doesn't make me wanton.





> *The "GOOD" women do not have much pick these days either.*..being as so many men think it is okay for them to be promiscuous with women then call her names like HO...


Couldn't agree with you more !!! Our family is raising some of those men... why it annoys me to no end when people put down these type.


----------



## Viseral

It would behoove women to know that pu$$y is like gold. It's the most valuable thing on earth.

Women got it, and men want it.

Thing is, if everybody has a piece of it, then it ain't that valuable now is it?

Eggs are valuable, sperm is cheap. 

The economics of sex.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> It's not just your mindset, it's the mindset of others. The first and last time I posted about this, the comments were: You must be fat, you must be ugly, you must be terrible in bed, he's cheating and you're too dumb to figure it out and you're 40 years old.....what do you expect. Not surprising, those exact same people never gave that kind of criticism towards men with sexless wives.


of curiosity; are those people posting in this thread?



BrockLanders said:


> A man is not stuck with a baby from a one night stand with a woman he doesn't know.


Neither is a woman.
1) Plan B.
2) Abortion.
3) child support.



anony2 said:


> You keep missing the point that if a woman is getting an STD she is getting it from the MAN that she sleeps with....


....and ergo, _that man has an STD!_ i.e. its in the mans favor not to be promiscuous too!



SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't see much incentive for men to even get married - being the climate of free lovin' sex offered everywhere they turn.


It's not the 'free sex' that's the disincentive for men to get married, its the 'having your soul torn from your body via your wallet' by some court systems in a divorce that you have at least a 50% chance of having if you do get married.



anony2 said:


> Studies also show that women (and men) who were molested as *children *are more likely to be promiscuous.


I think it might be that they dont want their most recent sexual experience to be with one that molested them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

FalconKing said:


> I see. Point made. You know in the courting phase of the relationship it's generally expected for men to wine and dine the women. Some women don't like that because they don't feel it's fair. And some men don't like it because a lot of women equate that to love and that's expensive love. I hate it. I hate that some women expect to be given a prize for giving me their attention. So I avoid this kind of woman.


 Even though I am old fashioned in many ways...If I found myself single again....I would NOT expect the guy to pay while getting to know each other... I would feel guilty if we didn't hit it off and I moved on from him. Until I felt we "had something", I would offer to pay my own way...but I'd be happy to let him take over - once I knew HE was who I wanted to be with ...and he felt the same. 



> *anonim said*: It's not the 'free sex' that's the disincentive for men to get married, its the 'having your soul torn from your body via your wallet' by some court systems in a divorce that you have at least a 50% chance of having if you do get married.


 I wouldn't give you any arguments on this....why ALL men & women need to be so very very very careful in who they marry....know this person inside out, take time, make sure they KNOW themselves inside out, never settle for dishonesty in any form... make damn sure you are compatible...in life dreams, understanding each others love languages, communication/ conflict resolution, finances...do you enjoy each others humor, accept each others's beliefs..... 








is just one part of it... though it is huge....I believe even though it is less than 10 % of a marriage...when a spouse is suffering.... it feels like 90%.


----------



## inarut

SimplyAmorous said:


> *Even though I am old fashioned in many ways...If I found myself single again....I would NOT expect the guy to pay while getting to know each other... I would feel guilty if we didn't hit it off and I moved on from him. Until I felt we "had something", I would offer to pay my own way...but I'd be happy to let him take over - once I knew HE was who I wanted to be with ...and he felt the same*.
> 
> I wouldn't give you any arguments on this....why ALL men & women need to be so very very very careful in who they marry....know this person inside out, take time, make sure they KNOW themselves inside out, never settle for dishonesty in any form... make damn sure you are compatible...in life dreams, understanding each others love languages, communication/ conflict resolution, finances...do you enjoy each others humor, accept each others's beliefs.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is just one part of it... though it is huge....I believe even though it is less than 10 % of a marriage...when a spouse is suffering.... it feels like 90%.


I feel the opposite...and yes it is a yet another double standard. I think a guy should "take over" when you first start dating. A woman should offer and be prepared to pay but a man should not take the offer. Once you are a couple then you equal out more or less in terms of spending.


----------



## KathyBatesel

Speaking only of heterosexual men and women... it takes one each. Scientists have noted that the societal beliefs about mens' "numbers" vs. "women's" numbers (the perception that men have sex more indiscriminately) is a fallacy. 

I linked an article I wrote that provides source information earlier in this thread. 

To me, this means when you line up ten ugly men and they fight over that one woman, one of them will get lucky. One of the women lined up will sneak back and thrust a napkin with her number on it into the man's pocket. Maybe several, but the same bottom line... two acts of intercourse still equal two acts of intercourse.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

inarut said:


> I feel the opposite...and yes it is a yet another double standard. I think a guy should "take over" when you first start to dating. Once you are a couple then you equal out more or less in terms of spending.


Well here is the thing.. I married the type of man who would INSIST on paying, cause that is HOW he is.. and honestly I







that about him. 

But putting him aside in a new singles market....I'd want to do everything I could to show this new guy....that I take responsibility for myself... (and I am not even a Feminist)

If he offered, I would allow him to pay...and think highly of him at that, and thank him... I just WOULD NOT FEEL RIGHT Expecting this - when we just met. 

And that could be awkward too, what if the man hooks up with a woman who is the type to take FULL ADVANTAGE of him... thinks $$ grows on trees...orders the highest priced dish on the menu, drink after drink... hell women can line men up and use a new one every night of the week with this set up....and never call one of them back! 

Really, if I have no clue if we'd hit it off, I seriously don't feel it is FAIR... I would be cheap date anyway, I'd be careful to NOT order something too expensive, probably get water to drink, hell, they would love me ! Then I'd want to talk sex... but I wouldn't give them any...they'd probably think I am F'd up at that point. ha ha.


----------



## inarut

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well here is the thing.. I married the type of man who would INSIST on paying, cause that is HOW he is.. and honestly I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that about him.
> 
> But putting him aside in a new singles market....I'd want to do everything I could to show this new guy....that I take responsibility for myself... (and I am not even a Feminist)
> 
> If he offered, I would allow him to pay...and think highly of him at that, and thank him... I just WOULD NOT FEEL RIGHT Expecting this - when we just met.
> 
> And that could be awkward too, *what if the man hooks up with a woman who is the type to take FULL ADVANTAGE of him... thinks $$ grows on trees...orders the highest priced dish on the menu, drink after drink... hell women can line men up and use a new one every night of the week with this set up....and never call one of them back! *
> Really, if I have no clue if we'd hit it off, I seriously don't feel it is FAIR... I would be cheap date anyway, I'd be careful to NOT order something too expensive, probably get water to drink, hell, they would love me ! Then I'd want to talk sex... but I wouldn't give them any...they'd probably think I am F'd up at that point. ha ha.


It is still expected that men pay when they initially start to date a woman. Im not saying its fair. Men have to take into account that there are women who will and do take advantage. It can be controlled, he plans the date, picks the place, etc. He shouldnt decide on something where he may end up spending more than he is willing. A man shouldnt go all out until he knows what kind of woman she is, if she is the type who will use him and and just take him for whatever she can get. Some women do have a false sense of entitlement. Women like this are not too hard to spot.


----------



## Wiltshireman

Quote:
In my 45+ years on this earth, I have heard COUNTLESS men say that they could not take a "ho" home to mommy, but I have NEVER heard a woman say that she couldn't take a "bad boy" home to daddy. 



I would hope all my children will be careful who that date / bring home. 
I will not hold them or their partners to any set standard I might have in mind but will continue to treat them as individuals.
However I hope my daughters will remember that this daddy has a shotgun and any “bad boy” who hurts either of my “baby girls” will be using it as a suppository.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Caribbean Man said:


> Quite a lot of women are making the same mistake regarding men and the double standard that exists with regard to promiscuity and sex.
> Men view sex differently.
> It can be explained this way.
> 
> Place 10 women ranging from hottie to just plain in a bar seated together.
> Send in one hot guy to approach them and without any introduction or any pleasantries , just say that he wants a woman to fcuk.
> Most likely no woman would take up his offer. In fact, they would probably douse him and his ego with their drinks.
> 
> *Place 10 guys ranging from good looking and fit to beer belly and slob and turn the tables. Hot woman walks in , approaches them and says she wants to fcuk , now.
> Those guys would start to fight amongst themselves even if she assures them that she's willing to have sex with all of them at the same time.*
> 
> It is way easier for a woman to get sex than a man. Women can afford to be picky,and generally are. She would get hit on 100 times more than the average good looking guy.
> Hence the perceived " double standard."


some caveats here:

1. I think some of those men will turn her down just simply because the sex was offered too easily. I think some men like a little game. Some men will already be satisfied enough that they can turn her down including those in committed relationships at that moment.

2. While there are some women who ask for no more than the back seat of a car or worse as the location, there are a lot of women who have higher standards.So while men may offer us sex, they don't always serve it up the way we want it and we are forced to turn it down.

also, a lot of women understand that just because we can get a 10 in the sack for an ONS, doesn't mean that we can get this 10 for an LTR.

I saw on another message board a woman admitted that she had 2 ads going at the same time. One looking for an LTR and another looking for a quickie. Concerning looks, financial status, etc. the 10 were answering her quickie ad. Only 7s were answering the ad looking for an LTR.

So if you look at it from the point of view of how wide the disconnect is between what we want and what we can get, we feel as equally disempowered as you men.

and think about this, how much more hugely embarassingit can be to a woman to offer him sex any which way and he still turns her down.


----------



## Viseral

Whether we realize it not, we are driven by the strong undercurrents of our biology.

Men are "polygamous" and compete with one another for the most physically attractive females. The most dominant males are alphas.

Women are "hypergamous" and select the most dominant, competitive alpha males for mating. Typically, these are men who can provide the most protection and resources.

When you combine the most physically attractive females with the most dominant men, you get the best babies.

This is nature. We are a part of nature. People can rationalize it all they want, but there's nothing rational about it. 

Our biological double standards aren't fair, but nature doesn't care. Nature just wants to make the best babies.


----------



## 2ntnuf

This below is a copy of a post SA made. She quoted me then commented.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ntnuf 
My point to that poster was that your answer seemed to back up the statement that it would be easier for a person who has had many partners to be unfaithful since they, as I believe you described in your case, do not like being vulnerable. I think you meant it is difficult for you to be close emotionally, so when that comes up for you, it is easier to run from the relationship. If I am wrong, I apologize. I am not saying that is what you do. 
If you are meaning in reference to MY post.... I never said anything about ... unfaithfulness.... I was only saying in contrast to the Inexperienced Virgins (who might struggle with some repression /inhibitions / fear of Oral - plagued with "good girl" thinking ) ....that those on the other side ....they do NOT have those struggles..

Their struggle is more likely to be in the ...emotionally vulnerable sense...a fear of intimacy....you have to toughen yourself a little if you just want "Sex for Sex"... if you fell in with every man you engaged with... it could be heartbreak after heartbreak after heartbreak...so you learn to not "get entangled emotionally"...if that is not what you want to do in that phase of your life. 

Both of these, obviously can be OVERCOME... as I clearly overcame every inhibition I ever had......and many other women who have had "sex for just sex" - also go on to Marry and remain Faithful to their husbands. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by damiana879 : however, my husband has been the one that has been in the military, been around the world as a single man and could give me every conceivable story possible on his "sexcapades" but everyone calls that "he's sowing his wild oats" and SWEAR that once a guy has the chance to do that, he will calm down, become tame and be a one woman man....uh....I hate to disappoint, but that is NOT TRUE in any means of the word.
I was never one to believe this about a man with such a past, I would be extremely leery and feel such men need "Tested" ...by - just like CB's wife did... made the former Playboy wait a whole YEAR -while they grew to know each other in all the ways that are needed in a healthy thriving relationship ..He passed the test of Love. 

Quote:
But my issue is this...why is it ok for a man to "sow his wild nature" because some primal instinct tells him to spread his seed no matter what, even if it's a hole in the wall or a happy sock, and then he's ok, but a woman does that in her younger days and she's all of a sudden a bad idea to marry because she has had so many sexual partners? What happened to her sowing her wild oats? Are women not allowed to do that? But it's ok for a man to do it? I'm not getting it here..
Not everyone believes this is OK... My husband doesn't, nor does our 1st 3 sons. I feel those of integrity would not expect anything more from a woman that they do not expect from themselves...even judging themselves MORE harshly... every man can WHACK it in the meantime -when you get down to it.

And so can a woman buy plenty of toys... But it seems to me, when I hear this argument from women... it is more in the direction of not necessarily wanting to change MEN and their ways.... but for MEN to just accept this new Freedom with women. I have yet to read a post where women are clammering for men to be "putting out" less. 

Let's face it...the majority of women are more emotional & seek to win a man through sex... while men just want to get laid... 

This is never going to change. Men have 10- 50 times more Testosterone flowing through their bodies over women...this greatly affects their Needing to "get off" . That is just biology. I heard one poster say a young man would screw Jello if he could. Then I thought of that movie "American Pie"... everything they LOOK at is a possible "get off".



______________________________________
This below is the whole quote I made which SA took part of to ask me a question.



Kathy, I haven't read this entire post yet. I will. My quote and response were not to you. I did not make that clear and I aplogize for that. I am looking for the post by another member which I was answering. I will be certain to make it more clear in the future.

My point to that poster was that your answer seemed to back up the statement that it would be easier for a person who has had many partners to be unfaithful since they, as I believe you described in your case, do not like being vulnerable. I think you meant it is difficult for you to be close emotionally, so when that comes up for you, it is easier to run from the relationship. If I am wrong, I apologize. I am not saying that is what you do. 

It was not my intention to hurt you or harm you in any way. 

I'm doing my best to piece this together for you. What I have between the lines is what I have found so far. There may be more.

_______________________________________

This is my response to your comments, SA.

First off, I want you to read the very first word in my reply above. Whose name is that? 

I am going to leave this like this. I want you to respond. I want to know if what you posted afterward is addressing me? I will come back and check. Give me an answer one way or another. Then, I will respond, if necessary.


----------



## Catherine602

I'd like to thnk that a successful marriage is the result of good choices but I am not convinced. 

I know some very good people who have made good choices, worked hard and love each other but the husband lost his job due to the financial downturn. That alone changed the dynamic and most of them are divorced. 

I am not sure if the wife was a virgin but i dont think the number of her partners played any role in the failure. Some are divorced due to the man cheating or domestic abuse or the man just walking away. 

The wife's sexual numbers may have made the men cheat, abuse or walk away. I point out the men only to explore the idea of marital discord being due to the virginity of the wife. I am having a hard time seeing it. 

Some good people marry the right or wrong people. I defy anyone to tell me how they knew they married the right person. I summit that you don't know a person until you live with them and get to see them in a viriety of situations. 

It would be nice to place the success or failure of marriage on the shoulders of women and obsolve men of any responsibility. It is too convenient and just a bit self-serving. It also follows an very old pattern that men follow. 

Throwing all fault at the feet of women. I think this virginal garbage is an attempt to punish the women for having sex that is not controlled by men. 

Stoning of female adulteress, Hester Prynne treatment, burning, hanging, and abandonment in the desert are no longer legal. The virginal thing seems benign enough to enforce. 

People in good marriages tend to feel that they have superior decernmant and those who are in bad marriages have a problem with their ability to pick well. I don't think that is true. 

I have a good marriage now. I certainly did not carefully pick my husband. I had no idea what to look for. I was very lucky and time will tell if my luck holds out. 

I had one sexual experience before marriage. I don't know my husbands number but it is more than one. I don't care what his number is I care about the person he is now and his committment to our family. 

Maybe he should have read these articles before he made the mistake of marrying a non-virgin. I guess time will tell if I will seek sex outside of marriage or divorce him. 

I never thought my marriage was doomed by my actions and my husband was the unlucky victim of my wontonness. 

You can't tell if your marriage will suceed for as long as you both want until after it has happened. A sizable proportion of the people in good marriages now may get divorced in the future. 

Just an aside - I believe in the power of prayer to help us live a good life. But I don't think that good things happen only to those who pray and bad things to those who don't. God makes the rain to fall on the good and the evil.


----------



## Bobby5000

I think there are some "confounding variables" If a woman had 5-10partners and was reasonably happy, I think marriage is fine. I would agree if someone has some serious psychological issues, and a large number of partners may indicate such issues, the marriage is probably less likely to be successful.


----------



## Flowers

Am really grateful to all of you for taking alot of your time to explain these things. They make a lot of sense, but you can also argue it this way - men are attracted by sight and as it is, most women who are promiscuous really know how to attract men by how they dress and even their body language. This leaves the "good girl" with very slim chance of ever getting hold of the few available men. Most men want a woman who can really please them in bed and have got little or no time to teach the naive ones.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

2ntnuf said:


> This is my response to your comments, SA.
> 
> First off, I want you to read the very first word in my reply above. Whose name is that?


 Not sure what you mean, the very 1st word is *This* and the very 1st name could be your name or "SA"... not sure how to read that. 

We are all just conversing here, throwing our personal experiences in the mix... why we may view things as we do...what has shaped and molded us..and how this plays out in our relationships....











What I get out of this thread is this... *Romantic* "One woman/ One man" types need to marry those of the same cloth/ beliefs.... what ever you do...don't settle for less -- if these are your deep feelings (as they were mine).









Those who want a Porn star in Bed & have no time to deal with the naive ...should seek "Experienced" Lovers who know how to Rock each other like a Hurricane ....just keep in mind....the Naive can grow in this as well (we were all virgins at one time)... 

A successful thriving marriage is built upon so much more than our sexual pasts.... it depends on the Foundation laid and LIVED...between 2







's ...... Compatibility in sexual views and SEX DRIVE is HUGE though...but it's so much more ...

Communication, how we resolve Conflict, honesty in all things...and forgiveness.. these are what holds a marriage .....


----------



## anony2

SimplyAmorous said:


> Communication, how we resolve Conflict, honesty in all things...and forgiveness.. these are what holds a marriage .....


And these things can be achieved by a married woman or a man that has been promiscuous in the past...

The key word there is PAST.  And everyone has one...your past does not make you any better or worse than anyone else. The choices that people made at one time in their lives does not mean that that is the sum total of their existence.


----------



## Cosmos

Flowers said:


> Am really grateful to all of you for taking alot of your time to explain these things. They make a lot of sense, but you can also argue it this way - men are attracted by sight and as it is, most women who are promiscuous really know how to attract men by how they dress and even their body language. This leaves the "good girl" with very slim chance of ever getting hold of the few available men. Most men want a woman who can really please them in bed and have got little or no time to teach the naive ones.


Actually, IME, it doesn't quite work that way. Sure, a promiscuous woman might be adept at attracting and getting to sleep with as many men as she wants, but men still like a challenge. I was a 'good' girl back in my day, and I was never lost for a date - nor was there a shortage of eligible men who wanted to stick around.

Promiscuous women tend to get to sleep with promiscuous men (but not always, of course), and promiscuous men don't tend to stick around long before moving on to the next conquest.


----------



## Jasel

Flowers said:


> Am really grateful to all of you for taking alot of your time to explain these things. They make a lot of sense, but you can also argue it this way - men are attracted by sight and as it is, most women who are promiscuous really know how to attract men by how they dress and even their body language. This leaves the "good girl" with very slim chance of ever getting hold of the few available men. Most men want a woman who can really please them in bed and have got little or no time to teach the naive ones.


"Attracting" a man and being able to keep a man, especially the kind you want for a LTR, are two very different things. A woman who gives up sex freely, easily, to pretty much whoever is going to have a harder time finding decent long term partners. If it's common or revealed knowledge anyway.

I know a woman like this now. Great looking girl (like Kim Kardashian in every way only slightly less attractive), late 20s about to hit 30, hits up the club/bar/dance scene every week, can get men pretty much at the drop of a hat, but even though she's been trying to find a man to put a ring on it for about the past couple of years now, even the decent ones she manages to get for a couple of months don't stick around when they figure out what she's been about.

The thing is there aren't that many "good girls" going around these days. Especially those in their 20s and early 30s.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Bobby5000 said:


> *I think there are some "confounding variables" *If a woman had 5-10partners and was reasonably happy, I think marriage is fine. I would agree if someone has some serious psychological issues, and a large number of partners may indicate such issues, the marriage is probably less likely to be successful.


There are so many variables that even trying to narrow things down to a number of partners may not be able to accurately predict anything, but there are existing patterns.
There would be some with high numbers who were able to have a successful marriage. Whether or not they are in the majority or minority is the crux of the matter.
Anecdotal evidence seem to suggest that they are in the minority.
From a cursory glance of long term moderately successful marriages here on TAM , one can see a pattern.

1] Both partners very little or no experience.
2]One partner low number and the other partner moderate.
3]One partner high number and the other very low or none.
4]Both partners being each other's " first" ,usually during teen years, having regular sex before marriage and stayed together , got married and still remain happily married. 

But there are unknowns and variables on either side of the equation that makes it difficult to make definitive statements. There are areas of overlap, and there exist no hard and fast rules, but there are definite patterns that point in a certain direction. 

We must understand that human beings are creatures of habit.

Value systems are learned. When we hold opposing values there is dissonance and rationalization.
This involves altering existing cognitions/ ideas ,adding new ones to create a more consistent belief system, or reducing the importance of any of the dissonant elements.

Here is a typical example of rationalizing promiscuity that went bad on TAM.

It can go in any direction , and therin lies the danger.
Sometimes as humans beings, we fool ourselves .We allow our minds to trick us.
Know what is real and valuable to you.
Reject what is not.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

anony2 said:


> And these things can be achieved by a married woman or a man that has been promiscuous in the past...


 Yes, of course. I could site a Great Love story for you... 

When I was a little girl, my Mothers best friend/ neighbor ...she had a reputation in her youth...known as the "Town wh***"....Brother In Law was telling her to not hang with her...but my mother LOVED her.......they laughed hysterically when they got together/ made cookies every christmas .....some of the best times of my mothers life...

Guess who this woman married....the Town Virgin... guess what type of marriage they had... solid as a ROCK! She was a feisty broad ~mouthy..she even scared me ......He was Laid back/ quiet, Big guy though.....they had a love & passion for horses... they built a horse Farm together... Compatible as could be...He died a few years back.. My mother told me she collapsed... He was everything to her... I was very touched by that... 

Then there was my mother & father...only been with each other....Marriage made in HELL..they fought all the time, I  when they divorced. No compatibility.


----------



## brokin4hymn

Just got out of a marriage with a really really nice, personable, generous, neat, practical, woman who was honest about her recent life of seducing countless men. 
Because she was honest upfront, and professed to have repented in Christ, I gave her a chance, while seeing many red flags. 
It was two years of absolute hell, with lying, manipulating, accusation, seducing men in my presence, even finding a hickey on her lower places, which she said was a bruise. Guys, if you sense inappropriate engagingly with other men, leave her and don't look back back. The torment will ruin you. it was through a 40 day fast, enough of a confession was given to divorce her, which she now denies.


----------



## NextTimeAround

brokin4hymn said:


> Just got out of a marriage with a really really nice, personable, generous, neat, practical, woman who was honest about her recent life of seducing countless men.
> *Because she was honest upfront, and professed to have repented in Christ, I gave her a chance, while seeing many red flags. *
> It was two years of absolute hell, with lying, manipulating, accusation, seducing men in my presence, even finding a hickey on her lower places, which she said was a bruise. Guys, if you sense inappropriate engagingly with other men, leave her and don't look back back. The torment will ruin you. it was through a 40 day fast, enough of a confession was given to divorce her, which she now denies.



I worry about stuff like this as well. Knowledge may give power, but it also bestows responsibility.

Did your ex wife use the excuse "but you knew I was like that" at any point?


----------

