# Wife's Sexual History



## couple

Women are having sex earlier, more casually, are getting married later and are generally more adventurous. Therefore, by the time they meet their life partner, they often have had a lot of sexual partners and have done a lot of wild things.

In order to deal with this, men are taught to live by the adage, "the past is the past" and "modern" men are supposed to realize that there should be no double standard - women love sex just like men. It's no big deal.

Many men, however, still have mixed feelings about their wife's sexual history. Some can't bear to think about it. For others, it's exciting. For most, it's a mix of bewilderment that our sweethearts could do such things, fantasy and a sprinkle of jealousy.

So what do you think about your wife's sexual history? What have you heard about that makes you uncomfortable? curious? intrigued?


----------



## Entropy3000

I have no problem with my wife's sexual history. I have reason to believe I know what it is completely. I knew it up front which is essential IMHO.

My stance on this is that men can choose a wife on any criteria they wish without any social stigma.

Our pasts are part of who we are. They tell us much about our character. Sure people evolve. 

If a partner has had a very large number of partners just how special are you after all.

It is telling about the type of sexual experiences. i.e. if they were all LTRs with commitment that did not involve cheating then fine. If they were 100 ONS that is telling. If she was cheater ...

And so on. If she can;t remember who she has had sex with, then that tells you a lot.

The key again is that the man can choose any way he wants. Compatible / comparable is fine. BUT there is nothing about fairness here. If a man wants to have a double standard he can if he so chooses.

Women have the children. A man is responsible for all births during his marriage. Whether they are his children or not.

It would be hard to gather information on cheating but that would tell much.


----------



## Lon

knowing that my wife had a good look around, got to taste some different cuisine then finally decided she wanted to go with me and make me her husband gave me my ego a huge boost... I am a forgiving person so whatever happened in the past stays in the past. I went into our marriage with so much confidence that it was meant to be and that it would survive anything life threw at us.

Unfortunately for me my easy forgiveness and view that people are genuinely good at heart blinded me from seeing a lot of patterns or pick up on the red flags that would rear up in our relationship. So even though her putting me above all those other boys by being my wife made me feel like the luckiest and proudest man in the world, it all came tumbling down when life got hard and so she reverted to her basic instincts.


----------



## Conrad

couple said:


> Women are having sex earlier, more casually, are getting married later and are generally more adventurous. Therefore, by the time they meet their life partner, they often have had a lot of sexual partners and have done a lot of wild things.
> 
> In order to deal with this, men are taught to live by the adage, "the past is the past" and "modern" men are supposed to realize that there should be no double standard - women love sex just like men. It's no big deal.
> 
> Many men, however, still have mixed feelings about their wife's sexual history. Some can't bear to think about it. For others, it's exciting. For most, it's a mix of bewilderment that our sweethearts could do such things, fantasy and a sprinkle of jealousy.
> 
> So what do you think about your wife's sexual history? What have you heard about that makes you uncomfortable? curious? intrigued?


Grow up.

As long as she's into you?

You should only worry about what happens going forward.


----------



## shaung

She lost her virginity at 19, she had sex with 8 or 10 guys in 2 years of college. After college she was married 7 years. I am her second husband. We have been together 26 years. Her past is her past.

She owns her past, not me.


----------



## Conrad

shaung said:


> She lost her virginity at 19, she had sex with 8 or 10 guys in 2 years of college. After college she was married 7 years. I am her second husband. We have been together 26 years. Her past is her past.
> 
> She owns her past, not me.


And - even if it's 20 guys in 2 years - what's the difference?

It's about the road ahead.


----------



## couple

Conrad, can't we talk about our wives' sexual history without everyone assuming that we just want our wives to be virgins? 

You may disagree but I think a person's sexual history IS very important. It is a very important part of who they are. It has a lot to do with how their sexuality developed, how they relate to other people and how they form and maintain relationships. 

I have no problem with my wife's sexual history and I don't refuse to face it like you seem to. Of course it's complicated. I partly find it intriguing, sexy and yes, some of it makes me a little on edge (isn't that a good thing?) and perhaps slightly jealous. Sometimes I find some of the things she did a little shocking. This mix of emotion is healthy and when you put it all together, it excites me.

Anyway, I would not trade this for a virgin. Her activities are part of her. I don't simply wish to ignore this important part of her like some would. Obviously if she wanted to put it aside then I would respect that but she isn't ashamed of it nor am I.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Conrad isn't ignoring anything, he just chooses to not focus on things in the past. A very healthy attitude if you ask me. 
Deal with her past and modern men are taught to not make a big deal of it? Um yeah, because it isn't any of your business. What she has done prior to meeting you really isn't yours to judge but you are anyways. You can either take Conrad's advice and move forward or you can focus on her past and do what one guy here did, shamed her so much that one day she packed up and left. 
I am not exactly proud of my past and my husband knows all about it. At any point if he made feel bad about it, I would leave. No way on Earth am I going to stay with someone who I have pledged my heart and body to, only to be shamed for something I did prior to dating him. 
That is nothing more than your insecurity and you are projecting it on to her.
BTW...Conrad didn't mention ANYTHING about virgins.


----------



## couple

brighteyes...you are ashamed (or at least 'not proud') of your past but not all women are. Not all people think this is a taboo subject as you seem to. I'm not judging you and you probably have good reason for feeling this way but please don't assume that every woman needs protection from her past.

And who's judging? I said that my attitude is that it is what it is. Nobody is judging. If she didn't want it to be any of my business then I would accept that. For that matter, her family is none of my business either. Her job, past jobs and education is none of my business either. She shares what she wants to share and she has no problem sharing this and discussing it. And I certainly don't judge her for it or make her feel bad about it. If I did, she wouldn't want to share it. The only reason that she shared it so freely is because we can discuss it like adults. BTW, she also shares it freely with friends - e.g. girls' nights out when the topic turns to sex as it often does. Why should a woman share freely with her friends but not with her husband? That would sound bizarre and hardly an open and communicative relationship.

So is the attitude that the only healthy way to treat a woman's sexual past is to ignore it? If a woman is not ashamed of her past and has a healthy attitude toward it, then why can't it be shared openly or shared without walking on eggshells. She's told me what's she's done, what she feels about different things. I also share my attitudes toward it but never in a judgemental way. What's wrong with that? If you both have a healthy attitude toward it, then why can't it be discussed openly like other past experiences?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I never said not discuss it, I said that it isn't your business to bring it up. If she chooses to and is open with it, then discuss. If she isn't, then let it go.

Past sexual experiences isn't a taboo subject for me, far from it. I have posted here often about my past and nearly every person who has been around here long enough knows what I did. Why? Because I own up to it and while I have regret, I am not ashamed. I was in a dark place and that was 20 1/2 years ago. I refuse to punish myself for something I did years ago and I certainly wouldn't allow my partner to punish me.

I am not saying ignore her past, what I am saying is that there are some women who are not comfortable discussing their past for whatever reason. Fear of rejection, being labeled, looked down upon, society and the labels they tag women with, you name it. If they feel like they will somehow be judged by their partner for things they did prior to meeting them, they will never share. 

What Conrad (as always) sagely pointed out was that focusing on the past is pointless. What's done is done.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I'll speak for my husband....it is one of the reasons he TRUSTS me so much - because I made him "wait" till we was married. He respected that highly, he feels it spoke something deeply about my character. I think, had I had other lovers, it would come up in his mind. If I had many, I know it would have bothered him, he might not have chosen me. I wouldn't down anyone for that, especially if the have chosen to be wise in selecting partners only for long term relationships. I think it is reasonable to expect similar values in the one we marry. So these things surely should be discussed while dating. 

I did a few things outside of intercourse with a couple guys before him. Looking back, I see this as innocent teen experimentation, I never hid anything from my husband- from day one. Me & him both looked at intercoarse as the "thing" you save for the one you love. I am very happy I wasn't with anyone else, I feel it creates a greater bond somehow if you have only been with each other, noone else has ever touched that sacred place. There is no comparisons, it is just more special than words can express. But then again, I am biased ! 

2 of my older sons want to wait till they are married to give themselves only to their wives. I know in their hearts they want to find a woman who feels the same. There is always a risk in marrying a virgin though ! What if she doesn't like sex & you find out you married a Frigid nun ! Yikes !

Pluses and minues on both ends. 

I think Past history generally speaks something of anothers values & judgements, unless they have had a conversion along the way - whether it be spending habits/debt, job history, # of relationships & what caused the break ups, how quickly you have sex with new partners. Personally I would want to know everything but I think it is wise to be realistic, sure the Past is the past, but if the past has umteen partners, many break ups & worst of all -one night stands, I would think it reasonable for this to play on the others mind now & then.


----------



## Runs like Dog

I would like to know if she had any kids I didn't know about, had any viral STDs, had a partner who she knew had HIV, had a partner who killed himself, had any romantic, e.g. serious and longer lasting relationships with a woman or had ever been raped, molested or otherwise sexually abused. And of course had ever been a sex worker.

Other than that I do not care.


----------



## Entropy3000

Runs like Dog said:


> I would like to know if she had any kids I didn't know about, had any viral STDs, had a partner who she knew had HIV, had a partner who killed himself, had any romantic, e.g. serious and longer lasting relationships with a woman or had ever been raped, molested or otherwise sexually abused. And of course had ever been a sex worker.
> 
> Other than that I do not care.


All good points.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Conrad isn't ignoring anything, he just chooses to not focus on things in the past. A very healthy attitude if you ask me.
> Deal with her past and modern men are taught to not make a big deal of it? Um yeah, *because it isn't any of your business.* What she has done prior to meeting you really isn't yours to judge but you are anyways. You can either take Conrad's advice and move forward or you can focus on her past and do what one guy here did, shamed her so much that one day she packed up and left.
> I am not exactly proud of my past and my husband knows all about it. At any point if he made feel bad about it, I would leave. No way on Earth am I going to stay with someone who I have pledged my heart and body to, only to be shamed for something I did prior to dating him.
> That is nothing more than your insecurity and you are projecting it on to her.
> BTW...Conrad didn't mention ANYTHING about virgins.


A man is free to decide whether this is important to him or not. If the potential wife to be says it is none of his business he is free to weigh that any way he wants and vice versa. He is free and she is free. It is not like hiring practices. Equal opportunity rules. One is selecting the person who they intend to marry after all and in most cases raise a family. Anything is on the table. She can choose to balk at this if she wants becasue she is free.

It is not about focusing in the past. Many men would not care to know at all. No problem.
I would think a man who wants to know specific sexual details would be kinda creepy. I don't think that is what this is about. A persons sexual history is just one important part of many parts in assessing one's character and suitability for marriage.

I think if a woman is confident in herself she would have no issue with sharing this. After all neither partner needs to pretend to be someone they are not.

By getting all of this out up front it limits if not eliminates this becoming an issue down the road.

----------
update: I feel the need to add something here as emotions can run high. In no way are my comments meant to demean anyone or be judgemental on anyones past. It should not be assumed what I personally would be evaluating in knowing a womans past I was considering marrying. It is also not something I plan on ever doing again. I am just saying we should respect peoples rights to choose based on their own reasons and values. Lets not call someone immature or wrong because they feel it is important to know the sexual history of their soon to be spouse. How is that our business? YMMV.


----------



## couple

Thank you Entropy for calling out that unfair response (Conrad's 'grow up').

Just because someone feels that sexual history is important, doesn't mean that they want a 'clean' sexual history. Truly knowing your partner and achieving real intimacy means knowing them well. People's past family life, jobs and education all have good and not so good parts. I know my wife's life well. Obviously I assume that she chooses to keep some things private (sexual and non-sexual things that have happened in her life). She shares what she wants to share.

What surprises me, however, is that the automatic assumption here seems to be that past sex is always shameful and a 'difficult' topic. Brighteyes, you might share it here but you automatically assumed that I'm causing problems by caring about and being interested in my wife's sexual past. I don't see how you can be truly intimate with someone if you, for example, only know the hard facts of whether they have been exposed to HIV or have been a sex worker (to synthesise Runs' comment). If that works for some people, then I have no problem with that. I would never think less of a person for their sexual past but it's an important part of a person so I think that it does matter.

When my wife first told me about her past experiences, she always described them as 'mistakes' and it was like she was apologetic about it. Well this was not really how she felt. I don't think she was being devious, I just think she was a little confused about how she felt about them. Now she has come to terms with herself and with me that some of these were really exciting and physically fulfilling experiences. And like everything in life, some were forgettable.

I just don't understand how you achieve real intimacy if an important part of one's life (their sexuality) is shrouded in secrecy.


----------



## greenpearl

couple said:


> I just don't understand how you achieve real intimacy if an important part of one's life (their sexuality) is shrouded in secrecy.


That's important! 

In my opinion, the man and the woman have to be honest to each other when they are dating, just tell each other what kind of experience you have had before everything becomes serious. 

Don't be afraid to share what happened in the past, if he minds her past, they break up, it is a good thing, saves a lot of pain for the future. If he doesn't mind it, and he can understand why that happened, it helps bring them closer. 

I wasn't a good girl, I can say that I was responsible for what I did. I have been trying very hard to understand that wild teenage girl. The only explanation I can come up with is I didn't have a secure childhood, I didn't have a good father. I was longing for male attention and affection. 

The memories weren't good, they weren't happy. I am not proud of it. The shame of losing my virginity foolishly caused me lose my sanity a few years later. 

I am glad that the husband I have doesn't mind my past. He said that my past made the woman he has now. He knows clearly that I am not proud of my past, him not minding it relieves my guilt and makes me appreciate him. 

When we were young, we can say that we made mistakes because we were young. We answer the consequence ourselves. 

Now we are adults, we have to be responsible for our conduct. We know better! 

Honestly, I am a very faithful and loyal wife. I don't take a second glance at other men except my husband. Now I only want attention and affection from him. I do my best to make his life happy and fulfilled. Since I understand men so well, I have no problem making him happy and fulfilled. And no men can lure me away from him. Been there, done that, other men just don't excite me! Yes, he said he feels honored that I am happy with him, he feels honored that no other men can make me happy except him. 

Will I cheat in the future? I tell my husband if I am happy in our marriage, little chance for me to cheat. But if I am not happy, I know what I am going to do, I am not the kind of woman who will stay in a miserable marriage. 

We have been married for six years, together for 8 years, the sentences we often say to each other: Thank you for marrying me! Thank you for making me happy. Because of you, I am content and settled. Because if you, my life is worthwhile living!


----------



## Runs like Dog

Oh you youngsters! Wait till you're on marriage two or three.


----------



## Entropy3000

Runs like Dog said:


> Oh you youngsters! Wait till you're on marriage two or three.


I have been on marriage number one for 33 years. Not interested in trashing this one and moving on to another.
But it is a [email protected] shoot. Selection of a partner is important.
Even knowing the persons character up front and information to date we must realize that not only can people change for the better they can change for the worse.


----------



## okeydokie

the only tidbit i know from my wife's past is that she told me "i dont swallow cause i tried it once and dint like it", she has never done it to me so i know it was another guy. i dont think about it much though


----------



## Runs like Dog

okeydokie said:


> the only tidbit i know from my wife's past is that she told me "i dont swallow cause i tried it once and dint like it",


Quitter


----------



## techie

Runs like Dog said:


> I would like to know if she had any kids I didn't know about, had any viral STDs, had a partner who she knew had HIV, *had a partner who killed himself*, had any romantic, e.g. serious and longer lasting relationships with a woman or had ever been raped, molested or otherwise sexually abused. And of course had ever been a sex worker.


As a new guy here... I'm probably picking a weird place to ask a question.... 

Most of the items you've listed are pretty basic health and orientation items... But why would you want to know about her past partner's suicide? Personally, that is not a piece of information I readily share. Nor do I really think it would be relevant to a current relationship. 

Just kind of curious where that one fits in...


----------



## Entropy3000

techie said:


> As a new guy here... I'm probably picking a weird place to ask a question....
> 
> Most of the items you've listed are pretty basic health and orientation items... But why would you want to know about her past partner's suicide? Personally, that is not a piece of information I readily share. Nor do I really think it would be relevant to a current relationship.
> 
> Just kind of curious where that one fits in...


It is not the type of thing someone should keep quiet about.
Major life changing events are something that should be known up front ... optimally. He may have even meant this as tongue in cheek but it is still valid. How could one keep that from their soon to be spouse. It is not something anyone would ask about. It would be relevant to a truly initimate relationship.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Yeah that's it. There's a ton of baggage that goes with that. As well as a partner who died for any other reason. A friend of mine lost a partner to a long bout of cancer recently. I would like to know something of that before embarking on an attempted long term thing with them. But suicide in a relationship is very very dark and it leaves scars. I would want to know just because....


----------



## alberteca

Most people want to know about someones past before they get involved with them, and sexual history is a big part of someones past. I would be worried if my girlfriend didn't want to share her past with me, becuase of what she maybe hidding


----------



## couple

greenpearl said:


> That's important!
> 
> In my opinion, the man and the woman have to be honest to each other when they are dating, just tell each other what kind of experience you have had before everything becomes serious.
> 
> Don't be afraid to share what happened in the past, if he minds her past, they break up, it is a good thing, saves a lot of pain for the future. If he doesn't mind it, and he can understand why that happened, it helps bring them closer.


Greenpearl..thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. One thing that I don't understand, however, is why you and many others here see that the primary reason for sharing sexual history is to evaluate it to determine if you want to continue the relationship with the person.

Certainly sharing this info might be somewhat an indicator of compatibility or incompatibility but I don't see the primary purpose of sharing this information as part of some kind of judgement where I determine if she is OK or not. Perhaps that's why everyone pounced on me when I originally posted on this topic. For us, the primary reason for sharing this is to bring more intimacy into our relationship and add a new dimension to our sex life. I don't listen to her talk about her family life, her education, her old teachers, her old friends, sports she played, etc. so that i can evaluate her to determine if she is OK or not. Nor is that the reason for sharing our sexual pasts.


----------



## greenpearl

couple said:


> Greenpearl..thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. One thing that I don't understand, however, is why you and many others here see that the primary reason for sharing sexual history is to evaluate it to determine if you want to continue the relationship with the person.
> 
> Certainly sharing this info might be somewhat an indicator of compatibility or incompatibility but I don't see the primary purpose of sharing this information as part of some kind of judgement where I determine if she is OK or not. Perhaps that's why everyone pounced on me when I originally posted on this topic. For us, the primary reason for sharing this is to bring more intimacy into our relationship and add a new dimension to our sex life. I don't listen to her talk about her family life, her education, her old teachers, her old friends, sports she played, etc. so that i can evaluate her to determine if she is OK or not. Nor is that the reason for sharing our sexual pasts.


People are different, we all have our different background and life. What is important to some people, it doesn't matter to others. Society has changed, people's opinion about sex has changed, but some people still have their traditional view, we can't say that they are wrong. For people who can't tolerate their spouses' colorful past, I think it is better for them to find somebody who has a clean past, it saves a lot of struggling in their life. For people who don't mind their spouses' past, then they focus on looking for the good qualities they want. I don't mind my husband's past, neither does he. So when we were dating, we shared all of our sexual past, and we focused on the qualities each other have.

Sharing our sexual past really tore down the walls between each other. I think if a man and a woman can share their sexual past and don't be offended by it, they don't have a judging attitude towards the other one, it can really bring them close. I ask you, what can be more intimate that talking about sex with an opposite sex? 

I think my husband and I are so comfortable naked in front of each other because we don't have any secrets hiding from each other and we know nothing happened in our past is fogging our impression about each other. 

Present is more important. Past is lesson learned.


----------



## Runs like Dog

To say nothing of a detailed background check, credit check, criminal history, etc. And why not? In this day and age it's simple.


----------



## dtarian04

Ignoring past is good but there still remain very deep issues. A couple is definitely going to bear children. I know one family where growing children also know about this and are unable to emotionally cope with it. It is hard for them to believe that their mother -the holiest being for them, didn't come on emotional grounds with thier father first but had been testing the sexual prowess of many males before she got married. I m not saying anyone to stop. Its 21st century. But even in the advance times no one will expect it looking up at their parents and also wouldn't expect their children expecting the same looking at you. 
It is better to remain pure for a relation which has more emotional values. A family is a beginning where adventure begins and not having a family after all the adventure is done. Its a compromise with no purity. It can sustain by efforts but will be without love n surrrender.


----------



## sisters359

Lon;358285... I am a forgiving person so whatever happened in the past stays in the past. [/QUOTE said:


> Have you ever considered that this attitude may be part of your problem? I don't mean that in a snarkly way, but quite seriously. If you think someone's past is something you "forgive" them for, then perhaps it showed in subtle ways that contributed to the demise of your marriage.
> 
> I would have to say that anyone who thinks they are "forgiving" the partner's past really doesn't get it. There is nothing in another's past that you have to forgive, nothing. It had nothing to do with you. It shaped the person, yes, but that does not mean it is their true character, not by any means. Lots of people LEARN from their past and become better, more mature people b/c they also learn not to dwell on the past and to move on and stop doing things that didn't contribute to their own happiness.


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

I still think it's funny that it's generally accepted that a man has been promiscuous but that a woman's credibility or virtue is questioned if she has done the same. Heck it isn't uncommon for a promiscuous man to not want to marry a previously promiscuous woman. Quite laughable but it happens....alot.

I thought for most people this topic just naturally came up somewhere in the dating process. You know, wanting to get to know each other and general curiousity about the person you are dating.


----------



## Lon

sisters359 said:


> Have you ever considered that this attitude may be part of your problem? I don't mean that in a snarkly way, but quite seriously. If you think someone's past is something you "forgive" them for, then perhaps it showed in subtle ways that contributed to the demise of your marriage.
> 
> I would have to say that anyone who thinks they are "forgiving" the partner's past really doesn't get it. There is nothing in another's past that you have to forgive, nothing. It had nothing to do with you. It shaped the person, yes, but that does not mean it is their true character, not by any means. Lots of people LEARN from their past and become better, more mature people b/c they also learn not to dwell on the past and to move on and stop doing things that didn't contribute to their own happiness.


Wow that was an old comment... that was about a month after separation, less than 2 after dday...

Anyways good point you make, I really had nothing to forgive, nothing was done to me that I had to let go of, I think it was more just acceptance and tolerance, and trusting in people without judgement or constant skepticism.

I still have that same general approach, however I think since I wrote that I've done some healing and possibly become more discerning since. I still won't go around judging people, but I'm not going to attach myself to ones who seem to make a series of bad choices.


----------



## Goldmember357

this is an amusing thread. So much denial about how the human mind works and the consequences of set actions. 

Humans destroy themselves its so sad.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Is a potential marriage partner's credit history important ?
Is a potential marriage partner's medical history important?
Is a potential marriage partner's educational level important?
What about a potential partner's earning capacity?
Suppose he / she was an alcoholic?
Suppose he / she was an addict?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes,then how come sexual history is not important?
If a woman has a sexual history she is ashamed of , then all she has to do is say that she is not proud of it and MOVE ON , either in her present relationship or with someone who is willing to accept her. 
Any man who is not interested in his wife's sexual history deserves whatever comes to him.

My wife even though she was a virgin when I met her, was almost raped when she was a teen. Was that important to me?
Hell YES !
It helped me understand some of the sexual hang ups she had, and we were able to deal with them.


----------



## anonim

Runs like Dog said:


> I would like to know if she had any kids I didn't know about, had any viral STDs, had a partner who she knew had HIV, had a partner who killed himself, had any romantic, e.g. serious and longer lasting relationships with a woman or had ever been raped, molested or otherwise sexually abused. And of course had ever been a sex worker.
> 
> Other than that I do not care.


why?


----------



## anonim

I think it is very important to know your partners history for reasons given above such as intimacy and sexual/emotional/mental health reasons but also because people have patterns they follow in forming/maintaining/ending relationships. Of which you are the most recent part of any existing pattern.


----------



## Complexity

I can't settle down with someone that's had a promiscuous past.


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

Same song, different verse!

I think it's important to have this conversation early in a relationship so each can decide if they are ok with each other's past. These discussions always lead to the double standards and I feel like this :banghead: worrying about calling folks out on it.


----------



## anonim

Complexity said:


> I can't settle down with someone that's had a promiscuous past.


why?


----------



## Complexity

anonim said:


> why?


Several reasons, but this more or less sums it up
Women Have Become Too Easy - AskMen


----------



## mel123

Transparency and honesty is the key. I was 20 when I got married and I was a virgin. I wanted a girl who was also a virgin. My wife told me she had never been touched, I thought we would share a special experience together, that that neither of us had never experienced with anyone else. I cherished that and it made me feel special to her.
Well after 30years of marriage and 3 adult children, I find out that was all a lie. What hurts me the most is the deceit and lies and that makes me wonder, if there have been other lies. It has destroyed my trust; relationships/marriage are built on trust. I cannot be happy with her and I cannot be happy without her. These new found facts have caused me to have depression and anxiety. The dishonesty not the virginity is what bothers me at this point, I have been an open book to her. She asks me hard questions sometimes and I will answer her honestly, knowing I am going to get into trouble and get yelled at.


----------



## costa200

couple said:


> In order to deal with this, men are taught to live by the adage, "the past is the past" and "modern" men are supposed to realize that there should be no double standard - women love sex just like men. It's no big deal.


I wasn't taught this. This is basically a cultural thing. I find it is pretty important the history of a potential partner. All of it. Including sexual behavior.

If a woman, or a man, has a story of having multiple partners (some overlapping in time perhaps) the likelihood of that suddenly changing is rather low. 

Of course sexual history isn't the only factor at stake, but between someone with promiscuous behavior and someone without it i would feel inclined to the later. 

Someone who has sex just for the heck of it without much need for a connection isn't someone i'm interested in personally. And i pity the fool who tries to shame me for not wanting to end up with the village bicycle. 



> Many men, however, still have mixed feelings about their wife's sexual history.


Not really mixed feelings. What many men mostly have is basically a conflict between their feelings and what they are told their feelings should be.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Nothing like resurrecting a post from a year ago to continue the s!ut shaming.


----------



## anonim

Complexity said:


> Several reasons, but this more or less sums it up
> Women Have Become Too Easy - AskMen


'interesting' opinions, but the article doesnt really answer the question why you wouldnt settle for someone with a promiscious past.


----------



## anonim

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Nothing like resurrecting a post from a year ago to continue the s!ut shaming.


isnt that the way its gone throughout history though?


----------



## Caribbean Man

costa200 said:


> Someone who has sex just for the heck of it without much need for a connection isn't someone i'm interested in personally. *And i pity the fool who tries to shame me for not wanting to end up with the village bicycle. *
> 
> Not really mixed feelings. *What many men mostly have is basically a conflict between their feelings and what they are told their feelings should be.*


:iagree:

I think the concept of virginity may have outlived its usefulness. But that does not mean that we should throw away the bathub , with the baby and water.
I see this as yet another attempt by the fiftth columnist in the media to further emasculate men.

Equality means that both sexes should be responsible for their sexual behaviour,and both should be informed of each others history.
One cannot blackmail the other into thinking that he / she is out of place to ask and make an informed decision based on the answer.


----------



## Starstarfish

I think that's a key point, CM. 

Both genders are having more sex, more casually. 

There was a period of time, for a long stretch of human history where sex = babies, with little to no way around that reality. Thus, while even if men weren't "sl$t shamed" the same way women were, their reputations and likely future opportunities and fortunes would be affected by the open knowledge they had produced bastard children. Laws and church policy clearly preferred "legal" (AKA children produced in wedlock) heirs, rather than "natural" (AKA children produced through adultery (cheating) or fornication (not married.) Natural children could look forward to a pretty boned life. Go check out the sad life of Jon Snow in Game of Thrones. 

Women, in turn, could look forward to Hester Prynne syndrome, if they were found out, complete with lowered marriage expectations (if any), and public shame as a "fallen woman." Midwives were legally charged with harassing you the entire time you were in labor to find out who the father was, if a child was produced from these misadventures. 

Yet, overtime all of those things slowly fell away. There was no open public scorn for both men or women. People aren't sent to live with relatives until they give birth to hide the fact they had a baby. Likewise, men will now openly brag about the number of children they have with as many women as possible, openly defy paying child support, and there is little to no social compunction against them. 

For better or for worse, this is what collectively, we've embraced. 

And I agree with the article linked above. There used to be an amount of sacredness and importance placed on the act of sex. It no longer has the deep religious or moral implications that it once did to larger society, however, that does not mean it does not continue to hold implications for potential partners - both men and women. 

As a woman, I wouldn't want to be with a man who had slept around either. I'd have the constant concern he'd be forever comparing me to his umpteen lovers, or like another poster, he'd be constantly dreaming about the vast collection of nipples he'd gotten to see, or whatnot, and how his LTR was just a shackle for his freedom. Would he constantly be comparing my "performance" to 50 past people? If he decided I didn't measure up, would he start a PA? What about other male posters who have noted when very sexually experienced men marry more sexually inexperienced women this fact is awkwardly mentioned to them, if not rubbed in their face by the man's friends? Comments about how you had "tamed the stud" and "how they hope you are enough for him."
How awkward would that be?

Both partners in any potential relationship are free to have any qualifications they want in a partner. This is -not- a right expressly saved for men because of paternity/child support rules, and I think to suggest so is a bit ridiculous. Why should a woman not get to be as picky about what goes into her body as much as a man gets to judge her based on whom might come out of it. 

And if these qualifications are important to -you- it is -your- responsibility to ask the questions, and get a straight answer. If you can't get a straight answer, there's your first clue the answer isn't going to be one you enjoy. But waiting for a partner to volunteer the answer, then being angry you don't like it. That's like - not asking any questions or having a used car inspected, and then being angry it's a total lemon. 

However, if their potential partner does not meet your qualifications, you need to decide to either come to terms with accepting that, whether on your own or through counseling, or let them go and end the relationship. Anything else in the middle is just bone headed and wrong. Keeping them in a relationship only to use their past against them in arguments or to claim moral superiority is just wrong. Staying with someone with a more expressive sexual history than you and using that as an excuse to cheat, or better, ask permission for a "hall pass" so you can "get up to their number" is even more wrong. 

At the same time, if your qualifications include someone with a limited or no sexual history, but at the same time you want them to have vast knowledge and interest in a wide arranged of sexual interests, you might need to ponder the realism of that desire. Most people are either inherently kinky or they aren't, it's a personality thing. Most people aren't going to have some 50 Shades of Grey transformation from quiet unassuming virgin into sex queen in the space of months.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Starstarfish said:


> However, if their potential partner does not meet your qualifications, you need to decide to either come to terms with accepting that, whether on your own or through counseling, or let them go and end the relationship. Anything else in the middle is just bone headed and wrong. Keeping them in a relationship only to use their past against them in arguments or to claim moral superiority is just wrong. Staying with someone with a more expressive sexual history than you and using that as an excuse to cheat, or better, ask permission for a "hall pass" so you can "get up to their number" is even more wrong.
> 
> At the same time, if your qualifications include someone with a limited or no sexual history, but at the same time you want them to have vast knowledge and interest in a wide arranged of sexual interests, you might need to ponder the realism of that desire.* Most people are either inherently kinky or they aren't, it's a personality thing.* Most people aren't going to have some 50 Shades of Grey transformation from quiet unassuming virgin into sex queen in the space of months.


^^^^^^^^^
This is a very balanced approach.
Thank for the response.


----------



## Locard

It cracks me up that on an entire forum dedicated to marriage, in an age with marital problems galore, that the ONE factor that has been scientifically proven to make a difference in a sucessful marriage is poo pooed. That factor would be a spouses number of sexual partners. (google the Teachman study for a start)

Many different cultures over thousands of years have known this, we just think we know better and it is blowing up in our face.


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

Another study that says only the woman's sexual past shows a risk?


----------



## Locard

The Social Pathologist: Sexual Partner Divorce Risk

Affraid so.


----------



## Goldmember357

Locard said:


> It cracks me up that on an entire forum dedicated to marriage, in an age with marital problems galore, that the ONE factor that has been scientifically proven to make a difference in a sucessful marriage is poo pooed. That factor would be a spouses number of sexual partners. (google the Teachman study for a start)
> 
> Many different cultures over thousands of years have known this, we just think we know better and it is blowing up in our face.


agreed. I also deal with divorces for a living although people do not tell about there number of partners i have been told before. In addition i feel i have a good idea of how risky the individuals are based off what i am told and see. 

To put it short those who are patient and make good choices and are lets say more intelligent almost never come in for divorce. I am sorry if this offends some posters i am not trying to say that all people who divorce are not intelligent rather i am saying that few intelligent people divorce from what i see and its because they make smarter choices. 



HopelesslyJaded said:


> Another study that says only the woman's sexual past shows a risk?


If one wished to take a biological approach you could say that a females sexual history maters more. When i was a psychologist and studying psychology i can say that many people in the field of psychology would hold the views that men and women are very very different. Many of the philosophical orientations that try to guide psychological research and theory even point in the direction that environment, upbringing and one's past matters. One could come to a conclusion based off several approaches that given the way the female is raised and how her mind tends to operate and her environment it would be extremely detrimental to her health and her longevity to be promiscuous. 

Both the Males and Females sexual past show a risk however in many ways you could come to hold the view and belief that the female maters more. At that the female will always mater more as she births children and is the key to sustaining life.


----------



## Goldmember357

Locard said:


> The Social Pathologist: Sexual Partner Divorce Risk
> 
> Affraid so.


ha beat me to it. 

Its the truth but i do think we should also hold men accountable. I advice most women to hold men to very very high standards and take into account their "morals" its a shame that some people settle. 

I hope our views do not make us look like women bashers. I am a man and i hold the view that men are more likely to cheat and are pretty much designed to want to cheat i also hold the view that men are worse than women! I base this all off psychological views and biological views which some tie into a say biological approach which is one of several different philosophical orientations that wish to address cognitive development.


----------



## Locard

It can be difficult to discuss because people who have had multiple partners see this as an attack on them and or thier morals.

This does not mean that someone who has had multiple partners is a bad spouse! What would be wrong is for young people to ignore it. 

Marriage strategies are changing so fast with an increasing age delay. With it comes an added partner count. I am very worried for the future, for both men and women.


----------



## Shaggy

Locard said:


> It can be difficult to discuss because people who have had multiple partners see this as an attack on them and or thier morals.
> 
> This does not mean that someone who has had multiple partners is a bad spouse! What would be wrong is for young people to ignore it.
> 
> Marriage strategies are changing so fast with an increasing age delay. With it comes an added partner count. I am very worried for the future, for both men and women.


Yes exactly. The discussion on this isn't an honest one because those who have had lots of partners invariably don't honestly discuss it - instead they throw around comments like OPs being insecure etc. 

The reality is it doesn't matter to some and it does matter to others, and that is ok. It is their right to choose what matters to them.


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

Shaggy said:


> Yes exactly. * The discussion on this isn't an honest one because those who have had lots of partners invariably don't honestly discuss it* - instead they throw around comments like OPs being insecure etc.
> 
> The reality is it doesn't matter to some and it does matter to others, and that is ok. It is their right to choose what matters to them.


There are plenty that would discuss their own personal history if it was *their* personal history that is being questioned. Should we all have a disclaimer in our signatures that discloses all our current and past marital issues and how many people we've had sex with in our lifetime to be deemed honest?

You wanna know ask...


----------



## geek down

Complexity said:


> Several reasons, but this more or less sums it up
> Women Have Become Too Easy - AskMen


I totally disagree with the article.. There is a difference between a sl&t and a woman that has enjoyed sex with many partners..

I'd rather have a woman that is confortable and knowledgeable in the bedroom and with a man's body. There is no shame in that. Infact, given the sexual inabilties of my STBXW, I'd even say that I'd rather a woman be upfront with me on her past partners. I'm sure we all have a few experiences we'd rather not relive. 

Given my STBXW's past sexual history, as in non-existant before me, I'd go so far as to say I would NOT date another woman that does not have experience..prior experience needed..


----------



## Goldmember357

Locard said:


> It can be difficult to discuss because people who have had multiple partners see this as an attack on them and or thier morals.
> 
> This does not mean that someone who has had multiple partners is a bad spouse! What would be wrong is for young people to ignore it.
> 
> Marriage strategies are changing so fast with an increasing age delay. With it comes an added partner count. I am very worried for the future, for both men and women.


Some members on here with high count i have seen discuss it and acknowledge truth.

For the rest of people who deny it they are resorting to something called delusion and forever living in a alternate reality in their mind. I suppose that is okay though like i have said most people seem to destroy themselves all because of poor decisions. Its such a shame that most will destroy themselves and suffer heartache and pain and divorce, infidelity i really wish more people would stop marrying and just think things over.


----------



## Goldmember357

I disagree with that Ask Men article. Men have become too easy as well and are not around anymore so many young males view being a father or a married man as a joke and have no aspirations to be a good role model/family man one day. 

Ask Men in general is a joke (imo) lamest advice ever. However the woman who wrote that particular article is making light of her own problems. But i think its foolish to say across the board this is all women id like to point the finger at men and say that men as a whole are f#cking up a lot more than women and men are supposed to be the leaders and we have men who have no desire to do that and in turn it can lead to a bunch of disgruntled women.

Anyhow the woman who wrote that, i would of dumped her if she lied to me about her past and than told me months later. 


Word of Advice!

NEVER DATE OR MARRY SOMEONE WHO LIES ABOUT SOMETHING IMPORTANT


----------



## sisters359

Locard said:


> It cracks me up that on an entire forum dedicated to marriage, in an age with marital problems galore, that the ONE factor that has been scientifically proven to make a difference in a sucessful marriage is poo pooed. That factor would be a spouses number of sexual partners. (google the Teachman study for a start)
> 
> Many different cultures over thousands of years have known this, we just think we know better and it is blowing up in our face.


Why would anyone think that this is meaningful? We have a society that *still* hasn't accepted women's sexuality--we are decades, if not centuries, away from true equality, and this may be one of the last "double standards" to disappear. So the fact that the study shows that the number of partner's a wife has had is correlated to higher risk means absolutely nothing--b/c it's not going to change women's behavior.

Do not sit around waiting for women to go back to a more repressed past. Women are learning to accept economic responsibility for themselves, more and more. They are looking less and less to men as "providers." Women are going to continue having sex when they want to. 

Marriage is probably on its way out as a system of social organization. The relationship between sex, child bearing/child rearing, and economics, is being reframed. I'm not expecting things to change definitely in my lifetime, but the trends are clear. 

I, for one, do not think this is a bad thing. Humans will need a different type of social organization in the future. Progress has always meant social change, so there is nothing new in this.


----------



## Complexity

geek down said:


> There is a difference between a sl&t and a woman that has enjoyed sex with many partners..


Interesting observation. Care to explain the difference?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

sisters359 said:


> Women are learning to accept economic responsibility for themselves, more and more. They are looking less and less to men as "providers." Women are going to continue having sex when they want to.


 Because of these 3 things...the end result is... less and less men will see any *incentive* to marry a woman, there is nothing in it to give him any "purpose" that he isn't already getting just living with her or even dating. Which leads to your next point >>> 


> Marriage is probably on its way out as a system of social organization. The relationship between sex, child bearing/child rearing, and economics, is being reframed.


 Absoulely...but who suffers from this... The children. 



> I, for one, do not think this is a bad thing. Humans will need a different type of social organization in the future. Progress has always meant social change, so there is nothing new in this.


 I see it as a very bad thing for our future, it devalues commitment, and stability. But people will continue to do what they want to do.... that's a given .

I really don't think Men have changed all that much....They still want the same primary things from women. Sex and heirs. If getting those things no longer require a marriage. Then the point of marriage is obsolete...for men. Why burden themselves. That’s like walking a mile to get water and bring it back to your home…there was a time that was necessary. But along came indoor plumbing and walking was not necessary…because the water was the main motivation, not the walking. Who is on the losing end of this....women - if they want marraige that is. Maybe they don't ? 

Do we ever hear men complaining about wanting to get married and cant?


----------



## costa200

> we are decades, if not centuries, away from true equality


I would say millions of years. Until we start reproducing asexually or becoming hermaphrodites i don't see true equality as some want it becoming true. 

I'm not a supporter of the kind of "equality" where one of the sexes gets to dictate everything while the other is forced to accept it. 

If you want to erase the double standard regarding this issue i suggest women should start refusing men with too many sexual partners. But that will never happen. The way in which female attraction works will never allow it.


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

SimplyAmorous said:


> Because of these 3 things...the end result is... less and less men will see any *incentive* to marry a woman, there is nothing in it to give him any "purpose" that he isn't already getting just living with a woman or dating her. Which leads to your next point >>>
> Absoulely...but who suffers from this... The children.
> 
> I see it as a very bad thing for our future, it devalues commitment, and stability. But people will continue to do what they want to do.... that's a given .
> 
> I really don't think Men have changed all that much....They still want the same primary things from women. Sex and heirs. If getting those things no longer require a marriage. Then the point of marriage is obsolete...for men. Why burden themselves. That’s like walking a mile to get water and bring it back to your home…there was a time that was necessary. But along came indoor plumbing and walking was not necessary…because the water was the main motivation, not the walking. Who is on the losing end of this....women - if they want marraige that is. Maybe they don't ?
> 
> *Do we ever hear men complaining about wanting to get married and cant?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I have a first cousin who is male who is 22 and has been whining about wanting a wife and kids since he was about 18! His text to me just 4 days ago. "Do you know of a way to quit wanting kids and a family?" I wanna scream at him to live a little while he can!


----------



## larry.gray

SimplyAmorous said:


> Because of these 3 things...the end result is... less and less men will see any *incentive* to marry a woman, there is nothing in it to give him any "purpose" that he isn't already getting just living with her or even dating.


It's good that you get this as a woman. I think more guys get this than women do. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Absoulely...but who suffers from this... The children.


Just re-quoting that part for truth! As usual, you're so right.


----------



## geek down

Complexity said:


> Interesting observation. Care to explain the difference?


Sure...a sl$t does anyone that makes in advance her way...A woman that enjoys it is more discriminating.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

HopelesslyJaded said:


> I have a first cousin who is male who is 22 and has been whining about wanting a wife and kids since he was about 18! His text to me just 4 days ago. "Do you know of a way to quit wanting kids and a family?" I wanna scream at him to live a little while he can!


And my 21 good looking son is still a virgin looking for a woman who has the same values. Not many to choose from these days. Your cousin is in the minority as well as my son ! That is a fact. My son is also a nice Guy, very gentlemanly.... Chances are your cousin is similar to him... with not much "sexual experience" , maybe not a great job......and women ignore him in droves, pointing to exactly what
Costa200 is talking about...



> *Costa200 said*: If you want to erase the double standard regarding this issue i suggest women should start refusing men with too many sexual partners. But that will never happen. The way in which female attraction works will never allow it.


I agree with this 110%...It will never [email protected]#$%^ 

Women want the studs, they want the man with social status, they overlook his sexual partners near totally! They even look down on men with no sexual experience, making fun of him!! Personally I take offense to these posts, getting my own A$$ into pissy fights with women. 

I said this on another thread and it holds true... when you ask women what they want in a man..the overwhelming replies will be .....#1 Confidence #2 he makes me laugh #3 Honest #4 good paying job #5 GOOD IN BED....bla bla bla.... I can't think of one time I have read where it matters how many partners he had before... Of course they want him to be loving, faithful & all of that. But it is simply *not* AS BIG of an issue to women as it IS to men. 

IT blows MY mind how we can deny this ??? [email protected]#$%^&

Men & women are LOOKING for different things in each other...yeah. Absolutely. Me personally, I'm the freak here that goes against the laws of attraction... I WANTED the nice guy virgin male. The Confident stud with the big paycheck didn't do it for me.


----------



## larry.gray

costa200 said:


> I would say millions of years. Until we start reproducing asexually or becoming hermaphrodites i don't see true equality as some want it becoming true.


It will change when what produces reproductive success changes.

Men who are cuckolded don't carry on their genes. Therefore men will be nervous about a woman doing this to them because the ones that aren't are weeded out of the gene pool.

The best way for a guy to be sure he's not going to be cuckolded is to pick a woman who doesn't give up sex easily.



costa200 said:


> If you want to erase the double standard regarding this issue i suggest women should start refusing men with too many sexual partners. But that will never happen. The way in which female attraction works will never allow it.


This goes to the other part of what is reproductive success.

The number one way for a woman to sire plenty of offspring down the line is to land a super alpha male. His sons are likely to be able to do the same and here genes go along for the ride.

For a woman who can't land a super alpha male, a successful way is to land a good guy who would raise kids and then cuckold him with a super alpha male. This behavior is real and goes back to the first point at why guys are nervous about women who sleep around.


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

SimplyAmorous said:


> And my 21 good looking son is still a virgin looking for a woman who has the same values. Not many to choose from these days. Your cousin is in the minority as well as my son ! That is a fact. My son is also a nice Guy, very gentlemanly.... Chances are your cousin is similar to him... with not much "sexual experience" , maybe not a great job......and women ignore him in droves, pointing to exactly what


It is very possible he is still a virgin. I have dared to ask him. He is a little on the dorky side and a ginger to boot. And no he has tended to not have real desireable jobs. I keep telling him to move out of his small town so he can meet someone different. A different pool of prospects maybe. It's really hard to give him advice.

I really think most women don't ask the "how many partners" question is because we have all grown up knowing the double standard and assume they have been around the block several times.


----------



## Thor

The reason for the double standard is human nature. We are wired that way. The double standard has existed for as long as recorded history, and it exists across social and geographic boundaries. I think it is just a result of men and women being wired differently.


----------



## costa200

larry.gray said:


> It will change when what produces reproductive success changes.
> 
> Men who are cuckolded don't carry on their genes. Therefore men will be nervous about a woman doing this to them because the ones that aren't are weeded out of the gene pool.
> 
> The best way for a guy to be sure he's not going to be cuckolded is to pick a woman who doesn't give up sex easily.
> 
> 
> 
> This goes to the other part of what is reproductive success.
> 
> The number one way for a woman to sire plenty of offspring down the line is to land a super alpha male. His sons are likely to be able to do the same and here genes go along for the ride.
> 
> For a woman who can't land a super alpha male, a successful way is to land a good guy who would raise kids and then cuckold him with a super alpha male. This behavior is real and goes back to the first point at why guys are nervous about women who sleep around.


This is a good analysis of the war of the sexes. It explains why when culture tries to overcome biology it usually fails.


----------



## larry.gray

Thor said:


> The reason for the double standard is human nature. We are wired that way. The double standard has existed for as long as recorded history, and it exists across social and geographic boundaries. I think it is just a result of men and women being wired differently.


It is a result of what increases the chance of having more great-great grand kids. That's what I was posting above.

A woman who can't land a super stud guy can still be successful by getting a guy to raise the kids secretly sired by a super stud. 

Historically it was vital for a woman to land a man to support her and her kids. In the developed world, we eliminated that need for the last 40 years or so. It will have an impact on this part of human sexual behavior.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> I really don't think Men have changed all that much....They still want the same primary things from women. *Sex and heirs. If getting those things no longer require a marriage. Then the point of marriage is obsolete...for men.* Why burden themselves. That’s like walking a mile to get water and bring it back to your home…there was a time that was necessary. But along came indoor plumbing and walking was not necessary


:iagree:
And I wish more people would open their eyes and realize that.
Why do we want to destroy the only institution we have that guarantees our offspring a chance for the time being of a better organized society?
The institution of marriage and the family structure is not just a few hundred years old, this is older that some languages and even the our binary / numerical system.
We all know and agree that things are not equal , so what should we do , just reverse the polarity?
The effects would be disastrous.
Never remove a landmark or signpost, without replacing it with something better.
Those coming after will end up being hopelessly lost.


----------



## Complexity

geek down said:


> Sure...a sl$t does anyone that makes in advance her way...A woman that enjoys it is more discriminating.


Hmm and a slvt presumably doesn't "enjoy" sex...... and the one that "discriminates" (coincidently sleeping with same amount as the slvt) only goes for Hollister models.....


----------



## Cosmos

sisters359 said:


> Why would anyone think that this is meaningful? We have a society that *still* hasn't accepted women's sexuality--we are decades, if not centuries, away from true equality, and this may be one of the last "double standards" to disappear. So the fact that the study shows that the number of partner's a wife has had is correlated to higher risk means absolutely nothing--b/c it's not going to change women's behavior.
> 
> Do not sit around waiting for women to go back to a more repressed past. Women are learning to accept economic responsibility for themselves, more and more. They are looking less and less to men as "providers." Women are going to continue having sex when they want to.
> 
> Marriage is probably on its way out as a system of social organization. The relationship between sex, child bearing/child rearing, and economics, is being reframed. I'm not expecting things to change definitely in my lifetime, but the trends are clear.
> 
> I, for one, do not think this is a bad thing. Humans will need a different type of social organization in the future. Progress has always meant social change, so there is nothing new in this.


:iagree:

And in the meanwhile it might be a good idea for us _all_ to adapt by maintaining the sort of standards that we require in a spouse. Like it or not, double standards are no longer acceptable in today's society.


----------



## geek down

Complexity said:


> Hmm and a slvt presumably doesn't "enjoy" sex...... and the one that "discriminates" (coincidently sleeping with same amount as the slvt) only goes for Hollister models.....


A slvt enjoys the attention from the act...

Hollister....Ambercrombie....L.L.Bean...Sears...whatever..


----------



## larry.gray

SimplyAmorous said:


> That’s like walking a mile to get water and bring it back to your home…there was a time that was necessary. But along came indoor plumbing and walking was not necessary…because the water was the main motivation, not the walking.


That leads me to think of the side effects.

In your example you mention walking a mile to get water and now you don't need to. What has happened from that any many other examples of modern convenience? Obesity is our number one health issue in the United States.

The same will be true of marriage. We've totally devalued fathers and husbands. It wasn't the intent, but the result. It is the result of the simultaneous intersection of the women's rights movement and vast governmental charity. Both were done with good intentions. Both were done to address valid, significant issues in society.

But we're stupid to continue without addressing the consequences.


----------



## Complexity

geek down said:


> A slvt enjoys the attention from the act...
> 
> Hollister....Ambercrombie....L.L.Bean...Sears...whatever..


There isn't any differentiation between the two. Both enjoy sex and both enjoy the attention they receive. The difference is, you condemn something that's one in the same. Even if the "slvt" did it for attention, why does that make her any different than one who wants to "enjoy" as much penis as possible?. In all honesty, I attach a certain grossness to the latter .


----------



## geek down

Complexity said:


> There isn't any differentiation between the two. Both enjoy sex and both enjoy the attention they receive. The difference is, you condemn something that's one in the same. Even if the "slvt" did it for attention, why does that make her any different than one who wants to "enjoy" as much penis as possible?. In all honesty, I attach a certain grossness to the latter .


To make you happy..you're 100% right


----------



## Complexity

Indeed......

It isn't about wrong or right.


----------



## Locard

Sisters, I agree that is where we are headed.

Alas as you will see in the end, just like the rest of feminism, will be more harmful to women than men.


----------



## Locard

And the double standard is real and goes both ways. I'm sure my father would agree right after he was drafted during Vietnam.


----------



## Starstarfish

Wow, this has really taken off since this morning. 

Just to interject some comic relief, I just want to take this moment to laugh about the post above associating Sears with sexiness, lol.


----------



## Starstarfish

Also, apparently being a super stud alpha male with lots of money doesn't always mean women are willing to overlook your sexual history, especially when it becomes publicly known - as apparently Prince Harry got dumped due to his escapades showing off the crown jewels, so to speak.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

HopelesslyJaded said:


> It is very possible he is still a virgin. I have dared to ask him. He is a little on the dorky side and a ginger to boot. And no he has tended to not have real desireable jobs. I keep telling him to move out of his small town so he can meet someone different. A different pool of prospects maybe. It's really hard to give him advice.


 I am sure it is -the advice giving. We all have to start out somewhere with the jobs though.... my husband had the same -"not desirable" job in a Grocery Store for the 1st 8 yrs of our marriage. We both worked & earned. He had excellent work ethic & knew how to save a $1 or I wouldn't have considered him. Our son is very positive & goal oriented....Some of the girls he has brought home & liked him - I told him he is going to kick his own a$$ someday for not going after them. He told me I might be right. But for now, he seems to care more about getting through college & living his Passion (Music)...than anything else. 

And you know what is really rediculous about ME mentioning all of this >>> I am sure all the men must think there is seriously something wrong with a male that age who is not out there chasing tail. And all woman will think he is a Dufass or this "ginger to boot" thing (never heard that expression before). I am almost embarrassed -but I just do it -cause some men (though very rare) accually do not agree with this DOUBLE STANDARD ---my husband and son are 2 examples. 

Maybe your cousin needs to pick up a Hobby, a passion of some sort & get involved in his small town, meet like-minded people. Talk to him about that, what "drives" him. I think we all have "something" to contribute, "gifts" (undiscovered perhaps)... in some area or another. 



> I really think most women don't ask the "how many partners" question is because we have all grown up knowing the double standard and assume they have been around the block several times.


 Like I say it's not common, but I accually know MANY who feel this way....but they are Christians...

I'll always feel it is harder for men to keep it in their pants though, just becaue of their Testosterone levels being 10-20 times higher than females. The question is -- WHy did GOD do this? I mean....Really --it is HIS fault, isn't it? Imagine what we would be like if we had PMS 30 days of the month. 



> *Locard said*: And the double standard is real and goes both ways. I'm sure my father would agree right after he was drafted during Vietnam.


 Me personally, I have no desire for equality in every way...never want to see this. I have 5 sons to worry about, I don't want to worry about her getting drafted too. 



> *Starstarfish said*: Also, apparently being a super stud alpha male with lots of money doesn't always mean women are willing to overlook your sexual history, especially when it becomes publicly known - as apparently Prince Harry got dumped due to his escapades showing off the crown jewels, so to speak.


I am not up to date on the news on Prince Harry -but good for her!


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

Ginger = redhead

I was just meaning he kind of has another thing going against him. Red hair and fair skin. It tends to work better for women than men.

He is very active in doing sound and video for his church and I think some of the other churches for events. I think as far as church goes alot of the females are relatives so that pool is small. It's why I think maybe he needs to take a gamble and move. LOL Yes people do tend to look at male virgins over 20 like puppies hearing strange noises, mainly because we are just use to the norm of "boys will be boys" and it being ok for them to be driven by hormones.

I am just afraid with him being so relationship and family driven that even when he finds someone who's interested he may just smother them.


----------



## Feelingdown

Wife was a virgin when we met thankfully, even though she was 19. Her family is pretty old fashioned in that sense and thankfully it got through to her enough for her to resist her ex bf of 5 years. 

Part of me still hates the idea of her being intimate with anyone else in any form mind you, even if it's not sex. And I still don't like acknowledging it or thinking about it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

HopelesslyJaded said:


> Ginger = redhead
> 
> I was just meaning he kind of has another thing going against him. Red hair and fair skin. It tends to work better for women than men.


 See how WEIRD I am, I loved redheads, even had BIG crushes on 2 of them in high school. 



> He is very active in doing sound and video for his church and I think some of the other churches for events.


 SOunds like our son, he is a Worship Leader & does sound for Crusaders for Christ in College. 



> Yes people do tend to look at male virgins over 20 like puppies hearing strange noises, mainly because we are just use to the norm of "boys will be boys" and it being ok for them to be driven by hormones.


 See, women DO look down on it -thinking they are "wet behind the ears" or something. As for my son, it is his beliefs, he would be a hypocrite if he had sex before Marriage, sex is sacred to him, that's it. He struggles like He** looking at porn though, hates himself for breaking down once in a while...I tell him... "just Do it -damn it, your dad did, he's OK!" He thinks I am the currupt one. We have an interesting family to say the least. 



> I am just afraid with him being so relationship and family driven that even when he finds someone who's interested he may just smother them.


 My husband is not a smotherer, but I LOVE men who are "touchy feely" and have TIME at the top of their love languages - cause I love the togetherness of romance.....sounds like your cousin needs to find an old fashioned girl that appreciates his personality and ENJOYS being with him ALOT then....and it could be a great match. Sounds like a good guy to me. If he is cute, has a sense of humor , not too religious , He'd probably be exactly MY type -- ha ha


----------



## Shaggy

HopelesslyJaded said:


> There are plenty that would discuss their own personal history if it was *their* personal history that is being questioned. Should we all have a disclaimer in our signatures that discloses all our current and past marital issues and how many people we've had sex with in our lifetime to be deemed honest?
> 
> You wanna know ask...


I'm not sure what your saying here. I was very much reacting to the trend by posters to refer to people who question their partners past # and even extreme sex practices - by calling them insecure and by calling them out for having an issue with the #.

The reality is if you have done extreme things or have a high number there are many people who WILL have an issue with it. They won't want to be with you. It's the same if you met someone who was a heroin addict. You'd seriously think twice before dating them. Maybe even dump them - having such a serious hardcore drug problem reveals a lot about the person they are, just as having a large number of partners does, or engaging in really extreme sex practices like orgies. 

The idea that a person doesn't have the right to evaluate and judge the worthiness of their partners is lunacy. Everyone has the right to judge on their own reasons any of their partners and reject or accept them.


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

I don't think anyone has denied that people in fact do have a right to evaluate and judge the worthiness of a partner or potential partner. It just gets irritating that they don't hold themselves to the same standard. A man thinks he needs a sexually virtuous woman (virgin or less than 5 partners or whatever) and he has 20 plus and don't think it matters.


----------



## Locard

Fair enough!


----------



## Shaggy

HopelesslyJaded said:


> I don't think anyone has denied that people in fact do have a right to evaluate and judge the worthiness of a partner or potential partner. It just gets irritating that they don't hold themselves to the same standard. A man thinks he needs a sexually virtuous woman (virgin or less than 5 partners or whatever) and he has 20 plus and don't think it matters.


Actually the posts I'm seeing on here it's mostly - guy with a few partners - girl with many many many partners and doesn't want to disclose just how many.

I'm not defending mixed standards - but I do have issue with people who think anything goes - because it does not.


----------



## ladybird

Why dwell on what you can't change? 

I don't think that past sexual history is really important, It happened before you got together, unless there is something like HIV or some incurable STD like herpes. 

My husband has never asked me about mine and I haven't asked him about his. It's pretty irrelevant if you ask me. If he wanted to know about my sexual history i would tell him. Not that there is all that much to tell.


----------



## ladybird

HopelesslyJaded said:


> I still think it's funny that it's generally accepted that a man has been promiscuous but that a woman's credibility or virtue is questioned if she has done the same. Heck it isn't uncommon for a promiscuous man to not want to marry a previously promiscuous woman. Quite laughable but it happens....alot.
> 
> I agree. It is just fine for men to sleep with any number of woman before marriage, but if a woman does it it is a big NO NO. It is 2012 people not the dark ages. And (some) woman love sex just much as men!
> 
> I mean look at Gene Simmons - 5000 + woman is his lifetime. I find that rather disgusting, but, he puts the numbers out there like he is GOD or something and no big deal. Now if a woman has had that many sexual partners in her life time we all know she wouldn't be thought of in the same way!
> 
> I thought for most people this topic just naturally came up somewhere in the dating process. You know, wanting to get to know each other and general curiousity about the person you are dating.


----------



## ladybird

How many men would a woman have to sleep with to get the title Promiscuous?? 2, 5, 10, 30?


----------



## larry.gray

Shaggy said:


> Actually the posts I'm seeing on here it's mostly - guy with a few partners


Yep, that's me. Just one for 19 years now.


----------



## larry.gray

ladybird said:


> How many men would a woman have to sleep with to get the title Promiscuous?? 2, 5, 10, 30?


It's not how many, it is how fast she went from meeting a guy to taking him to bed.


----------



## Entropy3000

HopelesslyJaded said:


> I don't think anyone has denied that people in fact do have a right to evaluate and judge the worthiness of a partner or potential partner. It just gets irritating that they don't hold themselves to the same standard. A man thinks he needs a sexually virtuous woman (virgin or less than 5 partners or whatever) and he has 20 plus and don't think it matters.


I think if it matters to a woman then it matters. If it matters to a man it matters. People have a right to their values. I understand not liking a double standard.

No excuse but traditionally many women have liked an experienced man. Pre-selection maybe. Maybe just culture. Idunno. Perhaps this has changed.

Anyway I have no disagreement with your thoughts on this. 

Like Shaggy I hate to see anyone called out for having standards. A man who states he cares about a woman's experince is belittled and called all sorts of things. I find that disconcerting. But I agree if he is all about nailing a large number of women and has issue with a woman just like him there is a double standard.


----------



## Entropy3000

ladybird said:


> Why dwell on what you can't change?
> 
> I don't think that past sexual history is really important, It happened before you got together, unless there is something like HIV or some incurable STD like herpes.
> 
> My husband has never asked me about mine and I haven't asked him about his. It's pretty irrelevant if you ask me. If he wanted to know about my sexual history i would tell him. Not that there is all that much to tell.


It would matter to me. It is part of selecting a partner. Just one of many other things of course.

It could easily change whether or not one marries.


----------



## costa200

HopelesslyJaded said:


> I don't think anyone has denied that people in fact do have a right to evaluate and judge the worthiness of a partner or potential partner. It just gets irritating that they don't hold themselves to the same standard. A man thinks he needs a sexually virtuous woman (virgin or less than 5 partners or whatever) and he has 20 plus and don't think it matters.


That may have a bit to do with the fact that it really doesn't because that actually increases his sex rank with women. The problem seems to be on your end. 

If you want men to care about that you need to start picking us for our virginal traits too (ROFL when i wrote that). But since that isn't happening why should men actually care and be depressed about having a high number?

Don't think it's all roses on this side. Women can basically have sex with the majority of men they want if they so desire. Most men can't have sex with the majority of women they meet. So you have an advantage and a disadvantage. Same as us. Pretty balanced actually. You get to pick, we get to chew you up for not picking (as in not selecting and having tons of sexual partners).

You don't see us whining about women not giving a chance to the fat nerd with thick glasses do you?


----------



## Entropy3000

ladybird said:


> How many men would a woman have to sleep with to get the title Promiscuous?? 2, 5, 10, 30?


How old is she?

What type of relationships were these?

Then there is this -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity

NZ women are said to have the highest avergae in the world -> 20.4

No man would want to admit to be the .4 of course.

*Female promiscuity*

In 1994, a study in the United States found that almost all married heterosexual women reported having sexual contact only with their husbands, and unmarried women almost always reported having no more than one sexual partner in the past three months. Lesbians who had a long-term partner reported having fewer outside partners than heterosexual women. More recent research, however, contradicts the assertion that heterosexual women are largely monogamous. A 2002 study estimated that 45% to 55% of married heterosexual women engage in sexual relationships outside of their marriage. While the estimates for heterosexual males in the same study were greater (50%–60%), the data indicate that a significant portion of married heterosexual women have or have had sexual partners other than their spouse as well.


----------



## ladybird

This will always be a double standard. 

It it socially ok for men to sleep around with as many woman as they possibly can, they are praised my their peers, but a woman does the same and they get called all sorts of bad names and get a bad title!

I personally think that if men or woman want to sleep around with as many people as they want, who are we to judge them??


----------



## Locard

Big differnence between judging and making vows with someone! YES I was judgemental when selecting my wife and I encourage any young man who wants to have children to do the same!


----------



## Thor

ladybird said:


> Why dwell on what you can't change?
> 
> I don't think that past sexual history is really important, It happened before you got together, unless there is something like HIV or some incurable STD like herpes.
> 
> My husband has never asked me about mine and I haven't asked him about his. It's pretty irrelevant if you ask me. If he wanted to know about my sexual history i would tell him. Not that there is all that much to tell.





ladybird said:


> How many men would a woman have to sleep with to get the title Promiscuous?? 2, 5, 10, 30?


Past history reveals a lot about the person's values. Compatibility in values is very important in a marriage. In addition, finding out later that things were not as advertised (implied or stated) is a very serious threat to the marriage.

My wife represented her number as 3, mine was 0 when we met in college. Now I know her number was something more based on surprise discoveries (she does not know about those discoveries). She has recently stated vaguely that she was "promiscuous" in high school. So here we are 30+ years down the road with a big crisis based in some very different values and philosophies. Her # is not one of the issues btw. Had she been honest with me back then on her # I would have judged her values to be too different from mine to marry her.

I don't know what she considers the definition of "promiscuous" to be and I am not sure I really want to know!

The fact that you and your husband don't care about the numbers is fine, and the fact that you would tell him if he asked is good. I don't think you two have a problem. Your values are in alignment.

I also think that the # is more relevant to younger people.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove

Complexity said:


> Several reasons, but this more or less sums it up
> Women Have Become Too Easy - AskMen


Typically men have more sexual partners than women.

So does that mean that all men are ****s too?

Look, I'm not buying any car without test driving it first.

If that makes me a ****--then brand me with a capital "S"!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Since you are all so hung up on numbers, let me throw out a big one. *451*. *That's the number of days ago that this thread was started.*


----------



## Locard

And?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Locard said:


> And?


Discussing a thread that old is pretty pointless. The OP isn't here anymore.


----------



## WadeWilson

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Discussing a thread that old is pretty pointless. The OP isn't here anymore.


The OP did not address a personal problem... But more of an ongoing topic in modern society... It has ongoing value... So as long as posters still want to discuss an issue of modern topic... Why not?


----------



## Shaggy

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Discussing a thread that old is pretty pointless. The OP isn't here anymore.


Then are we guilty or not of thread jacking.?


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Since you are all so hung up on numbers, let me throw out a big one. *451*. *That's the number of days ago that this thread was started.*


A great book as well.


----------



## Deejo

Old thread or not ... it's about sex. People dig it!

The only part of a woman's sexual history I care about is when she last had sex with me, and when she's going to have sex with me again.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

HopelesslyJaded said:


> I don't think anyone has denied that people in fact do have a right to evaluate and judge the worthiness of a partner or potential partner. It just gets irritating that they don't hold themselves to the same standard. A man thinks he needs a sexually virtuous woman (virgin or less than 5 partners or whatever) and he has 20 plus and don't think it matters.


I just asked my husband tonight how he feels about this "*double standard*" - mentioning this thread ...he answers me saying he feels SOME men treat women like 2nd class citizens and it isn't right ....so he is totally against a Double standard.... but then again this is coming from a LOWER SEX RANKED MAN (virginal when we met- very few women chasing after him)....

I agree 100% with Costa's words..... It just makes perfect sense to me... the majority of women appear to get their panties in a tickle over all the HOT guys who have a "reputation" with the ladies.... 



> *costa200 said*: That may have a bit to do with the fact that it really doesn't because that actually increases his sex rank with women. The problem seems to be on your end.
> 
> If you want men to care about that you need to start picking us for our virginal traits too (ROFL when i wrote that). But since that isn't happening why should men actually care and be depressed about having a high number?
> 
> Don't think it's all roses on this side. Women can basically have sex with the majority of men they want if they so desire. Most men can't have sex with the majority of women they meet. So you have an advantage and a disadvantage. Same as us. Pretty balanced actually. You get to pick, we get to chew you up for not picking (as in not selecting and having tons of sexual partners).
> 
> You don't see us whining about women not giving a chance to the fat nerd with thick glasses do you?


 My husband was at least a Hot looking nerd under those glasses. I told him to get rid of his JC penney jeans & start wearing some Levi's too-shorty after we met - he liked soft Rock, I turned him on to Heavy Metal & got him to grow his hair a little longer....I spruced him up pretty good. 

I really think more women would do themselves a favor to take notice of the nicer men when they are younger, but I don't think anyone is going to listen to me!!


----------



## WadeWilson

The number has no bearing with me... If I'm number 301... That means 300 men (or women) didn't have what it takes... 

Besides for some women with high numbers sometimes have many meaningless encounters... With that, when real love strikes, you will compare entirely different....


----------



## Cosmos

WadeWilson said:


> The number has no bearing with me... If I'm number 301... That means 300 men (or women) didn't have what it takes...
> 
> Besides for some women with high numbers sometimes have many meaningless encounters... With that, when real love strikes, you will compare entirely different....


Now some might see this in the reverse. It could indicate that a person with that number doesn't have what it takes and has devalued themselves... A man who had 10% of that number, even, would be of little value to me - relationship wise.


----------



## Caribbean Man

So how important really is this number?
My wife's number was zero, mine was....a lot.
She said it didn't matter , and I was ok.
Then came marriage and sex.

Then came her insecurities, she would ask after sex if _she was good enough._ I had to be very patient and reassuring.

Then came some of the exes who though she was a
" plain Jane " , and used make snide remarks, implying that she couldn't please me in bed...I had to get rid of them from my life, I saw them as toxic.

Then came the insecurities, and the cycle started all over again.

Yes, my number bothered her although at first she didn't admit. She didn't understand the intricacies of maritial sex , neither did I.
But I was sensitive enough not to down play her concerns and insecurities and I was open and honest with her.

This is what I have learnt.
It is quite easy to please a different woman in bed every night , but hard to please the same woman in bed ,
every night.
Whether we like it or not,
Numbers do tell a story!


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

I am betting with a virgin, even if you number was just 1 that he/she would still ask and wonder if they were good enough.

I will admit though that once you get into double digits you don't remember every detail about every person/encounter. Years pass and you may remember a few standouts. Rarely do you remember that they existed. That's the facts for me anyway.


----------



## lovelygirl

Caribbean Man said:


> So how important really is this number?
> My wife's number was zero, mine was....a lot.
> She said it didn't matter , and I was ok.
> Then came marriage and sex.
> 
> Then came her insecurities, she would ask after sex if _she was good enough._ I had to be very patient and reassuring.
> 
> Then came some of the exes who though she was a
> " plain Jane " , and used make snide remarks, implying that she couldn't please me in bed...I had to get rid of them from my life, I saw them as toxic.
> 
> Then came the insecurities, and the cycle started all over again.
> 
> Yes, my number bothered her although at first she didn't admit. She didn't understand the intricacies of maritial sex , neither did I.
> But I was sensitive enough not to down play her concerns and insecurities and I was open and honest with her.
> 
> This is what I have learnt.
> It is quite easy to please a different woman in bed every night , but hard to please the same woman in bed ,
> every night.
> Whether we like it or not,
> Numbers do tell a story!


CM, you're one of those rare guys who settled down the way you did and your wife is one of those rare women who put up with her H's high number of EXes.

With all the respect I have for you, if I hadn't known you in this forum and see how you have changed in marriage and if I had been in your wife's shoes (back then), I wouldn't have chosen you - given the promiscuous sexual history that you have.
*BUT*, seeing how men like you, are an exception to the general rule and have the ability/desire to settle down and be faithful to their wives - makes me re-think and re-evaluate my choices in men. 

I'm very picky. Being a virgin and having had just one relationship in the past, would make it very hard for me to choose a man who's had countless of women in the past..or one who's had a promiscuous past. 
Yes, just as there are easy women as *there are easy guys* ..and easy guys are a turn off for me. 
But this is not black and white. If the guy has grown up and learned from his past then I might consider being with him. 
But, if he's still the type who has nostalgia for his past and has tendencies of wanting to re-live his past then I guess I'd have to tell him bye bye. 
I have to be clear, I don't want an inexperienced/virgin guy, BUT on the other hand I don't want someone who has slept with half of the women in the city. 

Everyone has their own standards and these are my own. 
Love me or leave me.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> This is what I have learnt.
> It is quite easy to please a different woman in bed every night , but hard to please the same woman in bed ,
> every night.
> Whether we like it or not,
> Numbers do tell a story!


Because it's a relationship, and day to day life is obviously going to impact on desire / performance etc. IMO, it takes dedication to keep the chemistry flowing - but so worth the effort.

I don't think someone's high number would make me feel insecure (unless they talked about them), just disinterested. I know my value, and want a man who knows his - without having the need to 'spread it around.'


----------



## COguy

I didn't read all 8 pages, and I may be coming from a place of insecurity given recent drama, but I definitely think it impacts my LTR decision.

A woman who had a bunch of random encounters, that would make me worried that when sh*t hits the fan, she's going to run out and do it again. Or that she has a problem with boundaries or practicing self-control.

As a guy who waited, I would love to find another virgin to marry. I'm not counting on it, and I'm also not sure if I'm going to abstain from sex either, but it would definitely still affect my decision on committing to someone.

If a woman was married or had a bunch of committed relationships it would bother me a lot less, to the point where I probably wouldn't care at all.

For me it's not about the fear of being worse than other lovers, it's more about showing character. Words mean almost nothing to me now, show me with your actions how you handle yourself. Don't tell me you're a prude but you slept with the entire starting lineup of Dallas Cowboys. I met a girl now who thinks she's a sl*t because she loves sex so much but she's only had sex with 4 guys and they were all over a year relationships. THAT is the kind of chick I want to marry. Someone who is wild and crazy about sex but only with the person they are in a relationship with.

And in one of the few areas I disagree with SA with vehemently, you do not have to have sex with someone to see if they hate sex or if they will be bad at it. My stbxw is a great example, I could tell she'd be bad in bed, and I wasn't disappointed. This chick I'm seeing now, oh my god she would rock my sh*t in the sack and we haven't done much past light foreplay. Two people can connect and get a sense of style, rhythm, passion, sexual appetite without having to insert a penis into a vagina.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

COguy said:


> And in one of the few areas I disagree with SA with vehemently, you do not have to have sex with someone to see if they hate sex or if they will be bad at it. My stbxw is a great example, I could tell she'd be bad in bed, and I wasn't disappointed.


 I'm confused, did I say this?  

How I feel is... if one insists on remaining a virgin ....(our oldest for instance) & most especially a HIGHER DRIVE male.... I feel it very very WISE....to have some sexual expermentation with each other, get a feel of each others drives, if she CAN orgasm & wants that desperately... yeah touching, lots of touching !! 

....Cause if she has no interest in this, if it is a "peice of cake" to hold back... not really causing her to drench her panties... if she is not screaming inside to herself ...after some kissing & closeness..... "God I want him to touch me"---she is LOW DRIVE or just not into you. And this could set him up for a lifetime of suffering in marraige.. 

I remember how STRONG this pull was for me... OMG !!! There is no way we would have been able to keep our hands off each other...it would have been *torment*... I just don't regret these things at all.... but at the time, I took alot of *shame* for it -due to religious teachings -which never made any damn sense to me anyway.

I could see the waiting for hotdog in the bun...(since this has the power to create life, not to be taken lightly).... but the other, with how we felt for each other..... nope, it was an expression of Love, caring for each other, pleasing each ohter, a giving of pleasure - all beautiful things. 

It was just other's judgements I allowed to dance in my head ...trampeling on what we had. What a shame I say, a waste. But hey, when we're young...the mind tends to absorb what we are taught ...LUST was pounded in my head to = SIN. 

I've grown up -- I say LUST is grand -give me more !  I just feel personally (my values)...it should be reserved for just one special person, with the feelings of love, acceptance & sensitve emotion all wrapped up with it. 



> This chick I'm seeing now, oh my god she would rock my sh*t in the sack and we haven't done much past light foreplay. *Two people can connect and get a sense of style, rhythm, passion, sexual appetite without having to insert a penis into a vagina*.


Couldn't agree more ! Absolutely!

Good for you CoGuy ! :smthumbup:


----------



## COguy

Nice save, you just didn't want to say you disagreed with me


----------



## SimplyAmorous

COguy said:


> Nice save, you just didn't want to say you disagreed with me


Call me stupid, I guess I am still trying to figure out how I disagreed. I think without having sex with someone.... you can still get an "air" about them.... if they might be lousy in bed....if that is what you are trying to say... sounds like you "knew". 

If someone has zero flirting ability (my husband wasn't a big flirter BUT damn was he ever touchy feely - so that made it up for it).... no air of sensuality, not much of a sense of humor, I think that is important in bed too...chances are they SUCK in bed, or better put -won't suck in bed. 

I am grabbing my husband -he is going to see "Magic Mike" with me today! What a great guy, he is a little embarrassed, I told him he can sneak in after it gets dark. Ha ha I'll make it worth his while . 

We're off !


----------



## ladybird

MarriedWifeInLove said:


> Typically men have more sexual partners than women.
> 
> So does that mean that all men are ****s too?
> 
> Look, I'm not buying any car without test driving it first.
> 
> If that makes me a ****--then brand me with a capital "S"!


LOL. I so agree. Granted i didn't sleep with any guy. I was pretty selective on who i chose to sleep with, but then again i have been with the same man for the last 16 years. I have morals and i didn't just give it to anybody (and i could have)

Men are not ****s they are studs. *Crap* *cough cough*


----------



## costa200

> I am grabbing my husband -he is going to see "Magic Mike" with me today! What a great guy, he is a little embarrassed, I told him he can sneak in after it gets dark. Ha ha I'll make it worth his while .


You better... Saw it with my partner and sister and it sucked beyond belief. I've literally seen porn with better plot.


----------



## FalconKing

I am not waiting for marriage to be intimate. I have had partners. A handful. But I genuinely would not be interested in a someone who is my age and has had around 20 partners. I honestly don't know if i would be interested in someone who has had 20 boyfriends, even without the sex. I want someone who has spent some time single and maybe has thought about what it is they want in a relationship and also has had the chance to just live for themselves. In my opinion i feel that people who have many partners can easily emotionally detach themselves from others. Just like someone who has many boyfriends, because as far as relationships go they just go through the motions. I have had friends tell me that the longest they have been without a partner either sexually or romantically in their adult life ranges from a few weeks to a few months. That's it. All of those things I find are relevant to how a person handles the relationship.


----------



## lovelygirl

FalconKing said:


> I want someone who has spent some time single and maybe has thought about what it is they want in a relationship and also has had the chance to just live for themselves..


I agree!

I don't understand how some people get from one relationship to another within a short period of time without taking some time to reflect ... but I guess everyone is different. 

One of my girl-friends doesn't remember when was the last time she was single...maybe it was 5-6 years ago. And within this period of time she has changed a minimum of 5 boyfriends - which means a new boyfriend per year. 

And she looks at me like I'm some kind of a weirdo for having been in just 1 relationship in the past and being single for 3 years already. lol. 
For a moment I started believing I'm weird lol but I guess it's not just me who thinks that one who breaks up needs to live the single life for a while because it gives you the chance to learn from the mistakes you made in the previous relationship.


----------



## Shaggy

Deejo said:


> Old thread or not ... it's about sex. People dig it!
> 
> The only part of a woman's sexual history I care about is when she last had sex with me, and when she's going to have sex with me again.


You might also be very interested if there was another person in between or after those two events!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

costa200 said:


> You better... Saw it with my partner and sister and it sucked beyond belief. I've literally seen porn with better plot.


Hey I enjoyed it ! Did a post on it here >> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/social-spot/50716-magic-mike-11.html


----------



## WyshIknew

Well a litle awkward for me as I was late 20s and cherry when I met my wife.

I never told her that I was a virgin when I met her (too embarrased) and in fact didn't tell her until we had been married quite some time. At the same time as I told her (confessed?) I asked for a little more detail on her exes. Well she started telling me about sex in cars, going at it so hard she fell through a hedge??
She looked up and saw my face and realised it was upsetting me a bit. I do wish now I had never asked. But I was also jealous that I never got to do those things with her.


----------



## onetimer6804

I used to be so mad about the subject. but after years of marriage - i learned to live with it - and even use it for better sex.


----------



## onetimer6804

couple said:


> Thank you Entropy for calling out that unfair response (Conrad's 'grow up').
> 
> Just because someone feels that sexual history is important, doesn't mean that they want a 'clean' sexual history. Truly knowing your partner and achieving real intimacy means knowing them well. People's past family life, jobs and education all have good and not so good parts. I know my wife's life well. Obviously I assume that she chooses to keep some things private (sexual and non-sexual things that have happened in her life). She shares what she wants to share.
> 
> What surprises me, however, is that the automatic assumption here seems to be that past sex is always shameful and a 'difficult' topic. Brighteyes, you might share it here but you automatically assumed that I'm causing problems by caring about and being interested in my wife's sexual past. I don't see how you can be truly intimate with someone if you, for example, only know the hard facts of whether they have been exposed to HIV or have been a sex worker (to synthesise Runs' comment). If that works for some people, then I have no problem with that. I would never think less of a person for their sexual past but it's an important part of a person so I think that it does matter.
> 
> When my wife first told me about her past experiences, she always described them as 'mistakes' and it was like she was apologetic about it. Well this was not really how she felt. I don't think she was being devious, I just think she was a little confused about how she felt about them. Now she has come to terms with herself and with me that some of these were really exciting and physically fulfilling experiences. And like everything in life, some were forgettable.
> 
> I just don't understand how you achieve real intimacy if an important part of one's life (their sexuality) is shrouded in secrecy.


the problem is - now I can't get off if she doesn't talk about her exes. now what?


----------



## COguy

onetimer6804 said:


> the problem is - now I can't get off if she doesn't talk about her exes. now what?


Wow are you serious? That would be horrible...


----------



## Matt1720

Yes this is a problem, not being able to enjoy being with her right now, making your own good memories.


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

onetimer6804 said:


> the problem is - now I can't get off if she doesn't talk about her exes. now what?


In some way your channeling her stories it seems to feel like your screwing a porn star. LOL It is odd to me. I would absolutely not get off on my husband talking about screwing someone else while we are having sex!


----------



## controlledchaos

onetimer6804 said:


> the problem is - now I can't get off if she doesn't talk about her exes. now what?


I can still get off without it, but her talking about one very well-hung guy in particular drives me wild. :scratchhead:


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

If it works for you and your both ok with it, then I see no issue here. That's what matters most right?


----------



## Dollystanford

ok I'm going to chime in here because sometimes I read TAM and think 'god they must think I'm some kind of wh*re'

I slept with a lot of guys from the age of about 16 - 23. I enjoyed having sex, I didn't want commitment, I was hot, I pulled all the time, I didn't have 'boyfriends' as such, I got bored easily, I could go off someone at the drop of a hat

but you know, I grew up - I met my husband at 23 and was faithful to him for 13 years. I didn't look at another man all that time. 

I never compared any 'conquest' to the last, I lived in the moment and enjoyed the single life. But I'm always honest about it - if a guy can't handle it then so be it. But don't assume that because someone has had a lot of sexual partners they can't be faithful or a good wife/husband. They absolutely can...

is all


----------



## controlledchaos

HopelesslyJaded said:


> If it works for you and your both ok with it, then I see no issue here. That's what matters most right?


If that's for me, then sure, thanks. 
I'm on TAM to try work that out of my system though, and you're telling me it's okay? haha


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

I tried to make that point in another thread a while back that was quite heated. I was exactly the same from 18-21. The one that called women like me "low value" as far as marriage material went.

Some would think our 3some invalidates that but I am of the belief that adding an extra with mutual consent isn't infidelity. But that is 100% agreement between both partners.


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

controlledchaos said:


> If that's for me, then sure, thanks.
> I'm on TAM to try work that out of my system though, and you're telling me it's okay? haha


I am saying it's ok if your wife is ok with it. If she is ok with it then what is it hurting as far as your marriage goes.


----------



## williamjones

i know it's not enlightened, but "don't ask don't tell" might work best...


----------



## controlledchaos

HopelesslyJaded said:


> I am saying it's ok if your wife is ok with it. If she is ok with it then what is it hurting as far as your marriage goes.


Sure. The only issue is the unknown - ie: afterwards.


----------



## someone90

WadeWilson said:


> The number has no bearing with me... If I'm number 301... That means 300 men (or women) didn't have what it takes...
> 
> Besides for some women with high numbers sometimes have many meaningless encounters... With that, when real love strikes, you will compare entirely different....


There's more to it than just being better than past lovers. IMO sex is something special with someone you spend the rest of your life with.


----------



## PHTlump




----------



## Deejo

someone90 said:


> IMO sex is something special with someone you spend the rest of your life with.


I agree. I just measure it as something special with someone I share the next few weeks with.


----------

