# Having A Wife With A "Past"



## killjoy

okay I don't want to throw out any exact figures here, but lets say my wife has more than triple the amount of sexual partners that I've had. I was astonished when she told me (I thought she was joking at first), and was insecure enough in that moment to inflate my own numbers a bit just so we were in the same galaxy (no matter what I was out of the ballpark). so yes, she's a lot more experienced than me--and i'm not going to lie to you--it makes me feel a little uneasy and inadequate. sometimes I wonder about how I measure up to her lovers in the past. after reading a bunch of horror stories on here, I get paranoid when she spends a lot of time on facebook possibly contacting old boyfriends

do I have a right to feel bad about my wife's "body count"? should I just get over it? 

for the guys here: how would you feel if our wife had more than triple the amount of sexual partners you had?


----------



## Thumper

I think its irrelevant to be honest. I personally didn't want to know much about my wife's past, its her past and has nothing to do with me. Heck she married you, you cant be inadequate for her or should wouldn't have married you. Forget about it and move on, just be glad she was at least honest about it, would have been worse if she gave you a number than you found out much later was a lie.


----------



## BjornFree

She wouldn't be my wife at all.

But since you've already married her. Remember that where she's had greater numbers than you, you make up for it by having experienced tighter *****. Just don't tell her that unless she's humiliating you or something.


----------



## Dollystanford

We all have a past. Some of us more than others. What matters is that she chose you and is loyal to you - if that's the case then the past is irrelevant


----------



## stuck in los angeles

I don't know if I should believe my wife or if she's just placating me, but she says I'm the only one who takes the time to make sure she has her "0". She says all the others were all "Wham, Bam, thank you Ma'am". I have different problems in my marriage though, basically I neglected the marriage and let the relationship wither on the vine. The time together was less and less as I withdrew into my hobbies and her into watching TV. Then I started to get the sense that she and a coworker were getting close. I only hope I caught it in time. We're working on the marriage now through marriage counseling and spending quality time together.

Bottom line though is don't let it consume you. Instead make sure you do all you can to be the best she's ever been with. Make it fun and change things around. Get some toys and learn what she likes. And don't neglect the rest of the relationship like I did.


----------



## SouthernMiss

BjornFree said:


> She wouldn't be my wife at all.
> 
> But since you've already married her. Remember that where she's had greater numbers than you, you make up for it by having experienced tighter *****. Just don't tell her that unless she's humiliating you or something.



Where do you get that from? A woman's vagina doesn't stretch out due to the number of sexual partners she has had. If that were true, a woman who had regular sex with ANY man...even only ONE man...would eventually get "loose." After sex, the vagina goes right back to the normal size it always was. Misogynistic BS. A woman's vagina would get "loose" due to child birth, excess weight, etc.


----------



## aug

Dollystanford said:


> We all have a past. Some of us more than others. *What matters is that she chose you* and is loyal to you - if that's the case then the past is irrelevant



And that's not necessary a good thing unfortunately...


----------



## SouthernMiss

killjoy said:


> okay I don't want to throw out any exact figures here, but lets say my wife has more than triple the amount of sexual partners that I've had. I was astonished when she told me (I thought she was joking at first), and was insecure enough in that moment to inflate my own numbers a bit just so we were in the same galaxy (no matter what I was out of the ballpark). so yes, she's a lot more experienced than me--and i'm not going to lie to you--it makes me feel a little uneasy and inadequate. sometimes I wonder about how I measure up to her lovers in the past. after reading a bunch of horror stories on here, I get paranoid when she spends a lot of time on facebook possibly contacting old boyfriends
> 
> do I have a right to feel bad about my wife's "body count"? should I just get over it?
> 
> for the guys here: how would you feel if our wife had more than triple the amount of sexual partners you had?


This isn't about your wife. This is about your insecurities. I've had far more partners than my husband had had. I just mentioned this thread to my husband and he laughed...

Although I do think he has had some similar insecurities.

Your wife is the woman she is based on her cumulative life experiences.

You love her for who she is, right? Love her despite of her past. Appreciate the sexual experience she brings to the table even?

The reality is that she can't change her past, even if she wanted to. So the onus is you to deal with it because you married her, past and all.

I doubt she'd have married you if you didn't measure up 

We live in a society that tells women they must either be a madonna or a *****. But it doesn't have to be that way. A sexually experienced woman can also make a wonderful, faithful wife who is just as valuable a woman who married a man as a virgin.

My advice? Just love your wife as she is.


----------



## aug

Well, that explains somewhat your post below.



killjoy said:


> how common is it for women to have rape fantasies? my wife says (to "spice" things up) she wants me to be rougher with her, i.e choke her, slap her, spit on her, pull her hair, fast & hard. I'm a little uncomfortable with what she's asking of me; it sounds like she wants me to rape her. did she just reveal a darker side of her personality or do a lot of women like being treated like this in the bedroom?
> 
> i'm confused, this just came out of nowhere. she's reading the 50 shades of grey books so maybe thats putting some thoughts into her head..



She has experienced so much, she's jaded and needs more unusual/strange to turn her on. And this need of hers to be abused and punished shows lack of self-respect or self-love.

But, then, what do I know?


----------



## SouthernMiss

aug said:


> Well, that explains somewhat your post below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She has experienced so much, she's jaded and needs more unusual/strange to turn her on. And this need of hers to be abused and punished shows lack of self-respect or self-love.
> 
> But, then, what do I know?


Oh please. Sometimes the men of TAM make me think I live in the 1950s or something.

Having a rape fantasy or like it "rough" doesn't indicate a lack of self-respect of self-love. Ludicrous!

I live the BDSM lifestyle myself, and I can tell you it's beautiful, consensual, respectful and loving...and very rough and very fun.

A sexually adventurous woman isn't a liability. 

It just means she likes sex. That's all.


----------



## BjornFree

SouthernMiss said:


> I doubt she'd have married you if you didn't measure up


One can never be sure. Just visit the CWI section.


----------



## BjornFree

SouthernMiss said:


> Oh please. Sometimes the men of TAM make me think I live in the 1950s or something.
> 
> Having a rape fantasy or like it "rough" doesn't indicate a lack of self-respect of self-love. Ludicrous!
> 
> I live the BDSM lifestyle myself, and I can tell you it's beautiful, consensual, respectful and loving...and very rough and very fun.
> 
> A sexually adventurous woman isn't a liability.
> 
> It just means she likes sex. That's all.


Yes well couple that up with one sexual partner to many tells me that she doesn't value herself as much as she should, has little to no self restraint and seeks external validation.


----------



## aug

SouthernMiss said:


> Where do you get that from? A woman's vagina doesn't stretch out due to the number of sexual partners she has had. If that were true, a woman who had regular sex with ANY man...even only ONE man...would eventually get "loose." After sex, the vagina goes right back to the normal size it always was. Misogynistic BS. A woman's vagina would get "loose" due to child birth, excess weight, etc.




How would excess weight make the vagina loose?


----------



## SouthernMiss

BjornFree said:


> One can never be sure. Just visit the CWI section.


While I will concede there is always a possibility this isn't true...I will say there is no reason to be especially suspicious of that. 

Just because she slept with a lot of guys? 

It sounds to me she likes sex. So? That doesn't mean she is unfaithful, uncommitted or less than a stellar wife in any way.

Unless I missed something?


----------



## SouthernMiss

BjornFree said:


> Yes well couple that up with one sexual partner to many tells me that she doesn't value herself as much as she should, has little to no self restraint and seeks external validation.


Well that's one interpretation. 

I can identify with this wife myself. I have had a lot of partners. Not because I didn't value myself. But because I own my own sexuality...was single...enjoy sex...and was just having fun  

A woman's sexuality being full expressed doesn't have to be threatening


----------



## aug

SouthernMiss said:


> Oh please. Sometimes the men of TAM make me think I live in the 1950s or something.
> 
> Having a rape fantasy or like it "rough" doesn't indicate a lack of self-respect of self-love. Ludicrous!
> 
> *I live the BDSM lifestyle myself, and I can tell you it's beautiful, consensual, respectful and loving...and very rough and very fun.*
> 
> A sexually adventurous woman isn't a liability.
> 
> It just means she likes sex. That's all.



Well, of course, it's respectful and loving. 

Just hold on, let me smack you around a bit first.


----------



## SouthernMiss

aug said:


> How would excess weight make the vagina loose?


It doesn't have to. But it's possible. If the pelvic muscles are stretched and loosened.


----------



## SouthernMiss

aug said:


> Well, of course, it's respectful and loving.
> 
> Just hold on, let me smack you around a bit first.


It's incredibly trusting, loving and respectful. If it's consensual, it's incredibly beautiful. It's putting your entire self in the hands of another...

If it's not for YOU, that's ok. But just because it doesn't float your boat, that doesn't make it bad or wrong in any way.

Tell me...if I *I* feel loved and respected and fulfilled...and my husband does too...how is this wrong? If the participants are happy?

I am a very sexually happy person. I could never be happy with vanilla sex. It bores me. 

This didn't happen by way of sexual experience either. On the contrary, this is what interested me as a virgin even. And vanilla sexual experiences only confirmed it for me. It's not AT ALL a result of being experienced.

But we are hijacking this thread...

Don't want to distract from the original intent.


----------



## SouthernMiss

BjornFree said:


> Yes well couple that up with one sexual partner to many tells me that she doesn't value herself as much as she should, has little to no self restraint and seeks external validation.


Or maybe she just likes sex and took advantage of the fact that it's easy for a woman to get as much sex as makes her happy. Bad, bad girl...

As long she did it safely, who cares?

It boils down to male insecurity. Which is understandable...we all have insecurities. But let's call it what it is.


----------



## Entropy3000

SouthernMiss said:


> Or maybe she just likes sex and took advantage of the fact that it's easy for a woman to get as much sex as makes her happy. Bad, bad girl...
> 
> As long she did it safely, who cares?
> 
> It boils down to male insecurity. Which is understandable...we all have insecurities. But let's call it what it is.


Having a lot of sex just may mean it is not meaningful to them. Personally sex is just sex tells me people are just not into it very much. Think about it.

I am as secure as can be. I do not want a woman who was passed around. Sorry I deserve better. I am too secure in who I am to care about people trying to be PC and be trendy and say the more sex with the more partners is a good thing. Past a point it is all about low self esteem.

But number is not the issue. It is the type of relationships. Who wants a woman who can not be in a mongamous relationship? How about you show some history of being able to have sex with a guy, the same guy in a monogamous way.

The other thing we see is that some guys fall for women who sleep around with a certain type of guy. Not at all like the guy who marries her. She settles for the guy because he is stable but she is itching to get pounded by the other type. So what happens is that after a while the sex slows down and she starts looking for attention. She may not cheat. But the marriage sux and no one is happy.

So my suggestion is that a guy marry a compatible woman. Find out all this stuff BEFORE you get married. The only thing that matters to a secure man is what he wants in a wife. HE gets to choose.  He should look at the whole package.

And lastly if you are a secure man you could give a flip for someone calling you insecure. 

I would only care about this if I was looking for a life long partner. I wold not have to settle. And neither would they.


----------



## BjornFree

SouthernMiss said:


> Or maybe she just likes sex and took advantage of the fact that it's easy for a woman to get as much sex as makes her happy. Bad, bad girl...
> 
> As long she did it safely, who cares?
> 
> It boils down to male insecurity. Which is understandable...we all have insecurities. But let's call it what it is.



Let me tell you the downside of the hookup culture.The unadulterated truth......

One, you're exposing yourself to a whole slew of STD's by sleeping around. 

Two, it might seem cool that you can get all the sex you ever wanted without trying but you won't get the commitment you crave because most men will just not respect you enough to want a relationship with you. That doesn't mean they won't be ready to bang your brains out though.

Three, one of things that is so enchanting and intoxicating about a woman's sexuality is that she, as you said, has the ability to have sex a lot more frequently without having to try as hard as a man. The fact that she isn't open to seduction with every other man is a good sign for an LTR. Obviously, the fact that she was willing to be seduced by a man when she rejected so many others indicates that she has a lot more control on her desires and the man will respect her for that. Men are the conquerors and women are the conquests, its always been thus. So when the prey makes it that much harder for the hunter, the hunt becomes that much better.

People value diamonds because they're rare. When you know that you can have as much sex as you want to but still value yourself enough to accept it from a man who's willing to commit to you, you become one of those diamonds.

The town bike gets to be ridden by the whole crowd but who wants to own one when they can get a new superbike for themselves?

A lot of men wouldn't settle for a woman like that when they know they can do better, so its not an insecurity thing it's got more to do with having better options.


----------



## aug

BjornFree said:


> A lot of men wouldn't settle for a woman like that when they know they can do better, so its not an insecurity thing it's got more to do with having better options.


I agree.

It's knowing there's one better rather than insecurity.


----------



## Lyris

So, is this a frank double standard? Do you think the same way about men who have many partners?

If yes, good for you. If no, this is another nasty little example of the misogynistic wish to control women's sexuality that I am so sick of seeing on these boards.


----------



## BjornFree

Lyris said:


> So, is this a frank double standard? Do you think the same way about men who have many partners?
> 
> If yes, good for you. If no, this is another nasty little example of the misogynistic wish to control women's sexuality that I am so sick of seeing on these boards.


Yep, frank double standard. What's politically wrong does not necessarily make it a bad thing.

Lady, no one's trying to control anyone else's sexuality. You don't want to marry a man with too many partners, then don't- no one's getting in your way. Don't shame men or call them insecure for not wanting to marry a woman with too many partners. Last I know, people had the right to choose so unless you were forced to marry your husband I don't see any reason for you to complain.


----------



## Big Dude

Lyris said:


> So, is this a frank double standard? Do you think the same way about men who have many partners?
> 
> If yes, good for you. If no, this is another nasty little example of the misogynistic wish to control women's sexuality that I am so sick of seeing on these boards.


I do in fact think the same of men who have many sexual partners, because it means for them, just as for women, that they are morally comfortable with seperating sex from love. I want nothing to do sexually with a partner who feels that way. Your self-righteous foot stomping will not convince me that I am insecure or supporting a double standard.

If it makes you feel any better, I am growing sick with the increasing amount of misandronystic comments posted here that imply all men are ****s who will bang anything within reach.


----------



## Entropy3000

I think whatever ANYONE has for marital standards is fine. It is their standards. Society does not get to tell others what they will and will not accept.

This poll was about a wife. So my answer was related to a wife.

If men care more about this than women then please ask the women why their standards are so low.

But to be clear my feelings are NOT gender specific. The bottom line is that I am a raging heterosexual.

People should not settle. BUT the time to care is BEFORE marriage.

People IMO should choose compatible mates. 

Sorry but a guy who is number 672 is just not that special.


----------



## committed4ever

*just as for women, that they are morally comfortable with seperating sex from love*

Big Dude,

Just curious would you think your statement applied if all the partners were before and up to age 22? Or would you say it was the folly of youth?

It's not me btw. My H is my one and only.


----------



## Dollystanford

Interesting. I had sex with quite a few people from the age of 16 to 23. Then I met the man I married and was totally faithful for 13 years (and would have continued to be had he not been a waste of space)

If a man doesn't want to experience the awesomeness of Dolly because of what I may or may not have done over a decade ago that's their lookout, I really don't think it bothers me that much


----------



## Entropy3000

The above post prompted me add tnat to me what is important is to see a maturing process.

The trend matters. It shows someone who is learning and growing.

"any women in the world could have know me better" -- Mr Soul

So as for me. I rebelled against my strict Catholic upbringing and played Sailor for a while. 

But this got old and I wanted to find a woman of substance. I found my wife. I was not looking for a virgin. Now that would have been fine and dandy woth me as frankly I would feel that much more special. I would have cherished a wife who happened to be a virgin. But this is not about a man being insecure. It is about being special. Not the same thing.

But I found a wonderful woman who had been married before.

Truth be told while I have hand more partners, she has had only one before me. But consider that she was married before I had my first experience. My wife has actually had more sex than I have. I tease her all the time about this but it is true. Her experience was wth two men she married. She tells me that sex did not count before me .... LOL. Bless her little heart. And I have no doubt that I rocked her world and this is at least partially true. 

I would have been fine with her if she had similar numbers to me. But it is about comaptible value systems and so on.


----------



## Dollystanford

I think that's true - I don't want to be just another notch on some stud's bedpost. And funnily enough since I've been single (over a year now) I've only had one notch on mine and wouldn't dream of hitting bars looking for sex with randoms

Hey I have matured!


----------



## committed4ever

Dollystanford said:


> Interesting. I had sex with quite a few people from the age of 16 to 23. Then I met the man I married and was totally faithful for 13 years (and would have continued to be had he not been a waste of space)
> 
> If a man doesn't want to experience the awesomeness of Dolly because of what I may or may not have done over a decade ago that's their lookout, I really don't think it bothers me that much


Dolly I hope your post was not in response to mine. Because let me just say for the record that I am totally scared of you. Virtually, that is.


----------



## Entropy3000

Dollystanford said:


> Interesting. I had sex with quite a few people from the age of 16 to 23. Then I met the man I married and was totally faithful for 13 years (and would have continued to be had he not been a waste of space)
> 
> If a man doesn't want to experience the awesomeness of Dolly because of what I may or may not have done over a decade ago that's their lookout, I really don't think it bothers me that much


Dolly, I contend that you and I would have been very compatible because that is my story as well.

But indeed it is part of the equation. Let us assume you are a bit of terrific. That matters. My wife thought it did with me.

But I think the number of partners is not so much about cheating but rather about compatibility and people being happy together. There are no gaurantees..

All BS aside, your awesomeness probably trumps everything else in this world. I am not just blowing smoke.


----------



## Dollystanford

committed4ever said:


> Dolly I hope your post was not in response to mine. Because let me just say for the record that I am totally scared of you. Virtually, that is.


No  it was a general 'interesting'
I'm the least scary person in the world, honestly


----------



## Entropy3000

Dollystanford said:


> I think that's true - I don't want to be just another notch on some stud's bedpost. And funnily enough since I've been single (over a year now) I've only had one notch on mine and wouldn't dream of hitting bars looking for sex with randoms
> 
> Hey I have matured!


You are a Goddess.

And Dolly, seriously, old fashioned or not, a man wants to think that his wife has not been notches on a bunch of guys belts. To pass that off as insecure is disengenuous by some. I will tell you no joke I was a boy toy for a bit. I had a blast. But really what was I? Not much to be proud about. I had a couple ladies pass on me as they said I did sleep around too much. We were not comaptible


----------



## BjornFree

Dollystanford said:


> If a man doesn't want to experience the awesomeness of Dolly because of what I may or may not have done over a decade ago that's their lookout, I really don't think it bothers me that much


I think this is what truly being comfortable with your sexuality means, be it for a man or woman. Not throwing a hissy fit because some guy or girl rejected you for having too many partners or the lack thereof.


----------



## Dollystanford

Entropy3000 said:


> Dolly, I contend that you and I would have been very compatible because that is my story as well.
> 
> But indeed it is part of the equation. Let us assume you are a bit of terrific. That matters. My wife thought it did with me.
> 
> But I think the number of partners is not so much about cheating but rather about compatibility and people being happen together. There are no gaurantees..
> 
> All BS aside, youe awesomeness probably trumps everything else in this world. I am not just blowing smoke.




What it means for me is that when I find a man who rocks my world then there's no-one else on the planet

Other guys may have come and gone but if I choose you then you're special and I'll be loyal and faithful right until the day you f*ck me over


----------



## Entropy3000

Dollystanford said:


> No  it was a general 'interesting'
> I'm the least scary person in the world, honestly


She must be confusing you with someone else.


----------



## Entropy3000

Dollystanford said:


> What it means for me is that when I find a man who rocks my world then there's no-one else on the planet
> 
> Other guys may have come and gone but if I choose you then you're special and I'll be loyal and faithful right until the day you f*ck me over


Well Dolly, you sold me. I'm smitten. Whatever you say is fine with me.


----------



## Dollystanford

Entropy3000 said:


> You are a Goddess.
> 
> And Dolly, seriously, old fashioned or not, a man wants to think that his wife has not been notches on a bunch of guys belts. To pass that off as insecure is disengenuous by some. I will tell you I no joke I was a boy toy for a bit. I had a blast. But really what was I? Not much to be proud about. I had a couple ladies pass on me as they said I did sleep around too much. We were not comaptible


Well I guess you have to be honest with yourself. I can sit here and say that I just enjoyed having sex when I was younger but is that the whole truth? I suppose if you want to analyse it a bit more deeply I liked the validation and was immature enough to think that was really important. Yes some of those encounters were fun but some were pretty empty too. But they are what makes us what we are, no?


----------



## Entropy3000

Dollystanford said:


> Well I guess you have to be honest with yourself. I can sit here and say that I just enjoyed having sex when I was younger but is that the whole truth? I suppose if you want to analyse it a bit more deeply I liked the validation and was immature enough to think that was really important. Yes some of those encounters were fun but some were pretty empty too. But they are what makes us what we are, no?


Yup.

I got to a point I felt pretty empty. It wasn't enough. I wanted more. I needed more. I had to mature to get to that point. I probably had to follow the path I did. I have no real regrets. One should never be ashamed of any of it. It is all part of who we are.

That said, I knew my wife as a friend before hand. She got to see a few women wearing nothing but a bed sheet at my place. She still teases me about this. I think she dug me though. Maybe wanted to fix a bad boy. I am a work in progress.

When I friend a woman on FB my wife always checks to see if they were one of the bed sheet ladies.


----------



## Dollystanford

There is something that attracts people to 'taming' a wild one, be it a man or a woman. But the wild one needs to want it...

Shouldn't you be asleep or something


----------



## Omgitsjoe

Well she's obviously HD and in looking at the many threads here on TAM i'd say you're fortunate and blessed 

It's her past which she cannot change so live with it and move on ,enjoy life and make many babies


----------



## Entropy3000

Dollystanford said:


> There is something that attracts people to 'taming' a wild one, be it a man or a woman. But the wild one needs to want it...
> 
> Shouldn't you be asleep or something


I should. I am working a production issue for my work.

A lot of kick something off and wait.


----------



## mablenc

I find it interesting that she did not lie to you, but you bump up your number. Some post have been about the wife lieing about it, then comes the big shock.
I have yet to see post after post of women complaining or being insecure about the number of partners their husbands had. I think it's sexist that in this situation, a woman is frowned upon while it makes a man a stud. Is she a good wife? She picked you for a spouse don't you think you out measured all the men in her past? 

Both my husband and I were virgins when we married, we have only been with eachother, and I like a spanking once in a while too. Please put this whole matter into prospective. If you need to seek IC (as this is not a marriage problem) do so, I think it would help you find peace.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Big Dude

committed4ever said:


> *just as for women, that they are morally comfortable with seperating sex from love*
> 
> Big Dude,
> 
> Just curious would you think your statement applied if all the partners were before and up to age 22? Or would you say it was the folly of youth?
> 
> It's not me btw. My H is my one and only.


I appreciate that young people are apt to experiment in a lot of ways and sexual experimentation is one of those. I am uncomfortable making a blanket judgement about a person's character because they may have had a few casual encounters while young.

Having said that, I was young once, and despite the opportunity for casual sex I never felt comfortable with the idea and only had sex in a couple of LTR's (the last of which is still going on 30 years later.) I am not religious and not politically conservative. I have just always felt that sex was a special act of love, and that hooking up was potentially dangerous both physically and emotionally for me. I do not claim any moral superiority over people who think differently, but am obviously offended by people who dismiss my position on this as childish, prude, and insecure.

My rant was in response to several recent threads where husbands were uncomfortable about their wives sexual behavior prior to marriage. Many respected TAM members suggest that the only reason a husband would be uncomfortable was because of insecurity or a double standard, and that he should just put on his big boy pants and deal with it. I am honestly flabbergasted that these intelligent people cannot accept that there are men out there who only want to marry someone who shares their core values about sex and love.


----------



## mablenc

Big Dude said:


> I appreciate that young people are apt to experiment in a lot of ways and sexual experimentation is one of those. I am uncomfortable making a blanket judgement about a person's character because they may have had a few casual encounters while young.
> 
> Having said that, I was young once, and despite the opportunity for casual sex I never felt comfortable with the idea and only had sex in a couple of LTR's (the last of which is still going on 30 years later.) I am not religious and not politically conservative. I have just always felt that sex was a special act of love, and that hooking up was potentially dangerous both physically and emotionally for me. I do not claim any moral superiority over people who think differently, but am obviously offended by people who dismiss my position on this as childish, prude, and insecure.
> 
> My rant was in response to several recent threads where husbands were uncomfortable about their wives sexual behavior prior to marriage. Many respected TAM members suggest that the only reason a husband would be uncomfortable was because of insecurity or a double standard, and that he should just put on his big boy pants and deal with it. I am honestly flabbergasted that these intelligent people cannot accept that there are men out there who only want to marry someone who shares their core values about sex and love.


I agree with you, but the OP decieded to marry her knowing her past, she did not lie about it. I think it's unfair to her that he seems to look down on her now, even when he lied to her about having more partners to even out. 

We had another poster who his wife lied to him about her past and he had all the right IMO to be upset because he was deceived into marrying her. He was also told to man up about it, and I disagree because he was not given the information to decide if he wanted to marry her or not. If there is anything that's a deal breaker to a person regardless of what it is, they have the right to decide to stay or to go.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

I think someone already touched on this but to me the issue is how one views sex itself. I view sex as something very personal, and to me there's never such a thing as "just sex" because I require some manner of emotional connection for it. People that have a lot of partners, ime, don't require the same emotional connection and are able to compartmentalize that one activity. When you marry such a person, how is sex with you any different? Sex and emotion aren't necessarily connected as you can't possibly form a real connection with a lot of people, so you end up feeling like you're one in a long line. That's just me though, to each his own. My views apply to both sexes though, and I do think there's a huge double standard for women though.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Big Dude

I was unclear from the OP that he knew before marriage, and I agree with you that it makes a difference. But I saw nothing in the OP that indicates that he looks down on his wife, only that he is uncomfortable with the reality. And it seems to me that he is uncomfortable with himself for feeling the way he does. But he feels the way he feels. I cannot say that the OP is right to feel the way he does...I don't know his personal standards. But without more details about stuff like that, I think it's pretty presumptious to suggest he needs IC.


----------



## Dollystanford

lifeistooshort said:


> I think someone already touched on this but to me the issue is how one views sex itself. I view sex as something very personal, and to me there's never such a thing as "just sex" because I require some manner of emotional connection for it. People that have a lot of partners, ime, don't require the same emotional connection and are able to compartmentalize that one activity. When you marry such a person, how is sex with you any different? Sex and emotion aren't necessarily connected as you can't possibly form a real connection with a lot of people, so you end up feeling like you're one in a long line. That's just me though, to each his own. My views apply to both sexes though, and I do think there's a huge double standard for women though.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's not either or. Sex is generally better when it's with someone you have an emotional connection with but it can be a lot of fun without it. 

Just because I've been able to have sex without a connection in the past doesn't mean that's always how it's been, going to be or how I would want it. There isn't a 'one size fits all' here. So to speak.


----------



## mablenc

I did not suggest the IC to be presumptuous, I been in IC for over a year and it has helped me so much, especially with sorting out my feelings. I just don't see it as a marriage issue, as they dont seem to be arrguing about this. He seems to have some feelings about this that need to be sorted out. What he deciedes to do his his choice.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

killjoy said:


> --and i'm not going to lie to you--*it makes me feel a little uneasy and inadequate. sometimes I wonder about how I measure up to her lovers in the past. after reading a bunch of horror stories on here, I get paranoid when she spends a lot of time on facebook possibly contacting old boyfriends*
> 
> do I have a right to feel bad about my wife's "body count"? should I just get over it?
> 
> for the guys here: how would you feel if our wife had more than triple the amount of sexual partners you had?


LOL,
Sometimes I laugh whenever I read the " politically correct " responses to problems like the one highlighted above.

The " _get-over-your-male-insecurities_ " response to this poster, in respect to his concerns about his wife's past, viz her very high number of sexual partners, is just as ridiculous and disingenuous as the " _get-over-your-female-insecurities_ " response to female posters who have a problem with their husband's sometimes excessive porn usage.

It affects the OP because his wife seems to be a social butterfly, always chatting on facebook with men, possibly with past lovers. Given her hyperactive sexual past, which person, male or female wouldn't be uneasy with that?

Being a former male fashion model, I had an extensive sexual past. My wife even knew some of these women.
I now have absolutely no contact with them. When I'm with my wife in public functions, all my attention, flirting , affections goes towards her.
I do everything in my power to make her feel secure.
And yes, early in our relationship, she was insecure. I didn't tell her to " get over your insecurity", I helped her get over it by taking responsibility for my past and helping her build self confidence.

This is what emotionally healthy people in loving relationships do.

Every wife wants to know that she's the centre of her husband's lust and affection.
Every man wants to know that he's the best lover his wife has _ever_ had, and that only he can satisfy her lusting.


----------



## BjornFree

Big Dude said:


> I was unclear from the OP that he knew before marriage, and I agree with you that it makes a difference. But I saw nothing in the OP that indicates that he looks down on his wife, only that he is uncomfortable with the reality. And it seems to me that he is uncomfortable with himself for feeling the way he does. But he feels the way he feels. I cannot say that the OP is right to feel the way he does...I don't know his personal standards. But without more details about stuff like that, I think it's pretty presumptious to suggest he needs IC.


:iagree:
They suggest counseling for each and every single thing here. Your cat died...grief counseling. You made a bad investment...financial counseling. You just had a fight with your wife or husband...marital counseling.

I think we ought to stop discussing about how misogynistic(yep that's me) some posters are and give the OP some real advice on how to get over his insecurity given that he's already married his wife and he's not able to _get over it already_


----------



## Shaggy

A couple of thoughts on a high number:

1. Do not worry about being inadequate compared to these other guys, most if not all of them were bad sex, not good sex. None of them were fantastic unbelievable sex. How do I know that? Well if she had found such great partners she wouldn't have kept looking and generating such a high number. Instead she kept having to shop for someone who was acceptable. Remember, most sex partners are pretty routine, boring, and selfish. Especially if she kept jumping to new partners, it means she never spent the time with them for the to really learn about her and what rocks her.

2. The worrisome thing to me about anyone guy or girl with a large number of partners is two things:
- why did they choose to bed do many people. Sex is a physically intimate experience, to be shared with hopefully someone you care about and have an emotional connection, yes it could be purely physical but in either case a high number means going through a lot of people, meeting them, making connections, getting close enough to be physically intimate, and then ending the relationship. The alarming question is why anyone would run through so many relationships like that? Is that person too quick and impulsive? Does the person have bad skills at reading and judging people?

- is there an issue with the person being too easy to find something wrong with a partner? Are they too demanding and picky? Having gone to the effort of meeting someone whom they agreed to be physically intimate with, they then dumped that relationship and jumped to the next one. Why did they have so much problem finding a relationship and person to stick with?

See I see it like a person who's job history has a huge number of short term jobs. You gotta ask, why is that?


----------



## samyeagar

My SO has a very formidable past. 10x my number of partners, but only three partners since 18. She is 37 now. It has been difficult at times because of a couple of situations where it was necessary to know about some specifics. Ugh the mind movies...

She has been extremely patient and has helped in any way I need to cope with it. I do believe her when she says that I am by far the best she has ever had.

While I do not have the numbers, the specific type of woman, and one woman in particular who is a household name, (no, not porn  )that I was with has been kind of intimidating for my partner so I have had to work on that with her.

I think it is very important for both partners to help the other deal with their past, and allay insecurities as best as they can and that man up and get over it is not an acceptible solution if the relationship is comitted.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Dollystanford said:


> It's not either or. Sex is generally better when it's with someone you have an emotional connection with but it can be a lot of fun without it.
> 
> Just because I've been able to have sex without a connection in the past doesn't mean that's always how it's been, going to be or how I would want it. There isn't a 'one size fits all' here. So to speak.



Yeah, I'm pretty sure I covered that with "but that's just me, to each his own".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

Shaggy said:


> A couple of thoughts on a high number:
> 
> 1. Do not worry about being inadequate compared to these other guys, most if not all of them were bad sex, not good sex. None of them were fantastic unbelievable sex. How do I know that? Well if she had found such great partners she wouldn't have kept looking and generating such a high number. Instead she kept having to shop for someone who was acceptable. Remember, most sex partners are pretty routine, boring, and selfish. Especially if she kept jumping to new partners, it means she never spent the time with them for the to really learn about her and what rocks her.
> 
> 2. The worrisome thing to me about anyone guy or girl with a large number of partners is two things:
> - why did they choose to bed do many people. Sex is a physically intimate experience, to be shared with hopefully someone you care about and have an emotional connection, yes it could be purely physical but in either case a high number means going through a lot of people, meeting them, making connections, getting close enough to be physically intimate, and then ending the relationship. The alarming question is why anyone would run through so many relationships like that? Is that person too quick and impulsive? Does the person have bad skills at reading and judging people?
> 
> - is there an issue with the person being too easy to find something wrong with a partner? Are they too demanding and picky? Having gone to the effort of meeting someone whom they agreed to be physically intimate with, they then dumped that relationship and jumped to the next one. Why did they have so much problem finding a relationship and person to stick with?
> 
> See I see it like a person who's job history has a huge number of short term jobs. You gotta ask, why is that?


Yes, agree completely. This is kind of what I was getting at but you did a better job presenting it. I've never been comfortable with people that have a high number of partners, but to each his own. Since OP is married to her he would benefit from getting these questions answered.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tulsy

BjornFree said:


> ...
> 
> A lot of men wouldn't settle for a woman like that when they know they can do better, so its not an insecurity thing it's got more to do with having better options.


I see what you are saying, but in this case, it most definitely IS an insecurity thing. This guy is beating himself up thinking he can't possibly measure up to her past lovers.



killjoy said:


> ...my wife has more than triple the amount of sexual partners that I've had. I was astonished ...and was insecure enough to inflate my own numbers --it makes me feel a little uneasy and inadequate. *sometimes I wonder about how I measure up to her lovers in the past*.


I girlfriend has probably had way more sex partners than me. I don't give a chit. I'm not even slightly concerned. Sure, some of them probably had bigger penis' than me, but so what? Mine always does the job right, and she only wants me and my junk.

When I was a younger man, I had insecurities like this. I guess didn't want to be compared to other men, and I didn't want to be with a girl who had too much experience...she might think I wasn't as good as other dudes, compare me to others, etc. As I got older, I realized how good I am in the sac, so I have nothing to worry about. I know what I'm doing...maybe if the other guys knew what they were doing, they be with the girl.

You gotta remember...you are a total package to her. If you get the job done right, you good. 

Another way to look at it....she has had a lot of experience, so sex is pretty important to her. Well, since she married you, she must really like sex with you...she chose sex with YOU for the rest of her life. Of all the other men, YOU were the one she wanted to keep having sex with forever!

You are the best total package (sex included) she has met...and she looked around! 

She is was selective, and selected your sex for the rest of her life. :smthumbup:


----------



## tulsy

I'm a bit surprised at the poll figures (overwhelming numbers chose "you have the right to be concerned. having an astronomical amount of sexual partners isn't normal")....OP, like how many people are we talking about here?

You said approx. triple the amount of sex partners...that could mean anything. If you had 10, she had 30...if you had 20 she had 60...if you had 5, she had 15.

I could live with any of those figures. I mean worst case scenario there, if she had 50 dudes, you were her favorite total package. You must work some magic in the sac, right?

It's in the past, IMO.


----------



## BrockLanders

It really makes me wonder about society when having had 60 sexual partners is portrayed as normal. At that number the likelyhood of coming into contact with herpes or hpv must become a mathematical certainty.


----------



## Shaggy

I think there is are problems that come with extremes.

On one end you have people who jump from intimate relationship to intimate relationship. That says something about that persons choice in partner and their commitment.

On the other end, is when you partner was with one or two partners fir a long term, very committed, very intimate relationship. Here you have to face completing with that deep long term bond they had.

Both extremes come with their own land mines.


----------



## killjoy

mablenc said:


> *I agree with you, but the OP decieded to marry her knowing her past, she did not lie about it. I think it's unfair to her that he seems to look down on her now, even when he lied to her about having more partners to even out.*
> 
> We had another poster who his wife lied to him about her past and he had all the right IMO to be upset because he was deceived into marrying her. He was also told to man up about it, and I disagree because he was not given the information to decide if he wanted to marry her or not. If there is anything that's a deal breaker to a person regardless of what it is, they have the right to decide to stay or to go.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


actually I didn't know until after we were married. I was one of those guys who would say "who cares, I don't want to know, the past is the past, etc." but since she told me its definitely been in the back of my mind..whether its after we just had sex or if she's spending a lot of time on facebook. 

and she was the one to bring it up, thinking I wouldn't care. I think its safe to say it had the opposite effect on me. also, the reason I lied about my own numbers in that moment was definitely an insecurity thing on my part. I thought if I told her my real number somewhere deep down (I know this sounds silly) she'd lose a bit of respect for me. lets be honest here: does any woman really _desire_ a man FAR less experienced than they are? in virtually every society its damn near _expected_ the man be more experienced


----------



## Jack29

Im seeing a woman ive met not more than a month earlier and we had sex the 2nd date and i asked her about her past and she didnt want to talk about it but only gave me the hint that our having sex pretty fast implies certain conclusions about her, day before yesterday she was complaining to me about "You are not taking me seriously" and the fact is i don't think i am because if i were taking her seriously id have a really major issue trying to figure out how many guys she screwed!


----------



## Lyris

BjornFree said:


> Yep, frank double standard. What's politically wrong does not necessarily make it a bad thing.
> 
> Lady, no one's trying to control anyone else's sexuality. You don't want to marry a man with too many partners, then don't- no one's getting in your way. Don't shame men or call them insecure for not wanting to marry a woman with too many partners. Last I know, people had the right to choose so unless you were forced to marry your husband I don't see any reason for you to complain.


I have no issue shaming people for shameful attitudes.

And I'm in no way talking about men who themselves prefer to hold sex as an important act to share with a small number of women who they share an emotional connection with. They have every right to expect the same from their partner, if it's important to them

But the idea that a woman has less value because she's had sex with multiple partners, but a man's value is unaffected is revolting.


----------



## Caribbean Man

killjoy said:


> actually I didn't know until after we were married.* I was one of those guys who would say "who cares, I don't want to know, the past is the past, etc."* but since she told me its definitely been in the back of my mind..whether its after we just had sex or if she's spending a lot of time on facebook.


Hindsight is 20/20.
I hope you see the error of your ways. These types of conversations are best had before saying " I do."

Now it's may be too late.
How many years have both of you been married?
Any kids?


----------



## killjoy

Caribbean Man said:


> Hindsight is 20/20.
> I hope you see the error of your ways. These types of conversations are best had before saying " I do."
> 
> Now it's may be too late.
> *How many years have both of you been married?
> Any kids?*


married for 3 years
no kids

both still relatively young, she's 28 and i'm 31


----------



## Big Dude

Killjoy, I don't think that anybody here can offer much meaningful food for thought without really knowing how much or little this upsets you. Otherwise it's likely to be stock replies from a sexual ideology playbook.

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is just simple curiousity and 10 is you are wondering if you did the right thing marrying this woman...what would you choose?


----------



## opensesame

Obviously she's had plenty of options and she's chosen you, so you should be flattered. That's the rational way to look at it. _However_, I know exactly how you feel, because I'm a man. Maybe the double standard is stupid, but I get it. I know my wife's magic number (6) and as far as my male ego goes, it's 5 too high. Even though mine is higher. As a man you can't help but feel insecure about it.


----------



## Jack29

Im curious to ask the OP what is the attitude of his woman as about to her past. Is she regretful about it? Is she proud about it? I mean to say, that kind of thing is important.

I remember very well one particular woman I was with who would not talk to me about her past, but when she got with her girlfriends she would brag to them about the multitude of guys she had been with. To me she just said the she used to go party and have casual sex but she didn't do it anymore. I mean to say she would show some regret to me (not much) but when talking with girlfriends the regret would disappear altogether. That was bad of course.


----------



## happyman64

Killjoy

I am surprised you two waited until after you married for full disclosure.

But if it bothers you a little then tell her and talk about it.

Also tell her the truth about your sexual past.

Tell her how you feel, then laugh about it together then go love each other.

The numbers don't really matter, quality is what counts.

Remember, she married you too!

HM64


----------



## Jack29

opensesame said:


> Obviously she's had plenty of options and she's chosen you, so you should be flattered. That's the rational way to look at it. _However_, I know exactly how you feel, because I'm a man. Maybe the double standard is stupid, but I get it. I know my wife's magic number (6) and as far as my male ego goes, it's 5 too high. Even though mine is higher. As a man you can't help but feel insecure about it.


Don't sell the she chose you tale, because i've been told the same story and the fact is that she did not reject everybody she had had sex with because there were also times that she was the one who got rejected, so its not always her making the choice.


----------



## killjoy

Big Dude said:


> Killjoy, I don't think that anybody here can offer much meaningful food for thought without really knowing how much or little this upsets you. Otherwise it's likely to be stock replies from a sexual ideology playbook.
> 
> On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is just simple curiousity and 10 is you are wondering if you did the right thing marrying this woman...what would you choose?


I'd say a 7 or an 8.

this is disturbing to me, especially considering how just recently she wanted to spice up our sex life by acting out _certain fantasies_. things I would never do if she didn't ask it of me. I honestly didn't think she was the type to have that many sexual partners and the fact she brought it up so casually thinking I wouldn't care is even more unsettling to me. 

like I said before I used to be one of those guys who thought the past is irrelevant, blah blah, but now I realize how BS that mindset is. the past does matter to an extent


----------



## Big Dude

killjoy said:


> I'd say a 7 or an 8.
> 
> this is disturbing to me, especially considering how just recently she wanted to spice up our sex life by acting out _certain fantasies_. things I would never do if she didn't ask it of me. I honestly didn't think she was the type to have that many sexual partners and the fact she brought it up so casually thinking I wouldn't care is even more unsettling to me.
> 
> like I said before I used to be one of those guys who thought the past is irrelevant, blah blah, but now I realize how BS that mindset is. the past does matter to an extent


Well, that sounds like you are pretty upset, at least right now. Do you think that number might go down over time if your wife demonstrates that she is genuinely sexually committed to you and currently shares your sexual values?

Even though your wife did not disclose this aspect of her sexual character before your marriage, you realize that you did not ask her and therefore own some of this yourself. You did not know yourself in this respect at the time. Sounds like she was not deliberately deceiving you either. Both things are water under the bridge and should be forgiven, IMO.

I don't think anybody else really needs to know the magic number, but your use of the words astronomical and galaxy in your original poll/post are interesting. Were you being facetious using these terms?

What is your real attitude towards casual sex? I think you need to work this out for yourself if you haven't already. And be honest with yourself rather than rationalize based on recent events. If you honestly hold a double standard in this regard it would be unethical (I think) to worry about your wife's past behavior. There is no doubt that a sexual double standard exists at a societal level, but you are not a society. You are a hurting individual with potentially rational and defensible feelings and don't let the thought police convince you otherwise. Only you can know if your feelings are valid or not.

Good luck, bro.


----------



## Wiserforit

killjoy said:


> I'd say a 7 or an 8.
> 
> this is disturbing to me, especially considering how just recently she wanted to spice up our sex life by acting out _certain fantasies_. things I would never do if she didn't ask it of me. I honestly didn't think she was the type to have that many sexual partners and the fact she brought it up so casually thinking I wouldn't care is even more unsettling to me.
> 
> like I said before I used to be one of those guys who thought the past is irrelevant, blah blah, but now I realize how BS that mindset is. the past does matter to an extent


On the one hand you have no right to complain about something you specifically chose not to investigate prior to marriage.

On the other hand though the circumstances under which she brought it up make me wonder. It just came out of the blue over dinner... I screwed 300 guys, pass the salt please?

And what exactly do you mean by not thinking she was the type? It makes me wonder if she did more than just overlook this discussion on account of you not asking - but whether there was selective shaping of her background to tailor herself to you. 

Like "I was a cheerleader" vs. "I was a cheerleader in the XXX movie entitled "Debbie Does the Dallas Cowboy Team and half the Audience"...


----------



## Mavash.

The number matters to a lot of men. My husband is one of them. He point blank asked me how many before we got too serious. 

What I don't understand is if it matters to you why didn't you clear this up BEFORE you married her?


----------



## eyuop

Both my wife and I were virgins when we married. I was 23, she 22. I wouldn't have married a woman who was not a virgin. I didn't want to marry someone who was going to compare me to her past lovers, and also I wanted that same experience for my future wife. 

So to answer the OP, no -- I personally would have never married a woman with a sexual history. Remaining a virgin until I was married was important to me for many reasons, but long-term commitment was the biggest reason (which coupled with my strong spiritual convictions on the subject). It was a dream come true for both of us to have sex for the first time on our honeymoon. No possibility for STDs, too.

So, no, we all do not have a sexual past before marriage (as one poster mentioned).

This is all just my personal preference. I am not anyone's judge, and I could care less how many partners other couples have had. This thread is not about judging other people's choices, but simply answering the question the OP presented honestly. If, for instance, I had premarital sex, I would not have expected my wife to be a virgin. No double standard. If I would have had only one other partner, than it wouldn't matter to me how many partners my wife was with before we married.


----------



## Machiavelli

killjoy said:


> okay I don't want to throw out any exact figures here, but lets say my wife has more than triple the amount of sexual partners that I've had. I was astonished when she told me (I thought she was joking at first),


Take whatever number she gave you and multiply by three. Now, you're getting in her ballpark.


----------



## eyuop

Mavash. said:


> The number matters to a lot of men. My husband is one of them. He point blank asked me how many before we got too serious.
> 
> What I don't understand is if it matters to you why didn't you clear this up BEFORE you married her?


The only number that mattered to me was ZERO.


----------



## Machiavelli

killjoy said:


> married for 3 years
> no kids
> 
> both still relatively young, she's 28 and i'm 31


She married you because she was tired of the arschhole alphas who would fook the sheet out of her and then quit calling. You were a solid guy and had the potential to be loyal and a good provider; things she was thinking she wanted at the time. But, now it's been three years of you, no male variety and only boring vanilla sex, so she's getting that old alpha itch again. Plus, at age 28 she will soon be approaching Libido Max for a few years.

Which brings us to the bromide that for women, "Five minutes of Alpha beats fifteen years of Beta."

This relationship doesn't necessarily have to end, though. How do you feel about the "hot wife" lifestyle?


----------



## committed4ever

> How do you feel about the "hot wife" lifestyle?


A cuckhold by any other name is still a cuckhold.


----------



## mablenc

killjoy said:


> actually I didn't know until after we were married. I was one of those guys who would say "who cares, I don't want to know, the past is the past, etc." but since she told me its definitely been in the back of my mind..whether its after we just had sex or if she's spending a lot of time on facebook.
> 
> and she was the one to bring it up, thinking I wouldn't care. I think its safe to say it had the opposite effect on me. also, the reason I lied about my own numbers in that moment was definitely an insecurity thing on my part. I thought if I told her my real number somewhere deep down (I know this sounds silly) she'd lose a bit of respect for me. lets be honest here: does any woman really _desire_ a man FAR less experienced than they are? in virtually every society its damn near _expected_ the man be more experienced


Oh wow, Im sorry, guess there is no use to tell you it's important to discuss before marriage. 

I don't agree with you saying a woman won't desire a less experienced man. you marry for love.

You can't help the way you feel about it, knowing yourself do you think you can get over it? What will it take? Have you told her how you feel. It may help to do so. If it helps, know that with all her experience she picked you for lifetime. 

You say she's been on Facebook quite a bit, is it possible you are upset about that and replacing that with the sex partner amount situation?


----------



## belleoftheball

I know that I have had more partners than my husband. It does not bother either one of us and neither one of our figures are way out there. So I would just tell you to leave it be and get over it. The past is the past and should be left there. You are her present and future.


----------



## Machiavelli

committed4ever said:


> A cuckhold by any other name is still a cuckhold.


Actually, a guy with a so-called "hot wife" is a wittol, since he knows what's going on and tolerates it. The clueless, who have no idea they're raising some other dude's kids, are the cuckolds. The term comes from the common cuckoo, which is a bird that drops its eggs in another bird's nest to be hatched and raised by somebody else.


----------



## committed4ever

Machiavelli said:


> Actually, a guy with a so-called "hot wife" is a wittol, since he knows what's going on and tolerates it. The clueless, who have no idea they're raising some other dude's kids, are the cuckolds. The term comes from the common cuckoo, which is a bird that drops its eggs in another bird's nest to be hatched and raised by somebody else.


Yes that is where it derives but in our culture now it is more of a fetish, no? of a man humiliating himself by watching his woman being taken. 

This is as far as I will go with you, Machiavelli, because just like I told Dolly about herself, I am totally scared of you. I would strongly suspect she will not like having something in common with you. Virtually, that is.

[ducks head to prevent being hit with Dolly's umbrella]


----------



## barcafan

I don't understand modern western society. If the thought of 40 other men destroying your wife's vagina does not concern you then I don't know what type of a man you are. Do you think the guys who boned her and left would have married her?


----------



## killjoy

Machiavelli said:


> This relationship doesn't necessarily have to end, though. How do you feel about the "hot wife" lifestyle?


I had to google what a _'wittol'_ was. I think anyone who considers themselves a wittol or a cuckhold is a pathetic excuse of a man. *there is no way in hell i'd be fine with that.*


----------



## Machiavelli

killjoy said:


> I had to google what a _'wittol'_ was. I think anyone who considers themselves a wittol or a cuckhold is a pathetic excuse of a man. *there is no way in hell i'd be fine with that.*


The point is, your wife is going to get the hunger for some strange at some point. Especially if you can't get comfortable with tossing her around and tying her up, etc. Even women who never had another man are susceptible to the 7 year itch. You see "ex one and onlies" cropping up here all the time.


----------



## Machiavelli

committed4ever said:


> Yes that is where it derives but in our culture now it is more of a fetish, no? of a man humiliating himself by watching his woman being taken.


That's what the morons who engage in the practice call it, the ignorant pvssies. Back in the 70's the ones who invited me to nail the wife just called themselves swingers. But I assure you, there are plenty of genuine cuckolds out there. That's why certain women vociferously oppose DNA at birth. A quote: "The ability to pass a child off on a man was a potent female weapon."


----------



## BjornFree

Lyris said:


> But the idea that a woman has less value because she's had sex with multiple partners, but a man's value is unaffected is revolting.


Revolting no doubt but that's just how it is. You can resist it and try to change the attitudes but deep down that is how men judge women for their potential as long term mates. As I said earlier, its not right politically but attraction, sex and relationships are primal and far removed from changes in social beliefs. How many of you ladies would marry a sissy incapable of taking care of himself let alone you and whatever children you may have? Not many I would guess. Most women would be repulsed by such men the same way most men would be repulsed by a woman with a too colorful past.


----------



## tryingtobebetter

barcafan said:


> I don't understand modern western society. If the thought of 40 other men destroying your wife's vagina does not concern you then I don't know what type of a man you are. Do you think the guys who boned her and left would have married her?


Does anyone understand modern western society? I do not.


----------



## lovelygirl

opensesame said:


> Obviously she's had plenty of options and she's chosen you, so you should be flattered. That's the rational way to look at it.


If marriage is all it takes to feel flattered, shut up and get over it.... then there would be no infidelities and divorces and the OP wouldn't have created this thread.

There's a reason why someone marries you and that's not always because they love you. You could have been a good option at the time and she had no better choice, it was convenient for her..... but that time is over now and things change, the spouse gets bored and starts looking for something/someone different. 

I see where OP is coming from. My ex was someone who was known to sleep with many girls around the block. He had FAR more partners than I expected him to have and to be honest that made me feel uncomfortable. I had never been with anyone before him. He was my first and only. I made him the center of my attention but he was too self-centered to make me feel the center of his attention so I had to dump him after 9 months. I'm glad for that and I'm also glad I didn't get intimate with him. I realized sex was not something special to him and that he was cheap in that department. I lost respect and this made him very unattractive in my eyes so I had to move on. 

Having had many partners in the past is one thing, but making YOU feel special is something else. I would have gotten over the high number of the partners he had, if he had made me feel special. 

So, if your wife makes you be her world then I think her past should not worry you all THAT much.
*It's all about how she makes you feel.*


----------



## treyvion

lifeistooshort said:


> I think someone already touched on this but to me the issue is how one views sex itself. I view sex as something very personal, and to me there's never such a thing as "just sex" because I require some manner of emotional connection for it. People that have a lot of partners, ime, don't require the same emotional connection and are able to compartmentalize that one activity. When you marry such a person, how is sex with you any different? Sex and emotion aren't necessarily connected as you can't possibly form a real connection with a lot of people, so you end up feeling like you're one in a long line. That's just me though, to each his own. My views apply to both sexes though, and I do think there's a huge double standard for women though.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I personally hold the standard to a man as well. A male **** is a male ****, don't know what the big fuss is about. I've also allowed for the having a high count indicates an increased capability to compartementalize, and whose to say it's not being done to you.


----------



## lovelygirl

I also forgot to add that who said that the double standard is a bad thing.
I'm a virgin myself but I don't want a virgin man ..... 
Nor do I want someone who is known to be sleeping with the girls around the block. I want someone in the middle lol..someone who, ACCORDING TO ME, has had a reasonable number of girlfriends in the past. (depending on the age, time, circumstances ...and so on).

Got a problem with that? If yes, then move on because someone else will be okay with what I'm looking for. 

I don't have a problem with men who want virgin wives or wives who have had less partners in the past....

I think it turns me on when someone cares about my past. 

It's a matter of preference. There's no black and white answer.


----------



## Lyris

BjornFree said:


> Revolting no doubt but that's just how it is. You can resist it and try to change the attitudes but deep down that is how men judge women for their potential as long term mates. As I said earlier, its not right politically but attraction, sex and relationships are primal and far removed from changes in social beliefs. How many of you ladies would marry a sissy incapable of taking care of himself let alone you and whatever children you may have? Not many I would guess. Most women would be repulsed by such men the same way most men would be repulsed by a woman with a too colorful past.


Attitudes are not set in stone. Attitudes change all the time, about race, class, religion, gender. Why is this one sacrosanct? Why is it this one, insulting to me, my sister, my daughters, the one that stays and can't be questioned or judged? It's not about whether or not it's right *politically*, it's about whether its right on a human level. Whether it's respectful and just and defendable logically.

And spare me the pseudo-science primal laws of attraction crap. Who *would* be interested in a long-term partner who couldn't take care of themselves, man or woman? What does that have to do with primal laws of attraction?

When I look at real-life successful relationships around me what I see are men and women who work together because they complement each other in a variety of ways. No formula, no set number of acceptable partners. Balance.


----------



## Caribbean Man

For Women:

The essential truth about female promiscuity.

Fro Men:

It's about time , The new reverse double standard.

The fact is, in life we all make choices.Choices carry with them consequences.
The problem , aka , the 800 lb gorilla in the room is that ,_nobody likes to think about consequences._.

I think that people are free to live their own life how they see fit and adopt whatever standard works for them. After all, they alone must bear the consequences of their actions.


----------



## lovelygirl

CM, none of the pages works for me. Page not found.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> *Attitudes are not set in stone. Attitudes change all the time, about race, class, religion, gender. Why is this one sacrosanct? *


It remains and will remain indefinitely, because people have a right to determine what they want to accept in _their personal lives_, and what not to accept.

It is illegal to discriminate against someone because of race., but it does not mean that I must get married to someone of a different race. I marry someone whom I'm comfortable with.

It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on class. But that does not mean I have to befriend people who I think are of a lower class. I hang out with people who I can help or who can give me social mobility, enriching my life.

It is illegal to discriminate against people of a different religion , but that does not mean that Jihadist shouldn't be closely monitored by the State.


All of these are double standards that still exist , albeit at a personal level in people's lives .


----------



## Caribbean Man

lovelygirl said:


> CM, none of the pages works for me. Page not found.



Ok,

Try it from this link.

The Essential Truth About Female Promiscuity

It’s About Time: The New Reverse Double Standard


----------



## Boogiemaster

Having a wife with a past isn't a problem as long as that past doesn't try to interfere with your marriage


----------



## Lyris

Caribbean Man said:


> It remains and will remain indefinitely, because people have a right to determine what they want to accept in _their personal lives_, and what not to accept.
> 
> It is illegal to discriminate against someone because of race., but it does not mean that I must get married to someone of a different race. I marry someone whom I'm comfortable with.
> 
> It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on class. But that does not mean I have to befriend people who I think are of a lower class. I hang out with people who I can help or who can give me social mobility, enriching my life.
> 
> It is illegal to discriminate against people of a different religion , but that does not mean that Jihadist shouldn't be closely monitored by the State.
> 
> 
> All of these are double standards that still exist , albeit at a personal level in people's lives .


I don't believe that personal prejudices trump social justice issues and therefore should not be challenged, so we're going to have to disagree on that. 

Obviously people should marry who they want to marry and find someone who's values jibe with their own. But that doesn't mean it's okay to extrapolate what is a personal opinion - that women who have many sexual partners lose their intrinsic human value - to society at large. 

Narrow your own options down as much as you like. But stop trying to narrow down other people's to fit a particular, rigid view of human behaviour and the natural order of things. Especially because every time humans start pontificating on what is natural and normal and in hanging they turn out to be completely full of sh*t.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> Obviously people should marry who they want to marry and find someone who's values jibe with their own. But that doesn't mean it's okay to extrapolate what is a personal opinion - that women who have many sexual partners lose their intrinsic human value - to society at large.


Everyone extrapolates and project their own personal values to society at large. That's called social constructivism.

Nobody's saying that women who have many sexual partners loose their
" intrinsic " human value. 
A woman with many sexual partners has the same " intrinsic " value as a virgin woman her same age. They are both humans first and also women.
The only real value people possess is what they place on themselves, and that is NOT intrinsic. Others could choose to accept or reject your value system , based on social norms.

Whether these norm are right or wrong is always up for debate.
Right and wrong is a function of power and not truth.
In essence ,there is nothing right or wrong, it is what we choose to accept.
If a woman chooses to be discreet in choosing her sexual partners and men accept her value system then so be it. She is well within her right and they are within their right.

If a woman chooses not to be discrete in choosing her sexual partners , and men reject her value system then she too is well within her right .
And she too, just like the men who reject her has narrowed down her options to those men who value _her_ value system.

Everyone's a winner.


----------



## BjornFree

Lyris said:


> But that doesn't mean it's okay to extrapolate what is a personal opinion


Aren't you doing the same thing now? Extrapolating your personal view ?



> Especially because every time humans start pontificating on what is natural and normal and in hanging they turn out to be completely full of sh*t.


Again full of sh!t, being your personal opinion.


----------



## happyman64

Boogiemaster said:


> Having a wife with a past isn't a problem as long as that past doesn't try to interfere with your marriage


True BM.

As long as her past stays in the past.

But I am not sure hers will. Neither is her husband sure.

That is why they need to be honest now with each other. Discuss this issue, be honest about the numbers of partners and hw it makes him feel.

Get it out in the open and del with it.

AT the same time discuss what she wants in the bedroom and come to a mutually beneficial arrangement that works for both of them.

They need to be honest and communicate......


----------



## BjornFree

Caribbean Man said:


> And she too, just like the men who reject her has narrowed down her options to those men who value _her_ value system.


^This.

Lyris, the only point I wish to make here is that, through her actions a promiscuous woman is narrowing down her options. If you're fine with that we wouldn't even have this debate. But you're not, you want to have the right to choose from the entire set. That's just not possible considering that men have the same right as you do, that is, not being an option. Simple as that.


----------



## BjornFree

Lyris said:


> Why is it this one, insulting to me, my sister, my daughters, the one that stays and can't be questioned or judged?


It wouldn't be insulting to you, your sister and your daughters if you'd learned how to deal with rejection.



> When I look at real-life successful relationships around me what I see are men and women who work together because they complement each other in a variety of ways. No formula, no set number of acceptable partners. Balance.


I agree completely. But you do realize that real-life successful relationships start out with both of them being compatible on some degree and that involves being comfortable with the person that they are, past included.


----------



## Shaggy

killjoy said:


> I had to google what a _'wittol'_ was. I think anyone who considers themselves a wittol or a cuckhold is a pathetic excuse of a man. *there is no way in hell i'd be fine with that.*


I believe that men who are excited by their wives cheating on them or get off being humiliated by better men taking their wife have a severe mental illness.

They are acting in ways that are directly counter to their best interests, and they are in fact driven to do it.

It's no different than someone who chooses to inflict physical harm unto themselves.

We put the guys who cut, and maim themselves into mental Heath programs to help them.

Yet, we don't do anything for the mentally ill who engage in these self abusive activities. 

This isn't a fetish, it's a mental illness.


----------



## TefExpat

> real-life successful relationships start out with both of them being compatible on some degree and that involves being comfortable with the person that they are, past included.


Why would any feminist or promiscuous woman ever agree or acknowledge that a man is doing something good for himself when he includes her past as part of his personal private evaluation process?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> LOL,
> Sometimes I laugh whenever I read the " politically correct " responses to problems like the one highlighted above.
> 
> The " _get-over-your-male-insecurities_ " response to this poster, in respect to his concerns about his wife's past, viz her very high number of sexual partners, is just as ridiculous and disingenuous as the " _get-over-your-female-insecurities_ " response to female posters who have a problem with their husband's sometimes excessive porn usage.
> 
> It affects the OP because his wife seems to be a social butterfly, always chatting on facebook with men, possibly with past lovers. Given her hyperactive sexual past, which person, male or female wouldn't be uneasy with that?
> 
> Being a former male fashion model, I had an extensive sexual past. My wife even knew some of these women.
> I now have absolutely no contact with them. When I'm with my wife in public functions, all my attention, flirting , affections goes towards her.
> *I do everything in my power to make her feel secure.
> And yes, early in our relationship, she was insecure. I didn't tell her to " get over your insecurity", I helped her get over it by taking responsibility for my past and helping her build self confidence.*
> 
> *This is what emotionally healthy people in loving relationships do.
> 
> Every wife wants to know that she's the centre of her husband's lust and affection.
> Every man wants to know that he's the best lover his wife has ever had, and that only he can satisfy her lusting.*


I have always always always appreciated your responses on this aspect...as it is filled with empathy...a well of understanding from where* they* stand....this would make all the difference in this world how this is overcome... ..where what I generally see in many responses is ....."Oh it's his problem...it's her problem.... get over it already... it's the past dude - she choose you." 

Can we be real for a moment.... I highly doubt every girl who lost her virginity did it "JUST FOR SEX"...without some romantic notions of many tomorrows dancing in her head after he touched her in the deepest places a man can......she wanted to BELIEVE he'd be there for her...(emotion behind that)....and it cut like a knife when he walked away. 

Now, if this happens a # of times...in the quest for emotional & physical connection (don't we all ultimately want this ???) ....what choice does one have but to make peace with it.....embrace what everyone else is doing....telling ourselves It's no big deal... casual is OK...mutual pleasure worth the pursuit..after all, it sure beats doing it alone.....but what is lost along the way ?? There is always some loss... 

Through every rejection....emotions slowly numb...to preserve ourselves.... this idea she ALWAYS chose you above all...not in every case....I'd say more relationships end in devastating heart break of one vs. "it was mutual thing" .....who is to say the guy she carried a flame for didn't move along/ or wouldn't marry........many of us sing to the tune 
*"You can't always get what you want 
You can't always get what you want 
You can't always get what you want 
But if you try sometimes well you might find 
You get what you need .* Maybe her *need* became marriage & kids while her biological clock was ticking......but the *want* would have been a previous Lover...had it been reciprocated. 



lifeistooshort said:


> I think someone already touched on this but to me the issue is how one views sex itself. * I view sex as something very personal, and to me there's never such a thing as "just sex" because I require some manner of emotional connection for it.* People that have a lot of partners, ime, don't require the same emotional connection and are able to compartmentalize that one activity. When you marry such a person, how is sex with you any different? Sex and emotion aren't necessarily connected as you can't possibly form a real connection with a lot of people, so you end up feeling like you're one in a long line. That's just me though, to each his own. My views apply to both sexes though, and I do think there's a huge double standard for women though.


The issue most definitely IS this....You carry the Romantic View of Sexuality...emotional connection required.... 


> *3. ** Romantic View *~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "save yourself for the one, your beloved"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> Sex should be reserved for those who are deeply in love with the strings of emotional attachment/commitment. Loveless sex is not appropriate, People should be sexually faithful as long as love lasts. Those who hold the romantic view often talk in terms of sex as sacred, as a Gift to be preserved & given to someone of profound significance.
> 
> Romantic view holds that sex should be connected with a thirst for deep psychological & bodily knowledge, Mutually reciprocated gift-giving & intimacy are it's purpose.
> 
> The feeling of being in love is a feeling that one’s beloved is an irreplaceable soul mate.
> 
> Complications arise, however, when romantic feelings do not last or when someone who has made a commitment to sexual exclusivity finds himself or herself in love with someone else.
> 
> The romantic view emphasizes interpersonal intimacy, but sees the duration of commitment as contingent. Commitment lasts for as long as romantic love lasts. But commitment is a must. A one-time encounter with a stranger may be consensual -but it would not be appropriate for those who hold the Romantic view.
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...exual-views-have-they-changed-over-years.html





killjoy said:


> does any woman really _desire_ a man FAR less experienced than they are? in virtually every society its damn near _expected_ the man be more experienced


 I never wanted an experienced man...No Playboys for me... I wanted one who waited for 1 special woman, I wanted all of his "1sts"...as well as he wanted mine. My husband has told me -it's not in him to separate the act..it's one thing I dearly love about him. And one of many that make us so compatible. 




eyuop said:


> Both my wife and I were virgins when we married. I was 23, she 22. I wouldn't have married a woman who was not a virgin. I didn't want to marry someone who was going to compare me to her past lovers, and also I wanted that same experience for my future wife.
> 
> So to answer the OP, no -- I personally would have never married a woman with a sexual history. Remaining a virgin until I was married was important to me for many reasons, but long-term commitment was the biggest reason (which coupled with my strong spiritual convictions on the subject). It was a dream come true for both of us to have sex for the first time on our honeymoon. No possibility for STDs, too.
> 
> So, no, we all do not have a sexual past before marriage (as one poster mentioned).
> 
> This is all just my personal preference. I am not anyone's judge, and I could care less how many partners other couples have had. This thread is not about judging other people's choices, but simply answering the question the OP presented honestly. If, for instance, I had premarital sex, I would not have expected my wife to be a virgin. No double standard. If I would have had only one other partner, than it wouldn't matter to me how many partners my wife was with before we married.


Our oldest son is still holding out for such a dream... I am loosing hope he will find it though...seems very unrealistic in todays society unless you find young love in high school & are mature enough to nurture it...remaining with the same person....

Our 2nd son & GF met at 14...still going strong after a year & a half...no drama...I think our family is bursting with Romantics.


----------



## TefExpat

This from a feminist on Jezebel - 



> I know plenty of progressive, liberal, adult men who openly say they're looking for a "good girl"—who prioritize some paternalistic illusion of "self-respect" over personality and chemistry. And to those dudes, I say, HOW DO YOU NOT SEE HOW CREEPY THIS IS. Can you imagine if women went around saying they were just looking for a "good boy"


Since women can do exactly that if they choose to, this is nothing more than the projection of "feminist values" onto men. True, women don't consider a man's sexual past as much as men consider a woman's past. But since they can it is NOT a double standard but only a matter of personal preferences. The good ol double standard talk is nothing more than shaming language to get men to feel bad about their choices.

Sex is no big deal to women and it holds far less value since its so easy for them to get anytime they want it. Women need not weed out "good boys" since most men could not rack up many "partners" whether they wanted to or not. In the US, the harem dating culture consists of a small set of men and all the sexually active women. Your future wife included.

Why are promiscuous women and feminists so pissed off when men avoid them for marriage? Two reasons. The first has to do with the quote above: man shortage. Yep, its alive and well. The second is what trickles down from men's natural decision making process: it leads to women calling other women ****s as they compete for the few men who would even consider committing to any of them.

Imagine a crow; that loud "craaww craaww." The crow says "shouldn't matter" or "she chose you" or the go-to "you're insecure...get over it" craw craw craw. Its nothing more than anger charged belly aching. Don't fall for it. There is nothing sweeter than a doe-eyed gaga girl who is so deeply bonded to you. Spring Break romps, drunken "experimentation" and the feminist coined "expressing her sexuality" all just take that away. Women need to do what they think will make them happy.

So do men.


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> I think our family is bursting with Romantics.


How could they be anything else? It's the only thing they know because that is the only thing they've seen!

Bravo Mr. And Mrs. S.A.!


----------



## Anon Pink

Having raised daughters into their mid 20's I intentionally taught them about both sexual freedom and sexual expectations. Expecting yourself to one day be married means that a woman conduct herself as wife material. Of course that included being true to who they were and not presenting a false image...

That being said, we Unfortunately live in a culture that gives our daughters, and sons but I'm going to stick with daughters here, a horrible mixed message about their sexuality and MOST parents fall dreadfully short on helping them wade through the crap.

Your wife's sexual past is only significant within your marriage if she hasn't come to terms with all the mistake beliefs she held. If she had already begun to behave less promiscuously, if she already decided that sex was much less important than relationship, if she views her past sexual exploits with chagrin, meaning she wishes she hadn't slept with all those men but accepts the mistakes for what they were, then you, KillJoy, having nothing to worry about.

However, remaining in optional touch with her past lovers is a very very bad idea and that is more telling than how many past lovers she's had.


----------



## opensesame

lovelygirl said:


> If marriage is all it takes to feel flattered, shut up and get over it.... then there would be no infidelities and divorces and the OP wouldn't have created this thread.


What? Did you honestly just write that? If somebody made the decision that they wanted to spend the rest of their life with you (which is what deciding to get married means, even if it doesn't work out that way in the long term) why would you not be flattered? 

And why does my saying that the OP should feel flattered equate to "shut up and get over it"?

Jesus.


----------



## BjornFree

opensesame said:


> And why does my saying that the OP should feel flattered equate to "shut up and get over it"?


I suppose a man should feel flattered that a woman accepted no less than a marriage proposal to have regular sex with him when she willingly offered it to other men without the same terms and conditions. I can almost imagine how flattering that is, makes one feel real special doesn't it? Very flattering to be a chump.


----------



## TefExpat

BjornFree said:


> I suppose a man should feel flattered that a woman accepted no less than a marriage proposal to have regular sex with him when she willingly offered it to other men without the same terms and conditions. I can almost imagine how flattering that is, makes one feel real special doesn't it? Very flattering to be a chump.


Imagine going to the newstand at the corner to buy the Sunday Times. I love the Times: the Book Review, the Arts section, and all the articles on world affairs and business. Cool stuff. So you go down and slap a fiver on the counter and grab the Times. A man next to you tosses a quarter on the counter and also grabs the Times. You stare at the quarter for a moment and then look up at the vendor with a questioning look on your face.

“Did that man just pay a quarter for the same paper I gave you $5 for?”

“Well, yes he did in fact.”

“So I can pay you a quarter for the paper?”

“Well, no. Of course not. You see, that man only uses the paper to line his bird cage. He doesn’t appreciate the book reviews, the Week in Review with all the fascinating articles about the world, he doesn’t ponder the Business section, the editorials, and such. You do, though. This paper is worth $5 to you, whereas it is only worth a quarter to this other man.” He smiles, believing he’s made perfect sense.

This is what committing to a girl who’s given it up casually to multitudes of men amounts to, paying $5 for a product that others get for a quarter.

Women are free to think about men this way too. Some do. But why is it only promiscuous women and feminists who go batcrap crazy when men naturally select for wife material in this natural manner? There must be some harm, but what is it?


----------



## lovelygirl

opensesame said:


> What? Did you honestly just write that?


Yes. What's so uncommon about it?



> If somebody made the decision that they wanted to spend the rest of their life with you (which is what deciding to get married means, even if it doesn't work out that way in the long term) why would you not be flattered?


It's not that I wouldn't be flattered but the idea of marriage per se is not enough to make me feel flattered. 

Beautiful and romantic words are nice to hear, but marriage is a day-to-day commitment and if those words are not followed by actions and partners stop caring about each other then I don't see how marriage can still feel flattering.


----------



## committed4ever

I admit my H had multiple partners and is a reformed playa. I actually witness some of his exploits while "doing homework" with his sister who I befriended mainly to be able to oogle over her brother, my H, who at that time never gave me the time of day. But I was never able to give up my dream of him being the one from the time I was 14 -- the reason is detail in some of my other posts.

However when we finally got together, I was not his first virgin to de-flower. He was so over at the time the playa life of his youth (from 15 to 22) but found it difficult to climb out of it. So obvious he was not necessarily looking for a virgin to marry. But was looking to be a better person. This all according to him. There were other qualities he saw in me. But yet after marriage he has told me that it wouldn't have matter if I was a virgin or not, but the fact I have only been with him is very precious to him. I have ask him, honest do you think you would have marry someone who had as many partners as you? His answer will not set well here - "No, because we people with multiple partners are somewhat sick in the head. We need to get well before marrying and I would have no way to know if they were well or not." I'm not passing judgment on the multiple partner for men or women, because I married one.

Actually, I had no way of knowing if he was "well." I took a big chance but nobody could have told me that back then.


----------



## opensesame

BjornFree said:


> I suppose a man should feel flattered that a woman accepted no less than a marriage proposal to have regular sex with him when she willingly offered it to other men without the same terms and conditions. I can almost imagine how flattering that is, makes one feel real special doesn't it? Very flattering to be a chump.


So let's get this straight: what you're saying is that marriage is the terms and conditions for getting a woman to sleep with you? Is that what you're saying? Because that seems like it's what you're saying. 



lovelygirl said:


> Yes. What's so uncommon about it?
> 
> It's not that I wouldn't be flattered but the idea of marriage per se is not enough to make me feel flattered.
> 
> Beautiful and romantic words are nice to hear, but marriage is a day-to-day commitment and if those words are not followed by actions and partners stop caring about each other then I don't see how marriage can still feel flattering.


I'm saying that when somebody gets up in front of the gathered multitudes and openly says, yes, I want to marry you, that makes you feel good about yourself. Especially if it is somebody who is desirable and attractive. If that's not flattering I'm not sure what is! 

EDIT: Also, just to add, I might be missing something but I'm not sure where in the OP's story either of the two people have stopped caring about each other or done anything wrong. The problem is all about what happened _before_ the marriage.


----------



## lovelygirl

opensesame said:


> So let's get this straight: what you're saying is that marriage is the terms and conditions for getting a woman to sleep with you? Is that what you're saying? Because that seems like it's what you're saying.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that when somebody gets up in front of the gathered multitudes and openly says, yes, I want to marry you, that makes you feel good about yourself. Especially if it is somebody who is desirable and attractive. If that's not flattering I'm not sure what is!
> 
> EDIT: Also, just to add, I might be missing something but I'm not sure where in the OP's story either of the two people have stopped caring about each other or done anything wrong. The problem is all about what happened _before_ the marriage.


On a side note, I like your avatar. 

Too cute.


----------



## opensesame

lovelygirl said:


> On a side note, I like your avatar.
> 
> Too cute.


What do you mean, avatar? That's me in my new hat! I know it's unconventional and all, but...


----------



## BjornFree

opensesame said:


> So let's get this straight: what you're saying is that marriage is the terms and conditions for getting a woman to sleep with you? Is that what you're saying? Because that seems like it's what you're saying.


That's exactly what I'm saying. Marriage is/was a social construct that allows a man and a woman unlimited access to sex and a convenient way to raise children without having to compete with other women or fend off other men on a fairly regular basis which was how it was in the ancient times and which is how it still is for other mammals. A 100 years ago you'd be forced into a shotgun wedding for dishonoring an unmarried woman whereby lawfully you'd get access to sex with her. No love figured in the equation anywhere.

Times have changed now. Casual sex is the norm these days, has been for quite a while now and marriage has lost its eroticism. 

So how special does that make anyone feel? If you won a race and your reward was to get a kiss from the prettiest girl in class, you'd value that kiss. If every single boy got a kiss from the pretty girl and the only reason you got one was because you competed, would you value that kiss? Probably not.



> I'm saying that when somebody gets up in front of the gathered multitudes and openly says, yes, I want to marry you, that makes you feel good about yourself. Especially if it is somebody who is desirable and attractive. If that's not flattering I'm not sure what is!


Imagine a scenario where all the wife's past lovers are present in the crowd when you're proposing and they all have these sh!t faced grins plastered on them urging your soon to be wife to do it, do it, do it. Now imagine we live in a world where paternity testing is unheard of as yet and the wife was fvcked in every positions conceivable to humans by her past lovers and she got pregnant before meeting you. But she managed to pass off the baby as yours. 

Still feel special that she married you? No?This is the reason why men get uncomfortable committing to previously promiscuous women, previously being debatable. And love might conquer all but its not going to stop that odd feeling coming from the pit of your stomach that keeps asking you if you're a chump over and over again.


----------



## tryingtobebetter

Is this about control?

In the past men in western society controlled women's behaviour for a number of reasons.

Now some men get upset about their partner's prior behaviour, which upsets the woman, who dislikes his emotions, wants to control them.

The battle of the sexes?

If words like control and battle are apposite then I think that is a sure sign we are in the wrong place. Lasting relationships are built on love.


----------



## opensesame

BjornFree said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying. Marriage is/was a social construct that allows a man and a woman unlimited access to sex and a convenient way to raise children without having to compete with other women or fend off other men on a fairly regular basis which was how it was in the ancient times and which is how it still is for other mammals. A 100 years ago you'd be forced into a shotgun wedding for dishonoring an unmarried woman whereby lawfully you'd get access to sex with her. No love figured in the equation anywhere.
> 
> Times have changed now. Casual sex is the norm these days, has been for quite a while now and marriage has lost its eroticism.
> 
> So how special does that make anyone feel? If you won a race and your reward was to get a kiss from the prettiest girl in class, you'd value that kiss. If every single boy got a kiss from the pretty girl and the only reason you got one was because you competed, would you value that kiss? Probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a scenario where all the wife's past lovers are present in the crowd when you're proposing and they all have these sh!t faced grins plastered on them urging your soon to be wife to do it, do it, do it. Now imagine we live in a world where paternity testing is unheard of as yet and the wife was fvcked in every positions conceivable to humans by her past lovers and she got pregnant before meeting you. But she managed to pass off the baby as yours.
> 
> Still feel special that she married you? No?This is the reason why men get uncomfortable committing to previously promiscuous women, previously being debatable. And love might conquer all but its not going to stop that odd feeling coming from the pit of your stomach that keeps asking you if you're a chump over and over again.


Perhaps you missed the part where I said I understand how the OP feels, and as a man I wouldn't like it either? 

The rest of your post is very reductive, like these pseudo-evolutionary theories about human sexuality always are: there is a very good biological reason why a woman would not want to marry a promiscuous man (he may have many other babies by other women who he will devote resources and attention to, rather than hers) and yet promiscuous men tend to be admired, and certainly do not have any difficulty finding women to marry. That should tell us that biology is only part of the story when it comes to marriage, promiscuity, and human relationships in general.


----------



## BjornFree

opensesame said:


> Perhaps you missed the part where I said I understand how the OP feels, and as a man I wouldn't like it either?


There you go. Why wouldn't you like it either? I mean there has to be a reason right? After all you do love the woman and biology is only a part of the whole equation and insignificant one at that, according to you. So give me a good enough reason for not liking it either. And by the way 53 % inclusive of both men and women wouldn't like it either. Either all of the men who picked that option are jerks or it truly makes men uncomfortable. ANd how many men picked option 5? 5%. Quite telling don't you think. 




> The rest of your post is very reductive, like these pseudo-evolutionary theories about human sexuality always are: there is a very good biological reason why a woman would not want to marry a promiscuous man (he may have many other babies by other women who he will devote resources and attention to, rather than hers) and yet promiscuous men tend to be admired, and certainly do not have any difficulty finding women to marry. That should tell us that biology is only part of the story when it comes to marriage, promiscuity, and human relationships in general.


And yet you see women inevitably falling for the player. How did he get that reputation if women didn't fall for him? Unless you come up with a counter point stating that he spiked their drinks and raped them. Preselection. Look it up. You should pm Machiavelli if you want links and stuff.


----------



## opensesame

BjornFree said:


> There you go. Why wouldn't you like it either? I mean there has to be a reason right? After all you do love the woman and biology is only a part of the whole equation and insignificant one at that, according to you. So give me a good enough reason for not liking it either. And by the way 53 % inclusive of both men and women wouldn't like it either. Either all of the men who picked that option are jerks or it truly makes men uncomfortable.


Yes, it's an emotional reason, and human beings aren't rational. We don't like the fact that the one we love once thought some other guy was worthy of jumping in the sack with. There's no need to pick that apart: it is jealousy, plain and simple. I don't dismiss that, because as I said, I know my wife had 5 other lovers in her life and as far as I'm concerned (because I have emotions, one of which is jealousy ) that's 5 too many. But it's all it is - just good old-fashioned jealousy. 



> And yet you see women inevitable falling for the player. How did he get that reputation if women didn't fall for him? Unless you come up with a counter point stating that he spiked their drinks and raped them. Preselection. Look it up. You should pm Machiavelli if you want links and stuff.


No, thanks, I'm familiar with the arguments. I just think they're a bundle of contradictions. The idea is that women find players attractive mates because they know on a subconscious level that if they have a player's babies the babies will have his genes and be players too, correct? That's a classic case of question-begging. Show me experimental data or it didn't happen.


----------



## BjornFree

opensesame said:


> Yes, it's an emotional reason, and human beings aren't rational. We don't like the fact that the one we love once thought some other guy was worthy of jumping in the sack with. There's no need to pick that apart: it is jealousy, plain and simple. I don't dismiss that, because as I said, I know my wife had 5 other lovers in her life and as far as I'm concerned (because I have emotions, one of which is jealousy ) that's 5 too many. But it's all it is - just good old-fashioned jealousy.


What are emotions but a manifestation of hormonal release.





> No, thanks, I'm familiar with the arguments. I just think they're a bundle of contradictions. The idea is that women find players attractive mates because they know on a subconscious level that if they have a player's babies the babies will have his genes and be players too, correct? That's a classic case of question-begging. Show me experimental data or it didn't happen.


Casanova, Don Juan, Sylvio Berlusconi.


----------



## opensesame

BjornFree said:


> What are emotions but a manifestation of hormonal release.


Well that's a question for the philosophers.  It's a bit like saying "What's football but a load of guys running around a grass pitch chasing a ball?"



> Casanova, Don Juan, Sylvio Berlusconi.


The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not data. There are so many other variables involved in this sort of thing it's impossible to identify the important one. For instance, Silvio Berlusconi is not only a player; he is also incredibly rich. Don't you think that may have an effect on getting women to enter into relationships with him? Irrespective of his reputation as a player? But then, how would you know for sure which is the more important of those two variables? The answer is it's not possible without actual genuine experimental data. So spare me the pseudo-science and point me in the direction of that data.


----------



## aug

opensesame said:


> Yes, it's an emotional reason, and human beings aren't rational. We don't like the fact that the one we love once thought some other guy was worthy of jumping in the sack with. There's no need to pick that apart: it is jealousy, plain and simple. I don't dismiss that, because as I said, *I know my wife had 5 other lovers in her life* and as far as I'm concerned (because I have emotions, one of which is jealousy ) that's 5 too many. But it's all it is - just good old-fashioned jealousy.



A general rule of thumb is multiply the number by 3. What if she really had 15 instead? Would you still be jealous?

How about 50? 

How about 500?


----------



## opensesame

aug said:


> A general rule of thumb is multiply the number by 3. What if she really had 15 instead? Would you still be jealous?
> 
> How about 50?
> 
> How about 500?


I'd love to know where that rule of thumb comes from. Isn't it that corny old joke that you multiply a woman's 'magic number' by 3 and divide a man's by 3 to get the real amounts? 

As for the rest of what you said...I dunno, is that a trick question? Is the correct answer "more jealous"?


----------



## BjornFree

opensesame said:


> The answer is it's not possible without actual genuine experimental data. So spare me the pseudo-science and point me in the direction of that data.


Talking about experiments wouldn't you agree that this poll itself is an experiment? 

Well there has to be a reason why the overwhelming majority of respondents chose option one. Isn't that experimental data? You bet it is. Its experimental data reflecting the beliefs of men. Lets not go round in circles.


----------



## TefExpat

BjornFree said:


> Its experimental data reflecting the beliefs of men. Lets not go round in circles.


Why are the sexual privacy beliefs of men being questioned or challenged?


----------



## Lyris

BjornFree said:


> Aren't you doing the same thing now? Extrapolating your personal view ?
> 
> 
> 
> Again full of sh!t, being your personal opinion.


No, not my personal opinion. It used to be accepted as fact that people of races other than while were less evolved, the assumption being that white skin was the pinnacle of evolutionary achievement. People used to say homosexuality was unnatural because no animal species engaged in it, that turned out to be wrong too. In Victorian England, it was part of medical lore that women needed to wear corsets because their spines were too weak to support them. Also that riding bicycles would cause uterine prolapses. And, of course, that women of good character did not have orgasms. 

All these attitudes were accepted as natural and unchangeable, backed up by medical and scientific evidence. So I am completely unconvinced by the "it's natural" argument. 

And, let me be clear, this is not an issue that affects me personally. I have had very few partners, less than five, and have been happily in a relationship with my high school boyfriend for more than 20 years.

I will be telling my daughters to watch for this attitude. If they are involved with a man who can't live with them having a sexual history before he came on the scene, or one who thinks it's fine for men to have casual sex but not women, they should walk away.

And since my daughters will be intelligent, compassionate, funny, beautiful, high-quality women, it won't be their loss.


----------



## TefExpat

"I will be telling my daughters to watch for this attitude."

If such a conversation is required. then this "attitude" (preference) must be pervasive. 

"If they are involved with a man who can't live with them having a sexual history before he came on the scene, or one who thinks it's fine for men to have casual sex but not women, they should walk away."

When it comes to commitment, they should try to avoid one another and not get involved at all. There are plenty of other men to go around, right?


----------



## tryingtobebetter

Lyris said:


> No, not my personal opinion. It used to be accepted as fact that people of races other than while were less evolved, the assumption being that white skin was the pinnacle of evolutionary achievement. People used to say homosexuality was unnatural because no animal species engaged in it, that turned out to be wrong too. In Victorian England, it was part of medical lore that women needed to wear corsets because their spines were too weak to support them. Also that riding bicycles would cause uterine prolapses. And, of course, that women of good character did not have orgasms.
> 
> All these attitudes were accepted as natural and unchangeable, backed up by medical and scientific evidence. So I am completely unconvinced by the "it's natural" argument.
> 
> And, let me be clear, this is not an issue that affects me personally. I have had very few partners, less than five, and have been happily in a relationship with my high school boyfriend for more than 20 years.
> 
> I will be telling my daughters to watch for this attitude. If they are involved with a man who can't live with them having a sexual history before he came on the scene, or one who thinks it's fine for men to have casual sex but not women, they should walk away.
> 
> And since my daughters will be intelligent, compassionate, funny, beautiful, high-quality women, it won't be their loss.


Lyris

The OP was talking about his feelings not his attitudes.


----------



## TefExpat

tryingtobebetter said:


> Lyris
> 
> The OP was talking about his feelings not his attitudes.


When it comes to men's discomfort regarding commitment to a promiscuous woman it is entirely about feelings and preferences. Women, especially feminists, refuse to acknowledge that and always call it an attitude. When they get really heated, they start spewing other faves including "patriarchy" and the like.


----------



## sparkyjim

killjoy said:


> I get paranoid when she spends a lot of time on facebook possibly contacting old boyfriends



I haven't really followed this thread at all and maybe I should stay out of it but isn't the above statement the real concern?


----------



## TefExpat

sparkyjim said:


> I haven't really followed this thread at all and maybe I should stay out of it but isn't the above statement the real concern?


It is not a "concern" but rather a completely avoidable feeling that no man wants. That is best done by careful vetting out certain women from the wife-material pool of a *particular man*.


----------



## killjoy

sparkyjim said:


> I haven't really followed this thread at all and maybe I should stay out of it but isn't the above statement the real concern?


the thing is even though she spends a lot of time on facebook, I don't know if she is actually contacting old boyfriends or not. this board has just made me paranoid because of all the facebook horror stories


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have always always always appreciated your responses on this aspect...as it is filled with empathy...a well of understanding from where* they* stand....*this would make all the difference in this world how this is overcome... ..where what I generally see in many responses is ....."Oh it's his problem...it's her problem.... get over it already... it's the past dude - she choose you." *
> 
> *Can we be real for a moment.... I highly doubt every girl who lost her virginity did it "JUST FOR SEX"...without some romantic notions of many tomorrows dancing in her head after he touched her in the deepest places a man can......she wanted to BELIEVE he'd be there for her...(emotion behind that)....and it cut like a knife when he walked away.*
> 
> *Now, if this happens a # of times...in the quest for emotional & physical connection (don't we all ultimately want this ???) ....what choice does one have but to make peace with it.....embrace what everyone else is doing....telling ourselves It's no big deal... casual is OK...mutual pleasure worth the pursuit..after all, it sure beats doing it alone.....but what is lost along the way ?? There is always some loss... *
> 
> *Through every rejection....emotions slowly numb...to preserve ourselves.... this idea she ALWAYS chose you above all...not in every case....I'd say more relationships end in devastating heart break of one vs. "it was mutual thing" .....who is to say the guy she carried a flame for didn't move along/ or wouldn't* marry........many of us sing to the tune
> *"You can't always get what you want
> You can't always get what you want
> You can't always get what you want
> But if you try sometimes well you might find
> You get what you need .* Maybe her *need* became marriage & kids while her biological clock was ticking......but the *want* would have been a previous Lover...had it been reciprocated.
> 
> 
> 
> *The issue most definitely IS this....You carry the Romantic View of Sexuality...emotional connection required.... *


Thanks for this post SA, and for speaking from your heart , as usual.
You have taught your sons and daughter well.


----------



## Caribbean Man

killjoy said:


> the thing is even though she spends a lot of time on facebook, I don't know if she is actually contacting old boyfriends or not. this board has just made me paranoid because of all the facebook horror stories


Maybe you can explain to her as best as possible your feeling of insecurity and paranoia .
Ask her kindly for access to her facebook account, tell her it would help ease your mind. Give her access to your facebook, email, phone and other accounts.
If she agrees with this, most likely she has nothing to hide and I think that is supposed go quite a long way in helping ease your fears.

Do you think she would want to give you access to her facebook , email and so on?


----------



## eyuop

Caribbean Man said:


> Right and wrong is a function of power and not truth.
> In essence ,there is nothing right or wrong, it is what we choose to accept.


I don't believe a word of this. It is a philosophical construct called Relativism. Pontius Pilate would have agreed with you, asking Jesus the same famous question, "What is truth?" 

I believe it is inherently wrong to do certain things in my world view; and truth is not just about what I or anyone else simply chooses to accept or not. 

For instance, I believe it is inherently wrong to kidnap someone's child and murder him/her. I think if society accepted this sort of behavior it wouldn't make it right. But that is because I believe that there is a higher set of standards for morality than human beings set for themselves, based on love. God is love, so He is the standard. 

I figure since you can talk about Relativism as if it is simply a fact, than I can offer a different view. Of course there are lots of things taught culturally as either right or wrong (and they aren't necessarily right or wrong -- but rather simply a construct of the power structure of the society), but if there truly is a higher standard (a God who is either pleased by what people do or displeased by what they do), then morality according to human definitions isn't nearly as relevant as we humans think. Obviously if one doesn't believe in God, they will most likely be fine with Relativism. 

I'm not preaching here... just saying that not everyone (myself included) believes that Relativism provides many answers to moral questions. People have the right to think what they like, but that doesn't mean that whatever they like to think is right.


----------



## Caribbean Man

eyuop said:


> I figure since you can talk about Relativism as if it is simply a fact, than I can offer a different view. Of course there are lots of things taught culturally as either right or wrong (and they aren't necessarily right or wrong -- but rather simply a construct of the power structure of the society), but if there truly is a higher standard (a God who is either pleased by what people do or displeased by what they do), then morality according to human definitions isn't nearly as relevant as we humans think. Obviously if one doesn't believe in God, they will most likely be fine with Relativism.


I understand exactly where you're coming from.
I too believe in a higher power , be it a God or some form of higher intelligence.
However, the poster I responded to as well as many others don't believe in a God or even a higher power .

You are correct. My is a position in that post is one of moral relativism . I purposely used it because if a person X thinks that he / she is only answerable to themselves for their actions , then they cannot say that a person Y is wrong for rejecting _their_ moral standard.
If X is answerable only to herself, then Y is also only answerable to himself, because X does not possess more " intrinsic " value than Y. Both are humans, therefore equals.

Its a very slippery slope, I know

"... _People have the right to think what they like, but that doesn't mean that whatever they like to think is right_..."
:iagree: ...and that's why I said that 
"..._right and wrong [ at any given time ] is a function of power, and not the truth_..."


----------



## Wiserforit

killjoy said:


> I had to google what a _'wittol'_ was. I think anyone who considers themselves a wittol or a cuckhold is a pathetic excuse of a man. *there is no way in hell i'd be fine with that.*


Of course. Let's try to stay on point here.

What exactly is it that bothers you? You made a statement about not being "that kind of girl", and linked it to some sexual innovations she wants you to try. 

Do you fear she is going to want other men? That you are not enough for her? 

Lots of experience in the past translates into infidelity now? Is there something besides facebook and sexual innovation that leads you to this conclusion?

Just trying to get to the bottom of this.


----------



## Lyris

tryingtobebetter said:


> Lyris
> 
> The OP was talking about his feelings not his attitudes.


Feelings come from attitudes and vice versa.


----------



## BjornFree

Lyris said:


> I will be telling my daughters to watch for this attitude. If they are involved with a man who can't live with them having a sexual history before he came on the scene, or one who thinks it's fine for men to have casual sex but not women, they should walk away.
> 
> And since my daughters will be intelligent, compassionate, funny, beautiful, high-quality women, it won't be their loss.


See what you did there?

You, your daughters and any other woman have certain standards and preferences. Perfectly fine. Why is it so hard for you to accept that men have certain preferences too?

Your second paragraph clearly echoes the fact that most women really do not know how to handle rejection.


----------



## TefExpat

BjornFree said:


> See what you did there?
> 
> You, your daughters and any other woman have certain standards and preferences. Perfectly fine. Why is it so hard for you to accept that men have certain preferences too?
> 
> Your second paragraph clearly echoes the fact that most women really do not know how to handle rejection.


Women do accept men's preferences derived from innate feelings except for the preference to quietly and politely detour around promiscuous women when seeking a wife. 

Most women would know how to handle rejection if they experienced it regularly. Men rarely reject women who want sex. Thus, women on average have more sexual "partners" than men of similar age.


----------



## belleoftheball

TefExpat said:


> Most women would know how to handle rejection if they experienced it regularly. Men rarely reject women who want sex. Thus, women on average have more sexual "partners" than men of similar age.


You know I may be having another one of my blonde moments even though I am a brunette :rofl: ,but that makes no sense whatsoever. In all honesty in your statement in sounds as though men should have more partners than women or the numbers should be equal.


----------



## belleoftheball

killjoy said:


> the thing is even though she spends a lot of time on facebook, I don't know if she is actually contacting old boyfriends or not. this board has just made me paranoid because of all the facebook horror stories


Have you ever feared her being on fb before? Or is it just now after reading horror stories on here? If it is just now, then I would not worry about it. If you are truly worried, than I would look into her accounts and just see what she has been up to. Be warned though that if you do that, then that means that you are losing trust in her and trust is like paper. Once it is crumpled up, squashed, or broken, then it can never be perfect again. So tread lightly.


----------



## Lyris

Rejection by who? You? Random men I'll never meet? I don't really have any problem accepting that. And as I've been with the same person since I was 18, I'm not really concerned with this whole topic from a personal perspective at all. 

What I'm objecting to is the acceptance without question of attitudes which limit women's sexual choices in a way that men's are not. Which views women who enjoy sex/sexual variety as sl*ts. Rejection is really the least of the issues these kinds of attitudes breed. Blaming victims of sexual assault for the way they dress is a more serious one. Allowing the sexual history of rape victims into courts to influence jurors is another.


----------



## BjornFree

Lyris said:


> What I'm objecting to is the acceptance without question of attitudes which limit women's sexual choices in a way that men's are not. Which views women who enjoy sex/sexual variety as sl*ts. Rejection is really the least of the issues these kinds of attitudes breed. Blaming victims of sexual assault for the way they dress is a more serious one. Allowing the sexual history of rape victims into courts to influence jurors is another.


Let me also point out that men are not the only ones who judge promiscuous women. Women are often the harsher judges. And further rejection isn't an issue that arose out of patriarchy, you can reject a man who is misogynistic and no one's going to take issue with it. Its a personal choice. I'm not sure you understood the point I was making. Men can reject women too. Its like a guy having a personal preference for redheads or gingers. And sexual variety and enjoyment has little to do with hopping from bed to bed, IMO. And your last two sentences are no way pertinent to the issue at hand, that's bordering the realm of ridiculousness where this topic is concerned. With that I will bow out.


----------



## Hortensia

Sometimes upon reading these threads I can't believe we are in the 21th century and people still have the mentality from grandma's time.

So, what's a woman supposed to do, if she is single? Deprive herself of sex until she finds a guy- any guy who is willing to be in a relationship with her? little it matters if she loves that guy or not- just to be in a relationship to not be considered a ho. Then if she has fantasies about other guys, she's a ho anyway, she's having an EA behind her guy's back ! "sarcasm here". If a guy sleeps with 100 women, he's the macho. If a women had 100 men in bed, she's a ho...lol. the number is just per saying.
I see no problem with a SINGLE woman sleeping with as many guys as she wants, as long as she uses protection, as long the guys are NOT MARRIED, as long as she brings no harm to anyone. When is one supposed to have fun and experience sexually , after getting married ? (sarcasm again, of course)

For the OP, I'd say don't worry. She played the field, had her fun and she chose YOU. She stopped at YOU. Number 20, 40, 100, 549, I don't care. She stopped at YOU because you ARE special to her.
A partner - man or woman- who had their fun, is less likely to cheat than one that only has been with one or two people. These ones feel like there is so much more there for them, and never got the chance to explore it. 

As for worrying about reconnecting with exes on FB...the same danger applies if she had only 2-3 serious lovers before you. I'd say the temptation to reconnect with a ONS or a no-string attached ex is much less than with a man she had feelings for.
If your wife is committed to the marriage, if there is transparency and honesty, who gives a damn? 
Needless to say, I voted "double standard BullS."


----------



## BjornFree

Hortensia said:


> When is one supposed to have fun and experience sexually , after getting married ? (sarcasm again, of course)


Yes. Marital sex is the best sex I've ever had. I'm sure a lot of men and women will agree that the hook up kind of fun doesn't hold a candle to marital sex, especially in your early days. So it gets boring after a while, agreed. But who stopped you from bringing in variety into the bedroom? So marriage takes a bit of work, so what? 



> For the OP, I'd say don't worry. She played the field, had her fun and she chose YOU. She stopped at YOU. Number 20, 40, 100, 549, I don't care. She stopped at YOU because you ARE special to her.


No, she was the field that got plowed. She would have stopped at Mr Studly Richkins if he'd only agreed to go with it. She settled for you because you were the best she could manage given that she'd had her fun with so many others who tossed her aside.



> A partner - man or woman- who had their fun, is less likely to cheat than one that only has been with one or two people. These ones feel like there is so much more there for them, and never got the chance to explore it.


Untrue. Promiscuity in general is indicative of future behavior. And females have a heavier price to pay.

Witnessing the Painful Fallout of Female Promiscuity

The Essential Truth About Female Promiscuity

PS: I have a daughter too and she has as much freedom as anybody else in deciding how she leads her life but as a father I would want my daughter be smart about her life choices and to have a stable and happy relationship. There's no guarantees to that of course but take it from me, your husbands and SO's are going to respect you more for not being like every other girl. Yeah, that's what makes a woman special in a man's eyes, not the other way round. It doesn't happen when he gets to be the guy marrying you after you've been with the whole football team. The acceptable numbers might differ from man to man but beyond a certain limit, they will lose their respect for you.


----------



## tryingtobebetter

Lyris said:


> Feelings come from attitudes and vice versa.


Attitudes certainly can be affected by feelings, I grant you. The interesting question is to what extent the opposite applies. I suspect less than some may suppose.

Let me relate from my own personal experience from many years ago. When I was a young man at university I saw a young woman I liked the look of, but did not get to know her for a while until I was introduced by a friend. Having been at a boys' boarding school I had had very little exposure to girls before this point. I had been taught that jealousy was wrong. My mother had told me she was ok with premarital sex so I was quite 'modern' in my views.

I bumped into the girl again, had a brief (two minute?) conversation, decided on reflection that I would ask the girl for a date a few days later but before I could do so I saw her walking down the street hand-in-hand with another young man. So clearly, she was 'taken'. To my astonishment I found I felt intensely jealous. Why, I asked myself, did I do so? I understood jealousy to be wrong, I barely knew the girl, so why did I feel jealous?

Later events shed a good deal of light. The relationship between the young woman and young man ended. She and I started dating. In fact, we came to close to marrying (her decision not to, not mine). So clearly my feelings of jealousy - which came from somewhere very deep and strong within me - were intuitively telling me - though I did not understand this 'intellectually' at the time - that this young lady and I were highly compatible and the other young man was a rival who, as far as I was concerned, should not be there. By the way, she is still single and, I think, much regrets her decision.

So did my jealousy flow from my attititude? How could it, as I understood it to be wrong? The conclusion I reached is that it was part of my inborn nature and I have come to accept that to be the case. After many years of life since then, observation of others, conversations, and reading, including on this website, have persuaded me that it is part of the nature of many other men as well. 

The philosopher Locke used to argue that each child was a 'blank sheet of paper' which their parents could shape as they wished. I think he did not allow adequately for inherent characteristics.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> R
> 
> *What I'm objecting to is the acceptance without question of attitudes which limit women's sexual choices in a way that men's are not*. Which views women who enjoy sex/sexual variety as sl*ts. Rejection is really the least of the issues these kinds of attitudes breed.


Lyris, 
With all due respect you are forgetting something.
Its called " YVMV " or "._.your view may vary_.."

The exact , same entitlement you have to your views that forms your attitudes towards this topic , and you are perfectly within your rights to feel this way, is the exact same entitlement men or anyone opposed to your view has.

A woman can have sex with any amount of men she wants to have sex with . Its HER body and HER right.
Conversely,
A man can have sex with any amount of women or even men for that matter, he wants to have sex with. It's HIS body and HIS right.

A woman can reject and label any man based on any criteria she may have, and they often do.

A man can reject and label any woman based on any criteria he may have , and they often do.

Very few women would want a man who's a virgin . 
See where the double standard starts?


----------



## Caribbean Man

tryingtobebetter said:


> Attitudes certainly can be affected by feelings, I grant you. The interesting question is to what extent the opposite applies. I suspect less than some may suppose.
> 
> Let me relate from my own personal experience from many years ago. When I was a young man at university I saw a young woman I liked the look of, but did not get to know her for a while until I was introduced by a friend. Having been at a boys' boarding school I had had very little exposure to girls before this point. I had been taught that jealousy was wrong. My mother had told me she was ok with premarital sex so I was quite 'modern' in my views.
> 
> I bumped into the girl again, had a brief (two minute?) conversation, decided on reflection that I would ask the girl for a date a few days later but before I could do so I saw her walking down the street hand-in-hand with another young man. So clearly, she was 'taken'. To my astonishment I found I felt intensely jealous. Why, I asked myself, did I do so? I understood jealousy to be wrong, I barely knew the girl, so why did I feel jealous?
> 
> Later events shed a good deal of light. The relationship between the young woman and young man ended. She and I started dating. In fact, we came to close to marrying (her decision not to, not mine). So clearly my feelings of jealousy - which came from somewhere very deep and strong within me - were intuitively telling me - though I did not understand this 'intellectually' at the time - that this young lady and I were highly compatible and the other young man was a rival who, as far as I was concerned, should not be there. By the way, she is still single and, I think, much regrets her decision.
> 
> So did my jealousy flow from my attititude? How could it, as I understood it to be wrong? The conclusion I reached is that it was part of my inborn nature and I have come to accept that to be the case. After many years of life since then, observation of others, conversations, and reading, including on this website, have persuaded me that it is part of the nature of many other men as well.
> 
> The philosopher Locke used to argue that each child was a 'blank sheet of paper' which their parents could shape as they wished. I think he did not allow adequately for inherent characteristics.


I think Jealousy is a natural emotion.
I like the story you gave. I think what caused your jealousy is that you felt a connection to the girl , and she did feel it towards you too.
You both shared a connection initially, but the other guy was maybe more experienced than you.
He convinced her faster than you.

But you are right.
Feelings are not necessarily influenced by attitudes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> *And, let me be clear, this is not an issue that affects me personally. I have had very few partners, less than five, and have been happily in a relationship with my high school boyfriend for more than 20 years*.
> 
> I will be telling my daughters to watch for this attitude. If they are involved with a man who can't live with them having a sexual history before he came on the scene, or one who thinks it's fine for men to have casual sex but not women, they should walk away.
> 
> And since my daughters will be intelligent, compassionate, funny, beautiful, high-quality women, it won't be their loss.


Politics aside,

Children learn by example.
You are happy in your marriage , they see that mummy and daddy are happy. As they get older they would ask how you two met, and you would tell them that both of you were high school sweethearts , and are still in love today.

From your example, they will form their values about relationships , love and sex , in that EXACT order.

"..._Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach_....”
*Albert Einstein.*


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> *Very few women would want a man who's a virgin .*
> See where the double standard starts?


I've actually thought of starting a thread on this asking the women... just to PROVE the point....anytime I bring that up...all I get is silence in return.... It's very obvious in society, and reflected in every post that women DO about what turns them on...that they oooze at the Alpha Confidence of the man, the higher his Lover appeal... the more wanted & sought after HE IS....

Does anyone want to argue this reality ?

Also, like a moth to a flame, I NOTICE every single post knocking the inexperienced MALE (after all that was MY husband... and our 22 yr old son right now) .... I've seen a # of women TAMers making fun of inexperienced men....when the guy brings them back to his pad, if he didn't JUMP their bones... calling him a "BOY"- how they want a MAN, not a BOY....poking fun he must be GAY or his penis is too small....I always find this very insulting personally, but hey...that's just me. 

I appears I near stand alone in preferring a man who was INexperienced (outside of Mariacha75)... always felt that way.....so long as he was a very horny virgin & cute ....I'd choose this every single time !!!... but I am a sucker for * YOUNG LOVE *...I do not understand people who want to Party in their teens/early 20's and get married in their 30's... I was never like this... so this is a part of it too.


----------



## TefExpat

dragonlady4ever said:


> In all honesty in your statement it sounds as though men should have more partners than women or the numbers should be equal.


A very small group of men do have more "partners." The rest have significantly less. 

Women are free to do what they want, and they quickly realize that the men they can "persuade" to have short-term sexual relationships with are much, much more attractive than the men willing to marry them. Attractive men are free to eschew marriage, and instead maintain a harem of rotating friends-with-benefits and one-night stands with the majority of women.

No man is going to get that warm fuzzy feeling fishing for a wife from that harem pool. Only an angry bitter asshat would denigrate him for quietly and politely detouring around it. Of course, no one is suggesting such, so its all good. Right?


----------



## Caribbean Man

I got this " update " on my Samsung Galaxy smartphone a few weeks ago.

Sex& The Superbug. Meet Antibiotic Resistant Gonorrhea


Check out this excerpt
"..._So what to do? We clearly need new options for treatment, but those don’t seem to be coming any time soon. The best method of protection against gonorrhea is abstinence. But that’s not always the most realistic prevention method. The CDC also strongly recommends the use of latex condoms—and not just for vaginal intercourse, but also for oral sex as well_...."

Just based on the reality of STD's , I think everyone , men and women should be very wary of casual sex these days.
The days of worry free casual sex are long gone.

Seems like our smartphones are smarter than us.


----------



## opensesame

BjornFree said:


> Talking about experiments wouldn't you agree that this poll itself is an experiment?
> 
> Well there has to be a reason why the overwhelming majority of respondents chose option one. Isn't that experimental data? You bet it is. Its experimental data reflecting the beliefs of men. Lets not go round in circles.


No, I wouldn't agree it's an experiment. We're not going round in circles; I'm just right.


----------



## always_alone

Lyris said:


> Narrow your own options down as much as you like. But stop trying to narrow down other people's to fit a particular, rigid view of human behaviour and the natural order of things. Especially because every time humans start pontificating on what is natural and normal and in hanging they turn out to be completely full of sh*t.


Reading this thread, I can't help but wonder what the correlation is between these men who are 'repulsed' by women with sexual experience and those who are living in sexless marriages.


----------



## TefExpat

always_alone said:


> the correlation is between these men who are 'repulsed' by women with sexual experience and those who are living in sexless marriages.


As a prickly feminists says, its not about the menz. A man who has not been lied to (she told him how many men got it for a quarter) and still is willing to commit will have quite the rocky marriage. Her past is _the_ impact. 

NYTimes on Lybrido: Women get bored with monogamy faster than men.

.


----------



## Shaggy

Can we please stop calling it misogyny when a guy doesn't find it attractive if a potential partner has jumped through dozens, if not more sexual partners?

It's not misogyny to recognize and be wary of another person who very obviously has very low personal barriers to sexual relationships, and combined with that has trouble maintaining long term one-one relationships.

If you are looking for someone to have a long term relationship with,a person who has burned through a ton of them is obviously not you first best candidate.

BTW, the same is 100% true for guys too.

So I know there a bunch of people who want to cry foul and 12th century etc. in any person who dares question a woman's sexual behavior in any way, but its is very true that a persons past actions and choices do reveal their personal values and character and interest.

A anyone who burns through a lot of partners should have that considered by anyone looking to have a relationship with them.

Just like a person who's burned through a ton of jobs would have that considers by a employer looking to hire them.

The past isn't just the past. It's a record of our choices and an practical demonstration of our decision making and values and it is relevant and it is something your marriage partner should be aware of.


----------



## Maricha75

Thanks, SA, for remembering me! It absolutely holds true, for me as well. My husband was a virgin when we got together. I have been his first for every sexual experience (save for masturbation in his teen years). Sadly (from my own perspective), I was not a virgin. I wish I had been. I wish I could have experienced all of those firsts with HIM and no one else. However, my number was still very low....two partners.... and only one time with each. And, both were boyfriends, not ONS. And no, for those who use that ridiculous math formula... my number was not 2x3... it was 2. Only two. And they were 4 years apart, too. But I absolutely do not fault anyone who prefers lower number/less experience over higher number/more experience. We each have our own preferences/boundaries. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that!


----------



## opensesame

Shaggy said:


> Can we please stop calling it misogyny when a guy doesn't find it attractive if a potential partner has jumped through dozens, if not more sexual partners?
> 
> It's not misogyny to recognize and be wary of another person who very obviously has very low personal barriers to sexual relationships, and combined with that has trouble maintaining long term one-one relationships.
> 
> If you are looking for someone to have a long term relationship with,a person who has burned through a ton of them is obviously not you first best candidate.
> 
> BTW, the same is 100% true for guys too.
> 
> So I know there a bunch of people who want to cry foul and 12th century etc. in any person who dares question a woman's sexual behavior in any way, but its is very true that a persons past actions and choices do reveal their personal values and character and interest.
> 
> A anyone who burns through a lot of partners should have that considered by anyone looking to have a relationship with them.
> 
> Just like a person who's burned through a ton of jobs would have that considers by a employer looking to hire them.
> 
> The past isn't just the past. It's a record of our choices and an practical demonstration of our decision making and values and it is relevant and it is something your marriage partner should be aware of.


Of course. "Misogyny" is one of the most over-used words in the English language. 

I'd agree that having had many, many sexual partners may be problematic, but on the other hand, especially for men, I think the opposite could also be the case: if you don't play the field a bit in your youth, you might end up with a lot of pent-up desires to sow your wild oats that you will have to control in marriage.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Let's not forget that the whole reason this double standard exists is because of the differences between what men and women will accept. Cry and scream all you want but the fact is that there are fewer men that will accept women with as long history then women that will accept men with a long history. Men can't create their own standards if few women will accept it. Besides, we all have our double standards; as a woman I will not accept a man with little ambition. He doesn't need to be wealthy, doesn't need to make more than me, just needs to have some ambition. Men accept women with little or no ambition all the time, so while they could make the argument that they shouldn't be required to have ambition because women aren't, but that's how it is because there are fewer women to accept it. If you want to have sex with lots of men do whatever you want, just do it with the understanding that your pool of available men will be smaller. I personally would not accept a man with a huge sexual past because it suggests his values where sex is concerned are not on sync with mine, and we all have the right to make these decisions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TefExpat

Shaggy said:


> Can we please stop calling it misogyny when a guy doesn't find it attractive if a potential partner has jumped through dozens, if not more sexual partners?
> 
> It's not misogyny to recognize and be wary of another person who very obviously has very low personal barriers to sexual relationships


This is so much fun to pick apart on many levels. Its really selective misogyny-branding. The always-willing men she enabled to have sex with her - are they misogynists? Nope, just bit-part actors who assist in "expressing her sexuality" or other euphemism for super easy fun access to getting her gonads stroked by dudes who never had an interest in marrying her. So then, who exactly are these "misogynists?"

"people who want to cry foul and 12th century"

Soooo, to get back at men for the supposed female "oppression" way back in some fuzzy time, the solution women came up with is to get a dozen or so *select* oppressors to ejaculate in and all over their bodies as...punishment? Yeah, wow, that is just like, genius.


----------



## TefExpat

lifeistooshort said:


> Let's not forget that the whole reason this double standard exists is because of the differences between what men and women will accept.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Then it is not a "double standard" but rather a single standard with varying degrees of prioritization. The term "double standard" is belched by feminists in an attempt to shame men for thinking or behaving a certain way. Other agenda-driven terms include "misogynist" and "insecure" and "patriarchal" and some cutesy phrases including "she chose you!" and "all those experiences make her the person you love today" and on and on. Yeah, we get it - the feminist fantasy sexual plan aint working out. Men pushing back caught them off guard and there is nothing these women can do about it except puke out transparently disingenuous rhetoric. Game over.


----------



## lifeistooshort

TefExpat said:


> Then it is not a "double standard" but rather a single standard with varying degrees of prioritization. The term "double standard" is belched by feminists in an attempt to shame men for thinking or behaving a certain way. Other agenda-driven terms include "misogynist" and "insecure" and "patriarchal" and some cutesy phrases including "she chose you!" and "all those experiences make her the person you love today" and on and on. Yeah, we get it - the feminist fantasy sexual plan aint working out. Men pushing back caught them off guard and there is nothing these women can do about it except puke out transparently disingenuous rhetoric. Game over.


Would you be more comfortable with "perceived double standard" ? I think you're arguing semantics. If you read my whole post you'd see we basically agree.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## larry.gray

Caribbean Man said:


> "..._So what to do? We clearly need new options for treatment, but those don’t seem to be coming any time soon. The best method of protection against gonorrhea is abstinence. But that’s not always the most realistic prevention method. The CDC also strongly recommends the use of latex condoms—and not just for vaginal intercourse, but also for oral sex as well_....".


I guess the author doesn't accept lifetime monogamy?


----------



## TefExpat

lifeistooshort said:


> Would you be more comfortable with "perceived double standard" ?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Of course, as the perception is promoted by certain interest groups. There would be no need to do that if there were actually an abundance of men to select from who also paid no attention to a women's past. But alas, most men do include that past in their evaluation criteria.


----------



## Shaggy

opensesame said:


> I'd agree that having had many, many sexual partners may be problematic, but on the other hand, especially for men, I think the opposite could also be the case: if you don't play the field a bit in your youth, you might end up with a lot of pent-up desires to sow your wild oats that you will have to control in marriage.


I disagree about the need to sleep around to prevent pent up desires.

My desire is for sex and intimate pleasure with my wife. And that's not because I sowed my oats and got them over before getting married, it's because I want my partner. She's my go to to those oats.

I also don't think you need to go through dozens of turd relationships to find the golden one. Yes, you do need to get out, meet people he socialize , but that doesn't mean you need to sleep with all of them.

Long ago I heard advice that I still think is great: never sleep with someone you wouldn't lend $1,000 too. If you don't trust then with your money, you shouldn't trust them with your intimacy.

Gotta say, this saved me from a lot of crazies that would have been more than happy to do the deed, but would have ended up going nowhere and leaving me with pointless and stupid drama in my life.


----------



## larry.gray

SimplyAmorous said:


> Also, like a moth to a flame, I NOTICE every single post knocking the inexperienced MALE (after all that was MY husband... and our 22 yr old son right now) .... I've seen a # of women TAMers making fun of inexperienced men....when the guy brings them back to his pad, if he didn't JUMP their bones... calling him a "BOY"- how they want a MAN, not a BOY....poking fun he must be GAY or his penis is too small....I always find this very insulting personally, but hey...that's just me.


My eldest daughter's group of friends isn't that way. Some are religious, some aren't, but they view having sex early as setting yourself up for a harder life.

My daughter told me that it was rather sobering in health class when they did an anonymous poll. Each kid marked a checklist to what they'd done and what they hadn't. 3/4 of the class had some sort of sexual contact, a little over half had PIV, and most of those hadn't used protection at least once. She was able to tally the no contact kids up among her friends in the class.

No, I don't think she's shining me on. I've really tried to foster the relationship where she can share what she's doing and that no matter what I love her.

And sorry SA, she's 17. :rofl:
Maybe in another year I will let your son call her :smthumbup:


----------



## thatbpguy

killjoy said:


> okay I don't want to throw out any exact figures here, but lets say my wife has more than triple the amount of sexual partners that I've had. I was astonished when she told me (I thought she was joking at first), and was insecure enough in that moment to inflate my own numbers a bit just so we were in the same galaxy (no matter what I was out of the ballpark). so yes, she's a lot more experienced than me--and i'm not going to lie to you--it makes me feel a little uneasy and inadequate. sometimes I wonder about how I measure up to her lovers in the past. after reading a bunch of horror stories on here, I get paranoid when she spends a lot of time on facebook possibly contacting old boyfriends
> 
> do I have a right to feel bad about my wife's "body count"? should I just get over it?
> 
> for the guys here: how would you feel if our wife had more than triple the amount of sexual partners you had?


I apologize for not taking the time to read the precious 16,000 posts on this topic so this may be very redundant...

There are several issues here so let me start...

In and of itself I wouldn't be overly concerned about your wife having a promiscuous past. Taken at face value all it says to me is that she sees sex as a part of any relationship. Some women do and some don't. 

As to comparing yourself with other men, forget about it. For women, it's more about the relationship. And if you be the best you can be in the sack, I am sure that will suffice more than enough for her. For most women, good relationship = good sex.

That said, I would be concerned about guys and facebook. That is a deadly combination. You need to monitor her fb account and make sure she isn't getting carried away.


----------



## FormerSelf

In my failed marriage...I sexually dealt with a catch-22...in that my STBXW was VERY experienced and she was my first. I wasn't ever really plagued with comparing myself to her past flings, yet what created the lose-lose scenario was my wife just had the expectation that I was supposed to know what to do like some gruff romance-novel hero...like giving her sheet-tearing orgasms was supposed to be ingrained.


----------



## Machiavelli

killjoy said:


> the thing is even though she spends a lot of time on facebook, I don't know if she is actually contacting old boyfriends or not. this board has just made me paranoid because of all the facebook horror stories


Keylogger. VAR her car.


----------



## opensesame

Shaggy said:


> I disagree about the need to sleep around to prevent pent up desires.
> 
> My desire is for sex and intimate pleasure with my wife. And that's not because I sowed my oats and got them over before getting married, it's because I want my partner. She's my go to to those oats.
> 
> I also don't think you need to go through dozens of turd relationships to find the golden one. Yes, you do need to get out, meet people he socialize , but that doesn't mean you need to sleep with all of them.
> 
> Long ago I heard advice that I still think is great: never sleep with someone you wouldn't lend $1,000 too. If you don't trust then with your money, you shouldn't trust them with your intimacy.
> 
> Gotta say, this saved me from a lot of crazies that would have been more than happy to do the deed, but would have ended up going nowhere and leaving me with pointless and stupid drama in my life.


I dunno, I had some "crazies" when I was younger and rather a lot of pointless and stupid drama, but I think it worked out okay in the end and made me a more rounded person.

I'm not saying there's a hard and fast rule, because there never is. Just that these things can cut in a multitude of ways.


----------



## Caribbean Man

thatbpguy said:


> Quote:
> * For most women, good relationship = good sex.*
> 
> Nope. Lots of women say that they can have great sex without an intimate , loving connection. They can also love a man without being sexually attracted to him. I think it's called "..._I love you , but I'm not in love with you_.." syndrome or speech.
> 
> Quote:
> *
> That said, I would be concerned about guys and facebook. That is a deadly combination. You need to monitor her fb account and make sure she isn't getting carried away.*
> 
> Agreed.


----------



## Wiserforit

I don't think 007 spy technology needs to be deployed on this one until we first work on transparency in an open, above-board manner.

The reason for spying is when we are already being deceived, so we don't have any other choice but to defeat the deception.

If you start a spy program without even having broached the subject of being open on facebook and such - that is a road that has two kinds of risks - one is being caught out and having resentment that is justifiable and the other is having to live with keeping the secret from your spouse, which is a really caustic thing for relationships.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

opensesame said:


> I'd agree that having had many, many sexual partners may be problematic, but on the other hand, especially for men, I think the opposite could also be the case:* if you don't play the field a bit in your youth, you might end up with a lot of pent-up desires to sow your wild oats that you will have to control in marriage*.


 I don't believe everyone's *Playing the Field* = *going all the way*....again this falls into one's sexual views.. if you are a Romantic, you believe in waiting for one very special person, akin to your soul mate equaling commitment & being entangled in the emotional. 

I met my now husband at 15... this crossed my mind at times....he was my 1st serious boyfriend... 

My Grandmother...loved her ..we used to talk for hours on her front porch.....she always told me to make sure *I* *played the Field* *before I settled down* ....

At one point, I started feeling I may regret that I never dated another...so I broke up with him, giving his ring back --to date a guy I met through my Aunt.... I was upfront & honest through it all... Never went behind his back... he waited for me to get my head on straight....

The most I did with that guy was KISS... I realized rather quickly I missed my "best friend" .....through that I realized HE was my forever.... I will always be grateful for that experience... as I feel It was a stepping stone......it brought me the clarity I needed to move forth....after this, we moved in together & planned our big wedding... No regrets. 

So I listened to my grandmother after all...but I know her idea of playing the field did not = "Laying the Pipe". 

I've never experienced this 7 yr itch they talk about.....or wanted another...I knew I had all I needed right in front of me.... I have, however, wanted to GO back in Time and RE-live, re-experience some of the things I feel WE missed sexually......but it was never what I missed... and he too, has never wanted another...even when things were DRY....he's told me he was still happy. 

So this is not always true either.... I would think this has more to do with what is missing from the marriage... (emotional needs dissed, mismatched Libidos - communication breakdown)... or those who so WANTED to experience Sowing the sexual oats in youth/college...with a spicy variety but was TOO shy back then...too whatever....just not racking up the women, or men not approaching them ..... many of those feel JIPPED, / ripped off ....even before they walk down the aisle....... 

But if one is a die hard romantic...with the normal ebbs & flows ...yet keeping each other at the forefront in your marital journey, one need never feel this way...



larry.gray said:


> My eldest daughter's group of friends isn't that way. Some are religious, some aren't, but they view having sex early as setting yourself up for a harder life.
> 
> My daughter told me that it was rather sobering in health class when they did an anonymous poll. Each kid marked a checklist to what they'd done and what they hadn't. 3/4 of the class had some sort of sexual contact, a little over half had PIV, and most of those hadn't used protection at least once. She was able to tally the no contact kids up among her friends in the class.
> 
> No, I don't think she's shining me on. I've really tried to foster the relationship where she can share what she's doing and that no matter what I love her.
> 
> And sorry SA, she's 17. :rofl:
> Maybe in another year I will let your son call her :smthumbup:


 I think that's great - the level of communication you have with your daughters Larry.Gray..... our teen sons can tell me & their dad ANYTHING ....and they do ! 

If you lived closer to us .. I tend to have a thing with playing Mary Match maker.. I'd probably be inviting your family over so they could meet! She sounds wonderful!


----------



## Maricha75

Ok, so back to the OP's questions:
1. Do you have a right to be upset over it? Sure... but you should have voiced that concern BEFORE you married.
2. Should you get over it? Ehhhh...coupled with the fact that she is Facebook messaging old boyfriends, I'd say that would give me pause as far as getting over it. Unless they have kids together, or they have married into the family (it does happen. My own cousin married one of my ex-boyfriends), there really is no reason to be in contact now. Otherwise, I WOULD say "Sure, get over it. She married you. You had no problem with the number before marriage. let it go."... But, like I said, the ex-boyfriend chats give me pause here.


----------



## TefExpat

*Re: Having A Wife With A Carousel-Riding "Past"*



Maricha75 said:


> Ok, so back to the OP's questions:
> 1. Do you have a right to be upset over it? Sure... but you should have voiced that concern BEFORE you married.
> 2. ..I WOULD say "Sure, get over it. She married you. You had no problem with the number before marriage.


If he asked and she was truthful then he had informed consent and proceeded anyway. If she lied, that is a huge matter. If he did not ask then he did not seek such informed consent.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread. If this has been covered, I apologize. I don't claim to know what is wrong, I just wanted to give you an example pertaining to what I've experienced and believe.





killjoy said:


> okay I don't want to throw out any exact figures here, but lets say my wife has more than triple the amount of sexual partners that I've had.
> 
> My ex did too.
> 
> I was astonished when she told me (I thought she was joking at first),
> 
> I didn't ask for an exact number. I don't think it's my business. I just wanted to know where I stood for reasons of evaluating compatibility. I was a little shocked by her response.
> 
> and was insecure enough in that moment to inflate my own numbers a bit just so we were in the same galaxy (no matter what I was out of the ballpark).
> 
> Whoops. Never good to lie, even when you are shocked.
> 
> so yes, she's a lot more experienced than me--and i'm not going to lie to you--it makes me feel a little uneasy and inadequate.
> 
> Seems pretty normal for someone who is not that experienced.
> 
> sometimes I wonder about how I measure up to her lovers in the past.
> 
> Seems pretty normal.
> 
> after reading a bunch of horror stories on here, I get paranoid when she spends a lot of time on facebook possibly contacting old boyfriends
> 
> This is more about your insecurity, as you well know.
> 
> do I have a right to *feel* bad about my wife's "body count"?
> 
> Feelings are neither right nor wrong. Is it fair to assess her past in relation to your future? I think so. I don't think it is fair to just say she is not a good partner based on numbers alone. I don't think it is fair to say she will definitely cheat based solely on her numbers either.
> 
> should I just get over it?
> 
> No. You should explore what it is inside of you that makes you feel insecure and come to these conclusions. Then you should explore what actions of her's have brought up your issues. Books? Counseling?
> 
> for the guys here: how would you feel if our wife had more than triple the amount of sexual partners you had?


I'm pretty certain my ex did have at least triple my numbers. I was okay with it. I learned from it. I think I understand more about myself now. It's a shame it took a divorce. 

How many partners in how many years? I don't need an answer here. Just get one in your head. How much time was spent with each? That can help to explain things a little if you consider that information with other clues. You have to take a look at why she went from one to another. How does she act with friends. Does she make a decision quickly? Is it based in fact? There is so much more than just numbers to consider. 

Before you can make any big decisions, you need to look at yourself first. Be comfortable with yourself, then get to work with your wife on the relationship. It could be all you. It could be something you see, but don't want to believe. You won't know till you know yourself first.


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Having A Wife With A Carousel-Riding "Past"*



TefExpat said:


> If he asked and she was truthful then he had informed consent and proceeded anyway. If she lied, that is a huge matter. If he did not ask then he did not seek such informed consent.


OMG! Did you READ his initial post?! He said she TOLD him, but he thought she was exaggerating the number. 

Well done on glossing over the rest of it...you know, where she's chatting it up with her exes. Yea, because that CLEARLY has nothing to do with why he is asking, right? 

ETA: Sorry, I re-read his post. He is concerned that she's possibly chatting them up. I still stand by my post. The only reason I would give pause is if she is, indeed, chatting it up with the exes. Otherwise, he knew her number, and accepted it as it was (even though he believed she was joking). He was informed...and married her anyway.


----------



## TefExpat

*Re: Having A Wife With A Carousel-Riding "Past"*



Maricha75 said:


> OMG! Did you READ his initial post?! He said she TOLD him, but he thought she was exaggerating the number.


Before or after becoming married? If before, yes he knew and should have moved on. S**t-angst has grown exponentially in the US (no surprise there) and men have heard enough of these horror stories, enough to find this out early by an means possible including asking directly.


----------



## TefExpat

> should I just get over it?
> 
> No. You should explore what it is inside of you that makes you feel insecure and come to these conclusions. Then you should explore what actions of her's have brought up your issues. Books? Counseling?


Men take heed. You are not under ANY obligation whatsoever to accommodate any woman who does not fit your sexual-past ideal. What you "feel" is natural and normal. You do NOT have to "get over" anything. Close to 95% of fertile marriageable women have never even been to the US. You have more in common family-culture wise with women from other countries. Draw the line and stick to your standards. Be a man.


----------



## Maricha75

TefExpat said:


> Before or after becoming married? If before, yes he knew and should have moved on. S**t-angst has grown exponentially in the US (no surprise there) and men have heard enough of these horror stories, enough to find this out early by an means possible including asking directly.


Hmmm... yes, I can see what you're saying now. You're right. Looking again, it is a bit ambiguous. I was working under the assumption that he knew before marriage, which is why my replies have said "you knew and married her anyway". However, it can also be stated that if neither brought it up before, how does that fit in? If he never thought to ask before, it's still on him for NOT asking, IMO. But if she lied (which he says she didn't), that would be a different story. Basically, if it's an important enough subject to ask about, do it before you marry. Don't wait til after and then whine that you never would have married if you had known... (not saying OP is doing that, just a general observation.)



TefExpat said:


> Men take heed. You are not under ANY obligation whatsoever to accommodate any woman who does not fit your sexual-past ideal. You do NOT have to "get over" anything. Close to 95% of fertile marriageable women have never even been to the US. You have more in common family-culture wise with women from other countries. Draw the line and stick to your standards. Be a man.


Same for women. You don't have to accommodate men who do not fit your sexual-past ideal. Draw the line and stick to your standards. You don't have to "get over" anything either. If you want to marry a virgin or a man with a low number, then stick to that ideal.


----------



## TefExpat

Maricha75 said:


> if neither brought it up before, how does that fit in? If he never thought to ask before, it's still on him for NOT asking, IMO. But if she lied (which he says she didn't), that would be a different story. Basically, if it's an important enough subject to ask about, do it before you marry. Don't wait til after and then whine that you never would have married if you had known.


Exactly. Sadly for men, women do lie and that proves women are not proud of what they did or there truly is a qualified-man shortage. Its a mess in this culture. Will younger women take heed and modify their sexual behavior to avoid this common gut wrenching scenario? 



Maricha75 said:


> Same for women. You don't have to accommodate men who do not fit your sexual-past ideal. Draw the line and stick to your standards. You don't have to "get over" anything either. If you want to marry a virgin or a man with a low number, then stick to that ideal.


Fortunately for women, very few men were able to rack up high numbers and few women even think about such things anyway.


----------



## sparkyjim

If this ever comes up in my relationship I am going to say that it does not matter - for either one of us.

Why do people do this to each other?

If you like the guy or the girl then you like them right now and in the future, Their past should have nothing to do with it.

What if he or she was a recovered alcoholic?

Other than he/s she can't drink when you go out, what difference does their past make? They beat it didn't they?

I'm not implying that promiscuity is like alcoholism - no - it's just an analogy.

You don't judge someone on their past. Well, if they were an axe murderer, yeah, but that's really about "your not really part of the human race, are you..."

Sex, drinking, drugs, gambling? Geez...we have all been there. No need to throw stones.

Besides the OP is worried that she is contacting ex lovers on Facebook. He doesn't trust her. I don't think it's necessarily the high number of trysts that she has had.


----------



## Maricha75

TefExpat said:


> Exactly. Sadly for men, women do lie and that proves women are not proud of what they did or there truly is a qualified-man shortage. Its a mess in this culture. Will younger women take heed and modify their sexual behavior to avoid this common gut wrenching scenario?


Only if their parents/mothers teach that to them. But rest assured, not all of us lie about it. And some wish they had NO number before their husbands, even if it was low (as in one or two partners).




TefExpat said:


> Fortunately for women, very few men were able to rack up high numbers and few women even think about such things anyway.


Depends on your population sample. If you have a large sample from a particular group which is looking for a man (or even woman) with a relatively low number, or even NO number, then that's going to skew the results a bit. Just as if the sample has only one or two from that particular group, the results might say close to none looking for mates with those specifications. Ya know?

Idk, maybe I'm just rambling lol. But, if my kids and my nieces/nephew stand by what they believe, they will all be looking for low/no number.


----------



## Maricha75

sparkyjim said:


> If this ever comes up in my relationship I am going to say that it does not matter - for either one of us.
> 
> Why do people do this to each other?
> 
> If you like the guy or the girl then you like them right now and in the future, Their past should have nothing to do with it.
> 
> What if he or she was a recovered alcoholic?
> 
> Other than he/s she can't drink when you go out, what difference does their past make? They beat it didn't they?
> 
> I'm not implying that promiscuity is like alcoholism - no - it's just an analogy.
> 
> You don't judge someone on their past. Well, if they were an axe murderer, yeah, but that's really about "your not really part of the human race, are you..."
> 
> Sex, drinking, drugs, gambling? Geez...we have all been there. No need to throw stones.
> 
> Besides the OP is worried that she is contacting ex lovers on Facebook. He doesn't trust her. I don't think it's necessarily the high number of trysts that she has had.


1. Regarding the alcoholic reference. Question: If you were dating an alcoholic, and they quit drinking, would you have alcohol in the house if you married them? Pertinent information IMO. If you are involved with an alcoholic, or recovering alcoholic, then you need to be conscious of everything you do when it comes to alcohol... including not having it in the house, knowing that they have a problem with it. This comes from my dad, a recovering alcoholic. He hasn't had a drop in decades. But he also stated that if it were in the house, it would be a great temptation for him. So...why would you even subject someone to that? See? It's about more than "Oh, he just can't drink when we go out." Much, much more.

2. Saying "we've all been there" regarding sex, drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc... No, we have NOT all been there. Believe it or not, there are people who do not partake in any of that.

I'm not going to brand a woman with a higher number as a wh0re. But I also disagree that past sexual experience is unimportant. And if someone says it is important to them, then it is important to them. If someone says it isn't important tot hem, then it isn't important tot hem. We do not get to decide what is or is not important to someone else...only for ourselves.


----------



## sparkyjim

Maricha75 said:


> We do not get to decide what is or is not important to someone else...only for ourselves.


That's why I offered my opinion...


Thanks for the info about alcoholics. I have close to zero experience with that.


----------



## Lyris

Haha, I just realised my husband was indeed a virgin when we got together and I have had three times as many partners as he has. Ie, 3.

Good luck OP. Probably worth watching the Facebook stuff.


----------



## Wiserforit

Maricha75 said:


> coupled with the fact that she is Facebook messaging old boyfriends,


Oopsie. Check out the top of pg 10 *Maricha75*.

He says he doesn't know if she is contacting old boyfriends. His suspicion has been heightened by reading threads on this forum.


----------



## Maricha75

Wiserforit said:


> Oopsie. Check out the top of pg 10 *Maricha75*.
> 
> He says he doesn't know if she is contacting old boyfriends. His suspicion has been heightened by reading threads on this forum.


Guess you didn't read further yet? I already said something about my earlier assertion.




Maricha75 said:


> ETA: Sorry, *I re-read his post. He is concerned that she's possibly chatting them up. *I still stand by my post. The only reason I would give pause is if she is, indeed, chatting it up with the exes. Otherwise, he knew her number, and accepted it as it was (even though he believed she was joking). He was informed...and married her anyway.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Hortensia said:


> Sometimes upon reading these threads I can't believe we are in the 21th century and people still have the mentality from grandma's time.


 As long as the world is on an axis, there will be those who view the act in a more sacred light than others ....meant for 1 special person...this is something deeply ingrained in some of us. 

As much as this bothers YOU... it bothers me that so many TODAY want to squash the rest of us...put us down (which WE are not in the majority anymore AT ALL !!)...so please give us lowly folks who are killing over like flies our older fashioned views.... and not tell us we are living in another century and downing our Grandparents whom we loved, looked up to, who left us a legacy of memories of what a good marriage is made of...

Unlike my mother.. By the way, who slept around....while I lived with her - and was taken off of her....It really messed her up....& she never believed in love again...Now what better example do you think I had in MY growing up years... My Mother who screwed men & her life to hell & back... or MY dear Grandmother... 

Making fun of Grandma's mentality - these things don't sit well with me. 



> I see no problem with a SINGLE woman sleeping with as many guys as she wants, as long as she uses protection, as long the guys are NOT MARRIED, as long as she brings no harm to anyone. When is one supposed to have fun and experience sexually , after getting married ? (sarcasm again, of course)


 YOU have the  Plain Sex view of sexuality ..
.. no emotional connection required... pursuit is mutual pleasure... A rubber takes care of it - enjoy. 

Such beliefs are rampant on College Campus today... I don't feel it's healthy- for their futures... You DO- you see empowerment...the free for all sowing of wild oats... get it out of your system....... that's fine. The world should be able to accompany both of us.....just marry accordingly-if/when you decide that is a worthy pursuit. 

There are far more in society today that holds your view over mine anyway... so this should allow you to  and take it easy on the rest of us --who again.....is clearly *in the minority.*.

Sad thing is...a growing # of men see very little to no incentive to marry anymore ...what do they really get out of it -that they can't get outside of that piece of paper? 



Caribbean Man said:


> I got this " update " on my Samsung Galaxy smartphone a few weeks ago.
> 
> Sex& The Superbug. Meet Antibiotic Resistant Gonorrhea
> 
> Check out this excerpt
> "..._So what to do? We clearly need new options for treatment, but those don’t seem to be coming any time soon. The best method of protection against gonorrhea is abstinence. But that’s not always the most realistic prevention method. The CDC also strongly recommends the use of latex condoms—and not just for vaginal intercourse, but also for oral sex as well_...."
> 
> Just based on the reality of STD's , I think everyone , men and women should be very wary of casual sex these days.
> The days of worry free casual sex are long gone.
> 
> Seems like our smartphones are smarter than us.


 I read that article... having had yrs of not being able to conceive...I wouldn't wish anything that has the power to cause infertility ....this cuts to the heart of any woman who may want to be a mother someday, some risks are just NOT WORTH IT, sexual views put aside...and now with resistant antibiotics...this is not a little thing... 



> In women, the STD can spread to the uterus and fallopian tubes, increasing the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy (a dangerous situation in which the embryo implants outside of the uterus). Gonorrhea can be passed from mother to child, and it also increases your risk for HIV. So, in the end, it’s a pretty serious infection.


----------



## TefExpat

SimplyAmorous said:


> As much as this bothers YOU... it bothers me that so many TODAY want to squash the rest of us...put us down (which WE are not in the majority anymore AT ALL !!)...so please give us lowly folks who are killing over like flies our older fashioned views.... and not tell us we are living in another century and downing our Grandparents whom we loved, looked up to, who left us a legacy of memories of what a good marriage is made of...
> 
> Sad thing is...a growing # of men see very little to no incentive to marry anymore ...what do they really get out of it -that they can't get outside of that piece of paper?


The desire among many to berate and denigrate men who quietly and respectfully detour around promiscuous women when it comes to commitment knows no bounds. This is not done in jest. Its a serious matter as it is done constantly with the exact same vicious terms and words crafted to shame. Merely by acting on feelings and not even uttering a word, men are really pissing off a lot of people, mostly promiscuous women and feminists. Surely these groups feel that they have something to lose. What is it?


----------



## larry.gray

SA, I keep hitting the same button but it only likes and then un-likes your post! I wish I could like that one post a whole bunch of times.


----------



## eyuop

I'm surprised to hear that women do not want men who are virgins. All men are virgins at some point in their lives, so... :scratchhead:

I guess maybe older virgins are the problem? I was a 23 year old virgin when I was married. My wife was also a virgin (22). She asked me before we were married if I had ever had sex with another girl and I said no. I did tell her some "Joshua" stories, though. For those who don't know the Biblical story of Joshua, he was a young, handsome guy who worked for the king. He had to dodge sexual advances from the ruler's wife (who was going a little cougar on him) until she grabbed him one day in a private chambers and the only way he could get away from her was to leave his cloak in her sexually-charged little hands.

Anyway, I told her of several real Joshua stories that happened to me (one with a real cougar, mind you). Maybe this was a positive, because at least I wasn't a virgin because I couldn't get a girl. I was just really good a running from them. 

I'll be honest here and admit that sometimes I wonder what it would have been like to not run so fast. But I don't know of any married man that sometimes doesn't wonder how life would be sexually different had he done x,y,z. Grass always looks greener elsewhere sometimes -- that goes for men and women.


----------



## treyvion

TefExpat said:


> The desire among many to berate and denigrate men who quietly and respectfully detour around promiscuous women when it comes to commitment knows no bounds. This is not done in jest. Its a serious matter as it is done constantly with the exact same vicious terms and words crafted to shame. Merely by acting on feelings and not even uttering a word, men are really pissing off a lot of people, mostly promiscuous women and feminists. Surely these groups feel that they have something to lose. What is it?


How can they get angry with you because you prefer that your partner is not very loose with sex and intimacy?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

killjoy said:


> okay I don't want to throw out any exact figures here, but lets say my wife has more than triple the amount of sexual partners that I've had. I was astonished when she told me (I thought she was joking at first), and was insecure enough in that moment to inflate my own numbers a bit just so we were in the same galaxy (no matter what I was out of the ballpark). so yes, she's a lot more experienced than me--and i'm not going to lie to you--it makes me feel a little uneasy and inadequate. sometimes I wonder about how I measure up to her lovers in the past. after reading a bunch of horror stories on here, I get paranoid when she spends a lot of time on facebook possibly contacting old boyfriends
> 
> do I have a right to feel bad about my wife's "body count"? should I just get over it?
> 
> for the guys here: how would you feel if our wife had more than triple the amount of sexual partners you had?


Getting back to this original question... none of us can change our pasts... only make peace with them...and bring our spouses there with us... But this takes some vulnerable heartfelt communication.

How is your marriage, is she a loving affectionate wife? 

I feel if the marriage is GOOD...if you love her, if she loves you...you can't allow THIS to overshadow your life together...what you have built....

This needs to be dealt with...overcome, laid to rest. It's unhealthy to carry it... we all need to talk about our feelings, we should be able to bring anything, everything to our spouses with an empathetic ear ...so she has the opportunity to help you overcome...that you are the man she loves & adores, there is none to compare. 

When you've had these conversations, have YOU been judgemental towards her...making her want to defend herself ?? .... which can keep an emotional divide alive between you...you don't want to go there, just hear her out... or has she been cold to you in feeling you just "need to get over it" -treating you like you are insecure , dissing your feelings? Both of these ...will keep you STUCK .... 

Maybe I missed it here... *but what was YOUR views on sexuality before you met her/ married her... was YOU in all Long Term Romantic attached relationships when you engaged in Sex??* ... and if the answer is NO....then really, how can you get on her for basically following the same 
"*Sex is Just sex*" script....as 2 fingers should be pointing back at yourself ... 

I really have a hard time with a man whose past is similar (even if his # is less) if he can't look at himself with a similar measuring stick.....in this way, it should be easier to overcome with your wife...as you had similar beliefs in sex... compatible in fact. 



I recall a thread here where the woman LIED that she was never with anyone before her husband... as he made it clear that would not be acceptable- because of his beliefs.....only to find out down the road she had a # of partners, he almost left her....pouring his heart out here on TAM...

IN that situation.. the blow was tremendous as their beliefs on sex was worlds apart... I even encouraged her to forgive his wife (they had kids, life had been good!)... as I feel he put her in an awful position...knowing if she was honest, he would be lost forever...his black & white rigidity here was against love and & an understanding of something that could have been worked through even.....and she carried that heavy weight into their marriage for yrs... and really...she was a GOOD LOVING WIFE....this could have been dealt with before they married...and laid to rest... 

I do feel people do things that maybe later on-they would look back and feel..."I missed it..IF ONLY I could live those yrs over again, I would do differently".... this doesn't define who we are....and never will. 

Honesty and empathetic understanding is what allows us all to build a bridge with each other - to get to the other side.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I stand by my statements. You need to learn more about yourself. Then you need to decide what boundaries you have that you can live with and which are dealbreakers. This will tell you what to do next. If she has lied to you and that is a dealbreaker. Leave her. If you can work on these things and get past them, do so. It's not your fault if you do not want to be with someone with a past much more colorful than your own. It is personal preference and there is nothing wrong with living up to your own standards. 

You will not be happy if you go against your personal boundaries. Once you figure out who you are, you will be able to work on what is wrong in your marriage. She may not be trying to contact anyone. Then again, she may be. You will not know until you investigate. If you work on yourself, you will be better able to deal with anything that comes up while working on your marriage. If you don't know what you want, your life will be miserable. You will only postpone the inevitable and it will be much much more difficult to go through.


----------



## Hortensia

BjornFree said:


> Yes. Marital sex is the best sex I've ever had. I'm sure a lot of men and women will agree that the hook up kind of fun doesn't hold a candle to marital sex, especially in your early days. So it gets boring after a while, agreed. But who stopped you from bringing in variety into the bedroom? So marriage takes a bit of work, so what?
> 
> 
> 
> No, she was the field that got plowed. She would have stopped at Mr Studly Richkins if he'd only agreed to go with it. She settled for you because you were the best she could manage given that she'd had her fun with so many others who tossed her aside.
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Promiscuity in general is indicative of future behavior. And females have a heavier price to pay.
> 
> Witnessing the Painful Fallout of Female Promiscuity
> 
> The Essential Truth About Female Promiscuity
> 
> PS: I have a daughter too and she has as much freedom as anybody else in deciding how she leads her life but as a father I would want my daughter be smart about her life choices and to have a stable and happy relationship. There's no guarantees to that of course but take it from me, your husbands and SO's are going to respect you more for not being like every other girl. Yeah, that's what makes a woman special in a man's eyes, not the other way round. It doesn't happen when he gets to be the guy marrying you after you've been with the whole football team. The acceptable numbers might differ from man to man but beyond a certain limit, they will lose their respect for you.


Yep. Marital sex is the best ever (providing that you married someone you love, not just for the sake of being married, like many did ). But one appreciates much more that wonderful marital sex when they have a term of comparison - having had other sex partners, other no- string attached experiences.

I for one, find that sex without love is like food without condiments. But I had my fair share of fun before getting married. I appreciate even more what I have, in comparison for what it now looks like a silly, meaningless sex encounter - which at that time, felt good and it was fun. 

Promiscuity- what exactly is promiscuity? How many partners define promiscuity? 10 ? 20? 200? lol. 
I doubt many women really reach 100 partners unless they work in the sex business which is another topic. 
So, promiscuity is defined by our beliefs, by our ideas, by our boundaries- different from everyone.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but someone who feels differently is equally right. 
It's your body, it's your life. 
After all, the purpose of life is to enjoy it. Eat a steak, have a beer, smell a flower, and yeah, why not - have sex !


----------



## 2ntnuf

I don't think there is a number associated with the definition. It is a behavior. There is nothing wrong with it if that is your choice. Do you want to take everyone's individuality away? Do you want everyone to be the same? Do you want to take away personal freedom to choose what is right for ourselves? Variety is the spice of life. That doesn't only apply to sex.

From Merriam-Webster:

pro·mis·cu·i·ty noun \ˌprä-mə-ˈskyü-ə-tē, ˌprō-\
plural pro·mis·cu·i·ties

Definition of PROMISCUITY

1
: miscellaneous mingling or selection of persons or things : indiscriminateness
2
: promiscuous sexual behavior



pro·mis·cu·ous adjective \prə-ˈmis-kyə-wəs\

Definition of PROMISCUOUS

1
: composed of all sorts of persons or things
2
: not restricted to one class, sort, or person : indiscriminate <education … cheapened through the promiscuous distribution of diplomas — Norman Cousins>
3
: not restricted to one sexual partner
4
: casual, irregular <promiscuous eating habits>


----------



## BjornFree

Hortensia said:


> Yep. Marital sex is the best ever (providing that you married someone you love, not just for the sake of being married, like many did ). But one appreciates much more that wonderful marital sex when they have a term of comparison - having had other sex partners, other no- string attached experiences.
> 
> I for one, find that sex without love is like food without condiments. But I had my fair share of fun before getting married. I appreciate even more what I have, in comparison for what it now looks like a silly, meaningless sex encounter - which at that time, felt good and it was fun.
> 
> Promiscuity- what exactly is promiscuity? How many partners define promiscuity? 10 ? 20? 200? lol.
> I doubt many women really reach 100 partners unless they work in the sex business which is another topic.
> So, promiscuity is defined by our beliefs, by our ideas, by our boundaries- different from everyone.
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but someone who feels differently is equally right.
> It's your body, it's your life.
> After all, the purpose of life is to enjoy it. Eat a steak, have a beer, smell a flower, and yeah, why not - have sex !


]I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being promiscuous. As I said earlier, its your body your choice. And its great that you appreciate your partner even more for having had so many previous experiences. But does your husband appreciate it? I'm just giving you a man's perspective and I'm pretty sure that a lot of men echo my sentiment.

Obviously your husband doesn't mind, unless he doesn't know about your past, and that's fine. All I'm saying though is that were you a single woman still, you would've effectively reduced the number of men who would otherwise be willing to commit to you just by having a high number, each man having his own definition of what high is.

So its all one big compromise, you take fun and NSA sex over a larger pool of men who'd *settle down* with you and give you kids and a stable relationship, that's your choice. But you can't have the best of both worlds meaning you getting laid by Tom **** and Harry and still be the woman that a lot of men would say "Yeah, I'm going to marry her", some men, yes, a lot of men, no. But you will find that most men wouldn't think twice about getting into a no strings attached relationship or having a ONS with you. If a woman doesn't have a problem with this trade-off then there's no problem at all. Sadly that's not the case.


----------



## Openminded

Everyone (whether they are male or female) has the right to do with their body as they choose. But their potential partner has the right to say whether someone's number is a deal killer or not.


----------

