# Number of past sexual partners



## Cleigh

Just curious as to what people think on this site about the number of past sexual relationships a girl has.
Would you not be with someone if they have had many partners?
How many to you is too many?
Why would/wouldn't you be with someone who has had a lot?


----------



## mr.bunbury

If the number of previous partners didn't matter you wouldn't have so many women telling lies about their past.

You can't put a specific nr to it, men have different boundaries, and there are other factors as well, like for example when a girl has had many boyfriends is not as bad as if she had same number of casual sex encounters with random guys.

Of course if a man is with a woman only for a short time he will be chilled about her past, as a matter of fact he will not even ask her about it.


----------



## treyvion

Cleigh said:


> Just curious as to what people think on this site about the number of past sexual relationships a girl has.
> Would you not be with someone if they have had many partners?
> How many to you is too many?
> Why would/wouldn't you be with someone who has had a lot?


It could be distracting to realize half or more of her male friends have bedded her. And that many of these are still in her ear from time to time. Then it's about the ones who come around, is this a plutanic friend or someone who has penetrated her. You don't want to be just a number.

A stereotype is that ones with too high of body counts are not able to connect as deeply, because they are used to releasing.


----------



## JCD

This sort of question has been brought up before. 

It never ends well. Men think they are owed due diligence.

Women think that a number doesn't matter as long as the number she is currently putting out to is '1'. They fear slvt shaming and comparisons.

A lot of women have been burned or dismissed purely on 'number'. This is a valid concern.

Men are worried about how a woman who 'dallies' overly much can remain in a committed relationship. This is a valid concern...at least according to the men.

The women feel they can grow up and leave that lifestyle behind. They want to have fun when they are young and get saddled with children.

Understandable.


----------



## JustTired

My husband doesn't care how many men I was with before him. Just like I don't care how many women before me. It's one of those things where we both had _colorful_ pasts & we left it in the past.


----------



## Cleigh

*Re: Re: Number of past sexual partners*



Personal said:


> Hi Cleigh,
> 
> For me it simply doesn't matter, I don't think of any number as being too many. As with all relationships the quality of the person matters, for me how many people you have or haven't had sex with is irrelevant to ones good character.
> 
> I feel this way because I just don't consider sex as something that soils someone. As long as the sex is adult and consenting I don't consider such activity to be wrong or immoral whomever and how many participants there may be.
> 
> I can honestly say so far I have enjoyed a tremendously rich, frequent and fulfilling adult sex life. I think one of the reasons for this is because I don't share some of the views of a few notable posters in the discussion here on "I lied about my sexual past". By not thinking like them I have been exposed to a tremendous smorgasbord of positive sexual experiences with a number of like minded partners.
> 
> Thousands of sexual partners wouldn't even concern me, since it's only sex and as long as one is not limited to a consensual monogamous relationship, I don't see anything wrong with sharing some fun.
> 
> So what's your perspective on this, what's comfortable for you and what isn't comfortable?
> 
> All the best.


That's the thread that got me thinking. I understand the lie is bad but the prostitution part really didn't bother me. 

As for me. I have had my fair share of men (and women) and more. my partner was a virgin when we hooked up and he knows about how many I have been with. A person's past doesn't bother me as long as they are faithful while in a relationship.


----------



## Married but Happy

I might be concerned if she had far more partners than me. And I would be cautious if she'd only had two or three (depending on age). Ideally, I'd prefer someone with similar levels of experience, but when I was dating it was more about current compatibility, attitudes, and values than her past - if it even came up.


----------



## Cleigh

*Re: Re: Number of past sexual partners*



treyvion said:


> It could be distracting to realize half or more of her male friends have bedded her. And that many of these are still in her ear from time to time. Then it's about the ones who come around, is this a plutanic friend or someone who has penetrated her. You don't want to be just a number.
> 
> A stereotype is that ones with too high of body counts are not able to connect as deeply, because they are used to releasing.


This is the reason I don't keep male friends. I wouldn't want my partner feeling like he needs to look over his shoulder every time I talk about a guy. When single, build new friendships.


----------



## Cleigh

*Re: Re: Number of past sexual partners*



JCD said:


> This sort of question has been brought up before.
> 
> It never ends well. Men think they are owed due diligence.
> 
> Women think that a number doesn't matter as long as the number she is currently putting out to is '1'. They fear slvt shaming and comparisons.
> 
> A lot of women have been burned or dismissed purely on 'number'. This is a valid concern.
> 
> Men are worried about how a woman who 'dallies' overly much can remain in a committed relationship. This is a valid concern...at least according to the men.
> 
> The women feel they can grow up and leave that lifestyle behind. They want to have fun when they are young and get saddled with children.
> 
> Understandable.


I can tell you now, I am not ashamed of my past. People say sl*t like it's a bad thing. To me. Sex is fun. It can be done without the emotional connection. That been said, I CAN NOT do it without the emotional connection when it comes to my partner. For me there is a huge difference but both is fun.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Cleigh said:


> I can tell you now, I am not ashamed of my past. People say sl*t like it's a bad thing. To me. Sex is fun. It can be done without the emotional connection. That been said, I CAN NOT do it without the emotional connection when it comes to my partner. For me there is a huge difference but both is fun.


:iagree:

It has always bothered me when men talk about a woman's past as something she should be apologetic for or ashamed of. She's "changed", she's not that person anymore......

Every single one of my life experiences has made me who I am. Either accept all of me or GTFO.
There's enough men out there who truly don't care, there's no need to settle for a man who is ashamed of your past. 

Men who DO care should stick to women who fit his preference. I don't think it's bad to care or to decide you won't be with a woman (or man) who has more than a certain # of partners as long as you don't go outside that and then complain about it or try to make them feel bad.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

Double standard, especially with the terms like "bedded her", "penetrated her". How about rephrasing it as "how often a women enjoyed a variety in her sex life before meeting you" or even "how many conquests she had" ... lol. 

Personally, I think men who are concerned with how many partners a woman has had, have a hidden fear of the odds being higher that they won't measure up in some way. Or that she can think about her past whenever she likes, same way as a guy does. 

Oh, the horrors of a woman's sexuality.

Thinking like that makes cultures do things like FGM and other more subtle maneuvers such as inequality in the workplace and education...


----------



## bandit.45

I think if a person wants a fulfilling, varied and exciting sex life with as many partners as they can handle, then they are not ready to settle down into a monogamous relationship. Said person should also do some self reflection and ask themselves if they are indeed marriage material. We have had Waywards on here who have openly admitted that the monogamous aspect of marriage is one they chafed against the most. When we ask them why they got married knowing they could not be faithful, we never get a cogent answer. 

I don't have a problem with highly sexualized, "promiscuous" people in general. I do have a problem with such people getting married, then getting bummed out by having same old same old sex with their partner and then going outside the marriage to get their variety. 

Either practice promiscuity or settle down to monogamy, but don't get into a a monogamous relationship and then turn around and call your monogamous partner "controlling" when you go out and push the limits because you're bored because you aren't being serviced by a different man or woman every three days.


----------



## Jetranger

I don't care who you are, where you're from, who you did, as long as you love me (and don't have STDs)


----------



## I Don't Know

Homemaker_Numero_Uno said:


> Personally, I think men who are concerned with how many partners a woman has had, have a hidden fear of the odds being higher that they won't measure up in some way. Or that she can think about her past whenever she likes, same way as a guy does.


I think this is valid for some guys, myself included. I don't know why. I've never really cared much before, but with my wife I do care. And her past isn't even that colorful.

The only part I disagree with is thinking about the past. I don't think about it unless something brings it up, and I hope she doesn't either. It seems to me that if she's thinking about some past partner, then there is something that I'm not doing right or something she's missing and wants.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

bandit.45 said:


> I think if a person wants a fulfilling, varied and exciting sex life with as many partners as they can handle, then they are not ready to settle down into a monogamous relationship. Said person should also do some self reflection and ask themselves if they are indeed marriage material. We have had Waywards on here who have openly admitted that the monogamous aspect of marriage is one they chafed against the most. When we ask them why they got married knowing they could not be faithful, we never get a cogent answer.
> 
> I don't have a problem with highly sexualized, "promiscuous" people in general. I do have a problem with such people getting married, then getting bummed out by having same old same old sex with their partner and then going outside the marriage to get their variety.
> 
> Either practice promiscuity or settle down to monogamy, but don't get into a a monogamous relationship and then turn around and call your monogamous partner "controlling" when you go out and push the limits because you're bored because you aren't being serviced by a different man or woman every three days.


It's impossible for people to undo their youth. You have your youth, you experience your youth, your needs and behavior change. 

I do think there is a murky area where people's needs change, but their behavior patterns and self-control have a difficult time following. This is where when you're dating, if you absolutely know you're past this point yourself (if you were ever there), you need to know how to discern and avoid... I agree, be ready for that kind of relationship before pursuing it. 

It works the other way around too. Someone who wants a monogamous relationship and would never seek sex outside a committed relationship, commits to someone who ends up being a sexual dud....ouch. In that case, they might secretly dream of either developing into a person who could seek sex outside a monogamous relationship, or wish that they had partnered up with someone much more adventurous (even if flawed.) 

H*ll has many permutations.


----------



## GTdad

I remember having this discussion here a while back, and what I learned about myself is that while it's true that I generally wouldn't care about numbers of partners there nonetheless would be a number, should I happen to find out about it which I very well may not, that would make me sit up and say/think "WT*F*??". Say, anything approaching the triple digits. I know at least one woman who is likely in that territory, and her attitude towards sex is not one I share.

So what we'd be talking about is basic incompatibility. I wouldn't think poorly of a partner or potential partner for having high numbers, I'd just figure that we're too far apart on what sex means for us individually. I have to imagine that women generally feel the same.


----------



## samyeagar

I not so sure the issue is purely in the number so much as the devil's in the details. When it comes down to the details, the double standards start to fade away. Knowing too much beyond generalities bothers a lot of people, men and women alike. How that knowledge comes to light has a lot to do with it how bothers a person too.


----------



## bandit.45

Homemaker_Numero_Uno said:


> It's impossible for people to undo their youth. You have your youth, you experience your youth, your needs and behavior change.
> 
> * Oh I'm not saying a person can't change. Most do. Most settle down and accept the lack of variety and excitement of monogamy. I think we call that growing up. But unfortunately, you and I know that not everyone does settle down. *
> 
> I do think there is a murky area where people's needs change, but their behavior patterns and self-control have a difficult time following. This is where when you're dating, if you absolutely know you're past this point yourself (if you were ever there), you need to know how to discern and avoid... I agree, be ready for that kind of relationship before pursuing it.
> 
> *. I think it comes down to choosing a partner who fits you. If you are a guy whom has only been with a couple of women, and you have a fiencee who was the college BJ queen, then you have a right to know her past and make an informed decision as to whether or not her views on sexuality, monogamy and marriage are going to mesh with yours in a way that will allow trust. Hopefully she will be open and tell you the truth about her sexual past. Problem is, many women lie, because they see this guy as primo husband material, the kind of guy who could give them a shot at a good, stable life, but they are scared to death thinking if he knew the truth about the legions of partners she's has bedded he will dump her and move on to a less "soiled" woman. We have seen these stories many times here. *
> 
> It works the other way around too. Someone who wants a monogamous relationship and would never seek sex outside a committed relationship, commits to someone who ends up being a sexual dud....ouch. In that case, they might secretly dream of either developing into a person who could seek sex outside a monogamous relationship, or wish that they had partnered up with someone much more adventurous (even if flawed.)
> 
> * Then I would say that person needs to tell the truth, and require their partner to step up his/her game, seek MC or sex coaching, or decide if they want to stay in that marriage.
> 
> I think the biggest disservice the Judeo/Christian dogma ever did to marriage was to make it a sin for two people in love to have sex before they marry. Well...how the hell are you going to know if you are sexually compatible or not if you don't sample the goods before taking the plunge? I never got that, never will. *
> 
> H*ll has many permutations.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

bandit.45 said:


> We have had Waywards on here who have openly admitted that the monogamous aspect of marriage is one they chafed against the most.


I've heard just as many people who had only been with 1 sexual partner and hit a certain phase where they wish they had been more active before marriage and cheats because they don't want to have only been with 1 person. 

You never know what reason someone is going to have. I don't think # of past partners and cheating has any connection (unless they have a cheating past) 
I know you are not saying that big numbers = cheating. 
It's just every time this topic comes up there is always talk of affairs.


----------



## Convection

I was about to start a post on slvt-shaming but this one beat me to it. The quote that me was this: 



Anon Pink said:


> Women won't tolerate slvt shaming anymore! When men do it, we call them on it, loud and clear! The next step in not tolerating slvt shaming is owning your sexual past and if he can't cope with it kick his ass to the curb! No woman should live with a man who embraces the old double standards.
> 
> That's what has the women in this thread riled up about. And that what the men are also riled up about. *Though they try to frame their outrage in her dishonesty, we all know it's really about her having opened her legs way too many times.*


But sometimes it is about the lying.

Lady Convection and I met when she was 34 (I was 24 at the time). She is far more experienced than I am, with a lot more partners, and has done sexually some things I have not and probably never will. To me, that is immaterial, because she is with me now.

Lady C was also scrupulously honest with me about her past. She did not go down a checklist and name off partners and I don't know an exact count but as we were friends, then good friends, then dating, then together, she opened up more and more. I pretty much know all about her history, because I asked her. I never judged her, though I might have lightly teased her about certain things (and not about others, because she has some sexual trauma). But the keys here were: 1) her honesty and trust, and 2) my acceptance and non-judgement. I only feel like I have the right to be judgmental about the things she has done since she's been with me.

Could all this have blown up in her face? Sure. She took a risk by telling me. I see guys dealing with things on TAM that were similar to stuff in her past. But she trusted me, like she has never trusted another man. In turn, I didn't degrade or devalue her because of it, and so she trusts me even more. Reinforcing cycle. Am I jealous? Maybe a little and I don't like to dwell. But her past is part of her; _I either accept her in totum, or not at all - otherwise, the relationship will never work_.

Best of all, she admitted she knew I might walk if I knew everything but she didn't want a marriage based in lies. I love her to death just based on that sentiment.

Now, let's assume I caught her in a lie about her past. This would be significantly damaging for a number of reasons. One, I would feel betrayed. Two, I have never given her reason not to tell me something, so I would be hurt that she felt she couldn't trust me. Three, since she has always been a lousy liar (her body language gives her away every time), I would immediately wonder how much else she had mastered covering up.

Her past to me is interesting because it defined who she was when I met her. I can accept a woman with a past, and that includes any number of partners. I could accept a stripper or a sex worker, if they were out of the business, turned themselves around, and proved they were clean (STD-wise). But not if they didn't give me the choice up front.

Sometimes, it really is about the lying.

And for the record, Lady C never asks me about my past. I am willing to share with her if she ever does (full disclosure should go both ways) but she doesn't. I think she is content to let the past stay there and - just in my opinion - she is the more jealous one in the relationship. Watching her get her hackles up when another woman is eying me is comforting, 'cause I know she wants me all to herself, and I her.

Even if she had a lot of partners in the past, she's all mine now.

(Addenda: Anon Pink, no woman should tolerate slvt-shaming, especially from their SO. But neither should they lie. Be honest about yourself and let the chips fall where they may.)


----------



## richardsharpe

Good afternoon all
I couldn't care less how many partners someone had before me. 

We really need a new word for slvt - though I know some women who are now embracing that word. 

Personally I want to be with someone who enthusiastically enjoys sex, and is therefore likely to have had many partners in the past.


----------



## treyvion

richardsharpe said:


> Good afternoon all
> I couldn't care less how many partners someone had before me.
> 
> We really need a new word for slvt - though I know some women who are now embracing that word.
> 
> Personally I want to be with someone who enthusiastically enjoys sex, and is therefore likely to have had many partners in the past.


In the bible it was called a "Harlot".

Slvt is fine as a word. It means what it means, someone who is very loose sexually and will bed a multitude of people.

I don't know how we equated body counts to sexaul ability and experience.

The thing about a slvt, male or female is they tend to prioritize their feelings and lust over anything else. They will get a dopamine hit from anywhere.

And with a slvt, how can you guarantee that she/he won't do to you what they did to their last "boyfriend" or "gf".

That's why we lable it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

treyvion said:


> And with a slvt, how can you guarantee that she/he won't do to you what they did to their last "boyfriend" or "gf".


What makes you think that a slVt has done anything bad to their last, or any, boyfriends or girlfriends?


----------



## treyvion

I Don't Know said:


> I think this is valid for some guys, myself included. I don't know why. I've never really cared much before, but with my wife I do care. And her past isn't even that colorful.
> 
> The only part I disagree with is thinking about the past. I don't think about it unless something brings it up, and I hope she doesn't either. It seems to me that if she's thinking about some past partner, then there is something that I'm not doing right or something she's missing and wants.


For me it's not that. Sometimes you want to feel special and don't want to be with someone who been with everybody.


----------



## bandit.45

treyvion said:


> For me it's not that. Sometimes you want to feel special and don't want to be with someone who been with everybody.


This. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person feeling this way or having this kind of jealousy. It's a good kind of jealousy I think. 

This is why openness and honesty in a relationship are a must, and why I think full disclosure IS necessary before marriage.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

bandit.45 said:


> This is why openness and honesty in a relationship are a must, and why I think full disclosure IS necessary before marriage.


I agree and it goes both ways. If you are the kind of person who will be jealous or needs to be "special" then they need to make sure their partner knows that too, don't pretend you are fine with it and then have it come up later. 



treyvion said:


> Most have. My male **** friends are usually going to cheat on you. They are more into their lust so they will react on outside people even if it really doesn't matter.
> 
> See some of us other types have oxytocin bonding and we want repeated bondings with the one we have an affinity for, we don't want to keep switching "flavors" back and forth.


So because the men you know are cheaters, they most are? 
I've known plenty of slVts male and female who sleep around while single and are 100% happy and monogamous with their partner. 

IMO more people would be happy in their monogamous relationship if they took the time to find someone who was compatible with them sexually and figure out what they like and want and don't want. Experiment sexually and learn about their sexuality. This might take a few or a lot of tries to figure all out. 

The person who you end up committing to because they were the one who fits you the best is special.


----------



## Buddy400

For me, it doesn't matter what has happened in the past (as long as it's not the VERY recent past) or how high the count is (although triple digits would give me pause). Mind movies could be a problem. That's why I never want to know the details.

However, the responses here don't seem to accurately reflect the opinions of most men. How things *should* be is one thing. How things *are* is another. There is research indicating that a high n does lead to more problems in marriage (for both genders), so the fear of a high n is not completely unfounded.


----------



## FalconKing

It matters to me. Because I want to know how a person was living before they meet me. I know people grow and change but I like consistency in people's behavior. Also, it's about compatible values as some have said. I think sex is fun too, but I want to have fun with somebody I know and trust. I know most people at some point and time have had ONS. But if you are consistently seeking those things then I don't think you are somebody I should be emotionally close with. It's like someone that is saving themselves for marriage(and actually have an interest in sex). Maybe they have been tempted but have decided their sexuality is something they will give to their husband/wife. I think meeting someone who did not want to disclose their sexual past and felt like it was no ones business, would not be ideal for a person like that. 

I attach value to things based on how freely you do it with other people. I want hugs, kisses, and sex. But if you have shown me behavior where those things aren't special to you, then don't do it to me in hopes of making me feel special.


----------



## Anon Pink

treyvion said:


> For me it's not that. Sometimes you want to feel special and don't want to be with someone who been with everybody.


This is the bottom line, in a nut shell, what slvt shaming is!

Because you are not the first to plant that flag you are not special.

This is patently a NON issue with women! Show me any woman on TAM, except for SimplyAmorus, who would even bat an eye about her husband's sexual behavior prior to even meeting her?

For men, they want to be the first, as if that makes them special.

For women, they want to be the last because that DOES make them special. 

Tame a bad boy because he found what he's been missing all his life. The same can be said of women too! But slvt shaming and preconceived ideas about her lack of boundaries means he'll never be able to keep her satisfied...which is a product of his OWN insecurity!

Tame a wild bird because no other man can make her feel what only you can.


View attachment 29658


----------



## Anon Pink

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree and it goes both ways. If you are the kind of person who will be jealous or needs to be "special" then they need to make sure their partner knows that too, don't pretend you are fine with it and then have it come up later.
> 
> 
> 
> So because the men you know are cheaters, they most are?
> I've known plenty of slVts male and female who sleep around while single and are 100% happy and monogamous with their partner.
> 
> IMO more people would be happy in their monogamous relationship if they took the time to find someone who was compatible with them sexually and figure out what they like and want and don't want. Experiment sexually and learn about their sexuality. This might take a few or a lot of tries to figure all out.
> 
> The person who you end up committing to because they were the one who fits you the best is special.



:iagree:

Sing it sister!


----------



## bandit.45

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree and it goes both ways. If you are the kind of person who will be jealous or needs to be "special" then they need to make sure their partner knows that too, don't pretend you are fine with it and then have it come up later.


I agree. If I'm in a non-exclusive, FWB type relationship with a woman, I have no issue with her sleeping with other men. But the moment you tell me we are exclusive, and I agree I want to take the relationship to that level of exclusivity, then my feeling is we are bonded and committed to a degree. 

Next comes engagement. Next comes marriage. With each level the expectation of mutual monogamy becomes more entrenched. Which is why I don't understand people who marry fiancées who they find out have cheated on them during the engagement. 

At the exclusivity stage, I become very jealous of my girlfriend keeping close male friends and flirting with other men. Not because I'm insecure, but because there is an agreement and higher level of respect and trust that need to be defended.


----------



## Married but Happy

There is a difference between not wanting to be with someone who had many previous partners because of differing values and life experiences, and shaming them. Is it any different than women shaming men by calling them players? If they simply prefer not to give a player a chance because of differing values and preferences, that's not shaming. Calling them a player or a sleaze, etc., is.


----------



## samyeagar

This really starts to dig into the complexity of the issue. This is NOT a simple issue, as simple as "the past is the past" that many try to make it out to be.

At the heart of it, people are different. Some attribute meaning to the acts themselves, and others don't. For some people, sex really is nothing more than just sex and it means nothing deeper than having a good time. For others, it is a show of deep love expressed in the flesh. For many, it is a combination of both.

Those who are able to completely separate the physical and emotional have a difficult time understanding those who can't, and vice versa, much in the same way a HD partner has difficulty understanding an LD partner and vice versa. This is just another type of sexual incompatability. Neither is right or wrong or unhealthy...just different.

It is often said that a persons past behaviors are the best indicator of current and future behavior. Most of us do either consciously or subconsciously feel that is true and react accordingly. Where the problem comes in in a match between one who can separate and one who can't is the person who can will have a more difficult time in the credibility department if they want their partner to believe that the act has meaning.

I have been with three women in my life including my current wife, all three of which I had an emotional connection first. I am 42. She has been with over 30 men. She has never cheated so her number doesn't bother me in the least. She has had completely disconnected sex plenty of times, where I have not, nor have I ever had any desire or drive to. I know she loves me very deeply and completely, and while we have a great sex life, it is her actions outside the bedroom that I feel her love, and not so much in the bedroom. To be completely honest, her past tells me that I can't look to the fact that she has sex with me as validation of her love for me.


----------



## firebelly1

bandit.45 said:


> I think if a person wants a fulfilling, varied and exciting sex life with as many partners as they can handle, then they are not ready to settle down into a monogamous relationship. Said person should also do some self reflection and ask themselves if they are indeed marriage material. We have had Waywards on here who have openly admitted that the monogamous aspect of marriage is one they chafed against the most. When we ask them why they got married knowing they could not be faithful, we never get a cogent answer.
> 
> I don't have a problem with highly sexualized, "promiscuous" people in general. I do have a problem with such people getting married, then getting bummed out by having same old same old sex with their partner and then going outside the marriage to get their variety.
> 
> Either practice promiscuity or settle down to monogamy, but don't get into a a monogamous relationship and then turn around and call your monogamous partner "controlling" when you go out and push the limits because you're bored because you aren't being serviced by a different man or woman every three days.


But the number of partners someone has had in their entire life doesn't translate to whether they are or want to be monogamous in relationship. You can be promiscuous when single and happily monogamous when attached. At least, I can, which is why I have a problem with the assumption that they are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Thundarr

Cleigh said:


> Just curious as to what people think on this site about the number of past sexual relationships a girl has.
> Would you not be with someone if they have had many partners?
> How many to you is too many?
> Why would/wouldn't you be with someone who has had a lot?


This question is very dependent on context. A bunch of recent partners might scare me sooner than just a high lifetime number. But it all depends. I'm not sure what the number would be. There are too many other variables.


----------



## FalconKing

firebelly1 said:


> But the number of partners someone has had in their entire life doesn't translate to whether they are or want to be monogamous in relationship. You can be promiscuous when single and happily monogamous when attached. At least, I can, which is why I have a problem with the assumption that they are mutually exclusive.



Is that something you would disclose or would you rather keep it to yourself? Would you have fear of rejection or slvt shaming? Or would you just feel like it wasn't your current partner's business? I'm just curious.


----------



## treyvion

Anon Pink said:


> This is the bottom line, in a nut shell, what slvt shaming is!
> 
> Because you are not the first to plant that flag you are not special.
> 
> This is patently a NON issue with women! Show me any woman on TAM, except for SimplyAmorus, who would even bat an eye about her husband's sexual behavior prior to even meeting her?
> 
> For men, they want to be the first, as if that makes them special.
> 
> For women, they want to be the last because that DOES make them special.
> 
> Tame a bad boy because he found what he's been missing all his life. The same can be said of women too! But slvt shaming and preconceived ideas about her lack of boundaries means he'll never be able to keep her satisfied...which is a product of his OWN insecurity!
> 
> Tame a wild bird because no other man can make her feel what only you can.
> 
> 
> View attachment 29658



Some women feel the same about men, they might have a personal preference not to be with someone who has been with "everybody". I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

Of course people will have had sex, but some people don't want body counts in the 100's, and large groups of people.

I don't think it's wrong for that to be someones opinion.

Trying to tame a "bad boy" or "bad girl" is plain stupid.


----------



## treyvion

Thundarr said:


> This question is very dependent on context. A bunch of recent partners might scare me sooner than just a high lifetime number. But it all depends. I'm not sure what the number would be. There are too many other variables.


She's one of the guys. She's boned 70% of your actual friends and 50% of your enemies. It's not a big deal to her.

Now if a woman said, that she prefer not to be with someone whose been around like that, she would not get bashed.


----------



## bandit.45

firebelly1 said:


> But the number of partners someone has had in their entire life doesn't translate to whether they are or want to be monogamous in relationship. You can be promiscuous when single and happily monogamous when attached. At least, I can, which is why I have a problem with the assumption that they are mutually exclusive.


I agree. 

As long as you a ready and willing to make a break from your prior non-monogamous practices and embrace fifty years of sex with the same person, then mo power to you! 

But be honest about your sexual past. If your fiancée asks, tell him/her the truth. I am firmly entrenched in the camp that a person has the right to know the partner they are marrying, where that partner has been, what they have done and how many they have been with.


----------



## samyeagar

Another thing at play here is the idea that sex is a gift women give to men, and that men do to women, and that women allow. Just listen to the informal phrases...he banged her, nailed her, rode her hard and put her away wet...even when women are talking about sex, most refer to it in a manner of what the man did to them. The fact that society has placed a premium on women's sexuality in making it some sort of prize to be won, putting it on a pedestal, giving it an arbitrary value based on the notion that women have sex for emotional closeness...makes it very difficult to reconcile conventional wisdom with the reality of the world.


----------



## firebelly1

FalconKing said:


> Is that something you would disclose or would you rather keep it to yourself? Would you have fear of rejection or slvt shaming? Or would you just feel like it wasn't your current partner's business? I'm just curious.


Ideally I would have a partner who could hear the number and not freak out. But yes, I am afraid of rejection / slvt shaming (and also making my partner feel inadequate) based on my number and I would be inclined to keep it to myself for that reason. And I'm not interested in hearing his.


----------



## bandit.45

firebelly1 said:


> Ideally I would have a partner who could hear the number and not freak out. But yes, I am afraid of rejection / slvt shaming (and also making my partner feel inadequate) based on my number and I would be inclined to keep it to myself for that reason. And I'm not interested in hearing his.


But that's unrealistic. Call what you like...it's hiding the truth and it is dishonest. You would be setting yourself up for severe hurt and embarrassment down the road. 

If you're headed for the alter, lay it all out for your partner to see, and vice versa. If your partner bails because of it? Well, that's relationship, that's reality.


----------



## firebelly1

bandit.45 said:


> I agree.
> 
> As long as you a ready and willing to make a break from your prior non-monogamous practices and embrace fifty years of sex with the same person, then mo power to you!
> 
> But be honest about your sexual past. If your fiancée asks, tell him/her the truth. I am firmly entrenched in the camp that a person has the right to know the partner they are marrying, where that partner has been, what they have done and how many they have been with.


Why wouldn't I be okay with breaking from my non-monogamous practices and embrace decades of sex with the same person? 

I'm willing to be honest, but if my SO is asking because he thinks the number means something about my ability to be loyal to him (it doesn't) then the question is fundamentally flawed.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> Ideally I would have a partner who could hear the number and not freak out. But yes, I am afraid of rejection / slvt shaming (and also making my partner feel inadequate) based on my number and I would be inclined to keep it to myself for that reason. *And I'm not interested in hearing his*.


Of course there are exceptions, but I think most people are fine with things like this in the intellectual sense, but have difficulties when it becomes personal. What I mean by that is when it becomes more than just some abstract number, when faces, places, feelings, acts start to be a part of it. The more colorful, broader the past, the more likely it is to become personal in that way.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> *This is patently a NON issue with women! Show me any woman on TAM, except for SimplyAmorus, who would even bat an eye about her husband's sexual behavior prior to even meeting her?*


 Yep.. I always have to be the odd one out... and your're right.. *I did care *.... I wanted an inexperienced guy who was looking for love, who wanted ME for me ...not just my body...someone who wanted the same things.. marriage / kids, the whole package...I wanted "young love".. 

I wasn't about being all independent and partying it up like many young people today, test driving everyone -like it's a right of passage....

Being the Romantic I was (and still am).. nothing would have thrilled me more than to find that one special guy...where we could experience all of our 1sts together....

I seen enough male users in my young life to know -that was not going to work for me...I watched it destroy my mother.. maybe I took it a bit to the extreme ...but looking back.. .as boy crazy as I was... I feel it saved me from opening that door to guys who could have thrown me away in a heartbeat...

So I was very careful in my youth to whom I let in... my Husband also cared a great deal about this too.. in this, he seemed heaven sent for what I was hoping to find, rare as it is.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Anon Pink said:


> This is the bottom line, in a nut shell, what slvt shaming is!
> 
> Because you are not the first to plant that flag you are not special.
> 
> This is patently a NON issue with women! Show me any woman on TAM, except for SimplyAmorus, who would even bat an eye about her husband's sexual behavior prior to even meeting her?
> 
> For men, they want to be the first, as if that makes them special.
> 
> For women, they want to be the last because that DOES make them special.
> 
> Tame a bad boy because he found what he's been missing all his life. The same can be said of women too! But slvt shaming and preconceived ideas about her lack of boundaries means he'll never be able to keep her satisfied...which is a product of his OWN insecurity!
> 
> Tame a wild bird because no other man can make her feel what only you can.
> 
> 
> View attachment 29658



I don't agree at all. I personally think it's trashy to have many partners, but that's not gender specific.....I think men with an extensive sexual past are just as trashy. To be honest I've always thought my hb's extensive past was trashy, but I suppose that could be related his insistence on sticking it in my face for years. I certainly don't care that he has a past, but to be honest there was a long time where I did feel like one in a long line. People are entitled to have their preferences, though I do think you should deliver that which you demand. But once you make your choice you have to accept the entire package that you chose. Once he stopped sticking it in my face it was easier for me to do that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

firebelly1 said:


> I'm willing to be honest, but if my SO is asking because he thinks the number means something about my ability to be loyal to him (it doesn't) then the question is fundamentally flawed.


Research does suggest that your statement on average is false. The higher the partner count, the more likely to D. 

It may be that way for you, but how could your future partner know, for sure, that you are not subject to the law of averages in the study?

To me it can be an indicator. I also think that part of this is hard wired into our brains. Guys don't want to provide for offspring that aren't theirs and women don't want to lose the provider.


----------



## Thor

Cleigh said:


> That's the thread that got me thinking. I understand the lie is bad but the prostitution part really didn't bother me.
> 
> As for me. I have had my fair share of men (and women) and more. my partner was a virgin when we hooked up and he knows about how many I have been with. A person's past doesn't bother me as long as they are faithful while in a relationship.


What is important is compatibility. You have a clear point of view and belief system regarding sex and regarding relationships. e.g. you do not want to be in an open relationship.

There are several different philosophies about sex and relationships, but they are not very cross compatible. This does not have to then relate specifically to number of partners, but it could.

As an example, a 35 year old divorced woman who was married for 10 years and has had 5 other significant dating relationships for a total of 6 sex partners has a certain philosophy as evidenced by her behavior. But a woman who is 20 and has had 1 serious dating relationship and 5 ONS has a different philosophy. Same number, different views of sex and relationships.

In general, a number will reflect which part of the spectrum a person falls on. A high number tends to indicate a separation between emotion and sex, whereas a lower number tends to indicate a close link between emotion and sex.

But there is no reason a person with a high number can't be emotionally tied to their partner even though sex is not an emotional event to them.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Lots of men and women don't want to hear about past partners or a # you have been with, I don't see the good in bringing it up if it's not in question. 

No one should be forced to give an answer. If asked and the answer is "I don't think that's any of your business" then decide if it's a deal breaker for you. That's still honesty. It might not be what they want to hear but it's honest.


----------



## FalconKing

I always find it interesting that some people would want to know everything about their partner except their sexuality. Embarrassing or awkward moments, experiences, views, traumatic experiences, std or pregnancy scares..etc.. I just couldn't imagine glancing over things like that. It's not slvt shaming, it's seeing how well me and this person could be compatible.


----------



## bandit.45

firebelly1 said:


> Why wouldn't I be okay with breaking from my non-monogamous practices and embrace decades of sex with the same person?
> 
> *I dunno. Why wouldn't you?*
> 
> I'm willing to be honest, but if my SO is asking because he thinks the number means something about my ability to be loyal to him (it doesn't) then the question is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> * I disagree. A person's practices and lifestyle flow from the wellspring of their character. You cannot separate character from lifestyle. A person with a deceptive character is at some point (or many points) in their life going to act deceptively with their spouse and other people.
> 
> A highly sexual person, who has had a large and varied variety of lovers in the past, and who looks upon sex as an act separate from love, is going to run into issues with staying true to a less experienced, lower expectation partner when the relationship levels off and settles into the mundane.
> 
> I just don't see how it could be otherwise, unless that person has had some kind of Road to Damascus spiritual transformation that fundementally changes their compass. Or they just get sick of sex. *


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Lots of men and women don't want to hear about past partners or a # you have been with, I don't see the good in bringing it up if it's not in question.
> 
> No one should be forced to give an answer. If asked and the answer is "I don't think that's any of your business" then decide if it's a deal breaker for you. That's still honesty. It might not be what they want to hear but it's honest.


Where this often times becomes an issue is when those things come up at a time NOT of the persons choosing, and catches their partner completely off guard...and when that happens, when it comes up, it is rarely just a number.


----------



## firebelly1

naiveonedave said:


> Research does suggest that your statement on average is false. The higher the partner count, the more likely to D.
> 
> It may be that way for you, but how could your future partner know, for sure, that you are not subject to the law of averages in the study?
> 
> To me it can be an indicator. I also think that part of this is hard wired into our brains. Guys don't want to provide for offspring that aren't theirs and women don't want to lose the provider.


Ok...accepting the premise that this research is valid, is it not more important that the person with the high count be honest about whether the high count means they are, by nature, non-monogamous vs. promiscuous while single? 

I've been married twice. Last one was relatively sexless and I was miserable about it, but I didn't cheat. It was his idea to divorce. I've never cheated on a significant other. In between attached periods I've slept with multiple people. How I conduct myself in relationship seems more relevant to me than the number of people I've been with overall.


----------



## bandit.45

FalconKing said:


> I always find it interesting that some people would want to know everything about their partner except their sexuality. Embarrassing or awkward moments, experiences, views, traumatic experiences, std or pregnancy scares..etc.. I just couldn't imagine glancing over things like that. It's not slvt shaming, it's seeing how well me and this person could be compatible.


Exactly. 

Has anyone counted the number of threads on this forum dealing with an ignorantly happy married person who is shocked and heartbroken to find out his wife was passed around like a pack of cigarettes before he met her, and she failed to divulge that information, and that he couldn't figure out why friends and people at parties would whisper and snicker whenever he and his wife came into the room? 

Or the blissfully ignorant woman, who after ten years of marriage and three kids finds out her husband is a closet bisexual with ex-boyfriends coming out of the woodwork? 

All this pain could have been spared if these people had spouses who had been open and honest before marriage.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

FalconKing said:


> I always find it interesting that some people would want to know everything about their partner except their sexuality. Embarrassing or awkward moments, experiences, views, traumatic experiences, std or pregnancy scares..etc.. I just couldn't imagine glancing over things like that. It's not slvt shaming, it's seeing how well me and this person could be compatible.


Sure, but an exact number doesn't tell you anything. You can find out about compatibility by talking to them about sex and by building a sexual relationship and seeing if it fits. 

A person who is compatible with me might have had 100 partners or 3. I care more about what he wants now, with me, and building it together.


----------



## treyvion

bandit.45 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Has anyone counted the number of threads on this forum dealing with an ignorantly happy married person who is shocked and heartbroken to find out his wife was passed around like a pack of cigarettes before he met her, and she failed to divulge that information, and that he couldn't figure out why friends and people at parties would whisper and snicker whenever he and his wife came into the room?


Passwd around like a joint. 

Hey, now if a woman was humiliated like this, in that her man was too loose and around people she was not given the respect, because she was just the "new one", she would be OK to air her grievances.

But they want to be able to do all these behaviors which catch you a certain image, and try to shuck the image that comes along with it.

Now if a guy knowingly been with someone whose been around and she told him, he could laugh off any former slays of his blushing debuntante.

But when he doesn't know they can look at him like "I f0cked your wife", or I "f0cked your girl", and you have no idea why your feeling deflated and humiliated, when half the guys in the proximity have had their way with her, and she was not doing rule heavy sex with them either.



bandit.45 said:


> Or the blissfully ignorant woman, who after ten years of marriage and three kids finds out her husband is a closet bisexual with ex-boyfriends coming out of the woodwork?
> 
> All this pain could have been spared if these people had spouses who had been open and honest before marriage.


Exactly, give someone a right to choose.


----------



## firebelly1

From Bandit: I disagree. A person's practices and lifestyle flow from the wellspring of their character. You cannot separate character from lifestyle. A person with a deceptive character is at some point (or many points) in their life going to act deceptively with their spouse and other people. 

*But having had multiple partners doesn't equate to being deceptive. *

A highly sexual person, who has had a large and varied variety of lovers in the past, and who looks upon sex as an act separate from love, is going to run into issues with staying true to a less experienced, lower expectation partner when the relationship levels off and settles into the mundane. 

*This is a matter of sexual compatibility, not the number of partners. If my long-term partner has a relatively high sex drive and a desire to continue being sexually adventurous with me, there's no reason the relationship should "settle into the mundane." If he has lower sexual expectations, then we are probably not sexually compatible. If he has less experience, so what? We can create experience together. *

I just don't see how it could be otherwise, unless that person has had some kind of Road to Damascus spiritual transformation that fundementally changes their compass. Or they just get sick of sex

*This isn't a moral or spiritual issue. Can I have sex without love? Yes. Do I prefer sex with love? Absolutely. I could have loveless sex with only one person for years to keep my sex partner count low, would that make me a better person? *


----------



## treyvion

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Sure, but an exact number doesn't tell you anything. You can find out about compatibility by talking to them about sex and by building a sexual relationship and seeing if it fits.
> 
> A person who is compatible with me might have had 100 partners or 3. I care more about what he wants now, with me, and building it together.


Timing matters. What if 75 of that hundred was in the last three months. Are you really going to trust them to be out of a h0e phase that easy?

When they know if they have problems or feel impeded by you they will just go around you.

People have a problem with these things for a very good reason.


----------



## FalconKing

To make it simple. I don't want to be with someone who feels I don't need to know everything about them for whatever reason. And someone's sexual number bothering me would be based on the circumstances of their sexual encounters. I'm 31. If I meet an attractive woman my age, her number could be double digits easily. There is high school, college, dating after school, and maybe a few "mistakes" thrown in there. But if she has the mindset of having sex with people whether or not she is invested in them emotionally, then I am not interested in that kind of person.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> This really starts to dig into the complexity of the issue. This is NOT a simple issue, as simple as "the past is the past" that many try to make it out to be.
> 
> *At the heart of it, people are different. Some attribute meaning to the acts themselves, and others don't. For some people, sex really is nothing more than just sex and it means nothing deeper than having a good time. For others, it is a show of deep love expressed in the flesh.* For many, it is a combination of both.
> 
> *Those who are able to completely separate the physical and emotional have a difficult time understanding those who can't, and vice versa, much in the same way a HD partner has difficulty understanding an LD partner and vice versa. This is just another type of sexual incompatability.* *Neither is right or wrong or unhealthy...just different..*










Samyeagar.. so true.. For someone like myself...I would feel literally Hurt.. hollow afterwards, maybe even angry to learn another didn't hold the sexual act AS SPECIAL as I did.. it just wouldn't sit well with me at all......I am a Romantic.. I want the "afterglow"..I want to be emotionally consumed with this person... one could liken it to religious beliefs almost.....you hit on 2 of the sexual views (copied here)...taken from this thread 



> *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.
> 
> *4. * *"Plain Sex" view*~ "just enjoy it for what it is".... Cultural constructs linking love & sex are outmoded: Sexual desire is an acute bodily desire for physical contact with another. Sex is an intensely pleasurable physical activity. Sex should be based on mutual consent leading to mutual sexual satisfaction, so that “noone gets hurt.”
> 
> In the 1970's, Alan Goldman , penned an article entitled “Plain Sex” -speaking of the times reliable & convenient birth control & undermined any link between sex & commitment.
> With the practice of “safe sex,” recreational sex began to seem appropriate between consenting adults. Throughout history...many seen sex "for pleasure alone" ... but before reliable contraception such people were widely viewed as irresponsible libertines and gigolos, if male, and for females, the word even worse.
> 
> This view claims feels the above views are outdated, no longer do we need to link Love & sex..... Sexuality is now best seen as simply an acute physical desire for an intensely pleasurable physical activity that naturally leads to engaging in bodily exploration.
> 
> This view puts its emphasis on mutual consent/ mutual consideration leading to mutual satisfaction. When “no one gets hurt” and each party gets what he or she wants, plain sex appears to avoid lots of problems.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> This is the bottom line, in a nut shell, what slvt shaming is!
> 
> Because you are not the first to plant that flag you are not special.
> 
> This is patently a NON issue with women! Show me any woman on TAM, except for SimplyAmorus, who would even bat an eye about her husband's sexual behavior prior to even meeting her?
> 
> For men, they want to be the first, as if that makes them special.
> 
> For women, they want to be the last because that DOES make them special.
> 
> Tame a bad boy because he found what he's been missing all his life. The same can be said of women too! But slvt shaming and preconceived ideas about her lack of boundaries means he'll never be able to keep her satisfied...which is a product of his OWN insecurity!
> 
> Tame a wild bird because no other man can make her feel what only you can.
> 
> 
> View attachment 29658


Sorry, but how is this different from anyone else not wanting to face any consequences for what they do?

I've been here a while and I have also seen some 'TAM women consensus'. Maybe you could fill in a few blanks and misunderstandings I have.

I posted a thread a while back to the ladies about your husband admitting he had slept with a prostitute.

The women were, almost to a lady, aghast at accepting such a man. They would not throw away an already established mate, though most indicated that they lose respect for him. If they found out before marriage, they would dismiss him as a candidate.

So: His being in a single encounter with a prostitute is much worse than my sleeping with a hundred men because _______________________________________



We had a lady post a huge lament. She 'dressed nice, not slvtty' but she caught her husband 'leering' (translation when pressed: glancing at for a few seconds) a buxom woman. What the hell was wrong with him?!? The consensus among the TAM ladies (about half and half) was that he was a cad of low character whose fidelity could not be counted on because he allowed his _head_ to be turned to look at a beautiful woman. Some of them darkly suggested permanent solutions to his obvious lack of fidelity. I believe attorneys were mentioned, though I could be wrong.

Question: A man who looks at a girl should be vigorously castigated to having low untrustworthy character, but my turning much more than my head for any random handsome man who caught my eye in the past is not revelatory at all because _____________________________________



There have been several posts about 'The Game' and other 'player manuals'. The women gleefully chime in about how pathetic, how low class, and what losers are that these MEN spend all this time and research hunting the Great White Vagina just to get some numbers. Not a single woman has had anything but rude things to say about their character, their lack of discretion and their lack of emotional attachment to a very basic and important intimate act and not a single woman would knowingly go with 'a player'.

Question: A 'player' (i.e. a man who enjoys a wide variety of sexual partners) is a horrible choice for a partner because he diminishes the sex act and is doing it for all the wrong reasons, but I, as a liberated sexual being who likes to experience a lot of sexual experiences unfettered by patriarchal mores am NOT a horrible prospect for a long term partner because _____________________




This is all in fun.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

treyvion said:


> Timing matters. What if 75 of that hundred was in the last three months. Are you really going to trust them to be out of a h0e phase that easy?
> 
> When they know if they have problems or feel impeded by you they will just go around you.
> 
> People have a problem with these things for a very good reason.


If I'm with someone long enough to make it official then I already believe that they will be faithful. I've decided that by getting to know them and watching how they behave. It doesn't matter how many partners they have had before me as long as they are committed to me. Being with a lot of partners doesn't tell me that they are not monogamous with someone they are exclusive with. Being with few partners doesn't tell me they are. 
People have few partners for _many _reasons, not all of them are because they want to find the one only special person to have amazing sex with for the rest of their life. 

Do I have a chance of being cheated on? Of course. As much chance as any marriage.


----------



## FalconKing

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Sure, but an exact number doesn't tell you anything. You can find out about compatibility by talking to them about sex and by building a sexual relationship and seeing if it fits.
> 
> 
> 
> A person who is compatible with me might have had 100 partners or 3. I care more about what he wants now, with me, and building it together.



Well I want someone who has practice in maintaining stable relationships while also being enthusiastic about having sex. So a person who has had a 100 partners showed me at least 80 of those times they could have sex with someone they don't know anything about. That tells me enough.


----------



## firebelly1

FalconKing said:


> To make it simple. I don't want to be with someone who feels I don't need to know everything about them for whatever reason. And someone's sexual number bothering me would be based on the circumstances of their sexual encounters. I'm 31. If I meet an attractive woman my age, her number could be double digits easily. There is high school, college, dating after school, and maybe a few "mistakes" thrown in there. But if she has the mindset of having sex with people whether or not she is invested in them emotionally, then I am not interested in that kind of person.


Ok...seems folks might think I'm the odd one out so what I have to say may be easily dismissed but here is the bottom line for me...I don't know if I will find real love again. But I don't want to be sexless for the rest of my life and so I will settle for loveless sex rather than being alone and sexless.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

My personal belief has always been, let like minded people join when it comes to sex.

Beliefs and views about sex are always varied. There are countless ways for someone to be promiscuous and monogamous. There are countless ways to discuss sex and sexual history etc.

The key to a happy relationship, in my opinion, is to make sure the 2 people share similar beliefs, openness (or lack of), views etc.

I'm someone who has always put a premium on linking emotions and sex. Sex, to me, is the physical manifestation of love. I've had 4 partners my entire life, because of it. I've never tried a 3some, one night stands or even visited a strip club for that matter...because I've always known myself. On the flip side, I'm very vocal and open about my sexuality, my history (as much as they want to know), my wants, fantasies etc. with my partner. And that's what I'd look for in a partner (and what I found).

My wife has more experience, mostly because she had more time single than I did. But she was completely open about it. We had some awesome conversations about prior sexual escapades. I never felt threatened, or that I wasn't good enough. Her openness told me some very important things 1. she was over her past....she wouldn't have spoken about her past in the way she did if there were lingering feelings floating around, 2. she trusted me to be open with 3. what she liked and disliked etc (very good info for being a good lover) and 4. Who in the circle of friends was "more than a friend", because some guys are jerks. I had it happen to me before where I was at a party and 2 guys had both slept with my current GF, and I was unaware, and they were being demeaning to my GF and making me the brunt of jokes, without naming names. It was a really bad scene that I didn't realize until after the fact (when she found out who was talking to me and got a little to inquisitive of what was said). 

If a woman I was dating said to me "that's the past and none of your business".....so be it. I can accept her position but we won't have a relationship. She's not wrong, but she's wrong FOR ME. I'm a romantic I guess you'd say. I want a marriage where we CAN tell each other anything. I also want someone who meshes with my personal beliefs.


----------



## JCD

firebelly1 said:


> Ok...seems folks might think I'm the odd one out so what I have to say may be easily dismissed but here is the bottom line for me...I don't know if I will find real love again. But I don't want to be sexless for the rest of my life and so I will settle for loveless sex rather than being alone and sexless.


That is very fair.


----------



## JCD

Dad&Hubby said:


> 4. Who in the circle of friends was "more than a friend", because some guys are jerks. I had it happen to me before where I was at a party and 2 guys had both slept with my current GF, and I was unaware, and they were being demeaning to my GF and making me the brunt of jokes, without naming names. It was a really bad scene that I didn't realize until after the fact (when she found out who was talking to me and got a little to inquisitive of what was said).
> 
> If a woman I was dating said to me "that's the past and none of your business".....so be it. I can accept her position but we won't have a relationship. She's not wrong, but she's wrong FOR ME. I'm a romantic I guess you'd say. I want a marriage where we CAN tell each other anything. I also want someone who meshes with my personal beliefs.


This was well said.

I think my position would be that your past is your past, but in one regard her past is OUR past. 

If she has regular contacts with a former lover. I can easily see something like what you said above as occurring and causing a lot of bad blood.

Additionally, my partners head was turned by this person once. Unlike lightning, passion DOES strike twice in the same place. So I consider it only good manners for her to share that with me.

How many sessions of infidelity were engaged with by a former flame? A substantial minority. So instead of blindsiding your life partner, and also to keep yourself honest, man and woman, such information should be shared.

At least it should be shared with me if you want to be my partner.


----------



## bandit.45

firebelly1 said:


> Ok...seems folks might think I'm the odd one out so what I have to say may be easily dismissed but here is the bottom line for me...I don't know if I will find real love again. But I don't want to be sexless for the rest of my life and so I will settle for loveless sex rather than being alone and sexless.


And that's okay. Nothing wrong with that. I'm doing the same. :iagree:

But when the big "M" word comes up....it's a whole other ballgame. The stakes go through the roof....it's serious now. You can't be as nonchalant about sex anymore.


----------



## ConanHub

I think this question is too many things to too many people.

It is not really as black and white, universally, as some on one side or the other make it out.

It really just has to come down to the two involved with each other. It is not the business of anyone else.

My mind doesn't even run along with the lines of "**** shaming" or really any other title. I also cannot comprehend the vitriol towards people who prefer a more conservative view and low number is important to them.

I started out with a view of only wanting one sexual partner for life. Due to trauma and heartbreak, I stopped caring. Plus about 90% of women and 100% of gay men threw themselves at me(I was a little stud and didn't realize it). So my view changed, to having casual sex was just what everyone did and I never did it with anyone I really cared about. Fundamentally, I was still the same, just trying to adapt to my world, but it was killing me inside.

I had given up on ever finding a real and satisfying relationship.

Enter Mrs. Conan. It was like being hit by lightning. I knew that she was the one.

She had a fairly similar story to mine. Almost identical views on sex and relationships. We were both former "bad boy and girl", but had never wanted to be that way.

We found, in each other, the relationship we both had been longing for. So, both our views, finally being justified in each other, changed back to what we both originally wanted. One partner for life.

So how do we view our pasts now?

We both regret them. Mrs. Conan probably more so.

Do we hold our pasts against each other? Absolutely not!
We were both deeply injured individuals making poor choices within a bad environment. Most of her experiences were not fulfilling and many were outright bad. I wish she had been treated better and had more joy in her life.

Most of mine were quick, empty and meaningless. I broke a lot of hearts and that is what haunts me the most.

Both our numbers are high. She hurts so bad that I do not pry for numbers, I just try and work through different experiences with her, numbers don't matter to me.

I recently tried to tally mine and stopped counting in the forties, all by the time I was 20. It was starting to make me feel bad that I had forgotten that many human beings.

With all that being said.... How can we determine what is an acceptable number without even knowing the individual stories of those involved?

The reason I really dislike the question is it means so many things to different people and I hate the harshness from both of the far views on this. 

The "anti slvt shaming" crowd are sometimes the most vitriolic towards people with more conservative views. I think mostly because of some pretty bad pain they must have experienced, not cool or fair BTW, but it comes off kind of overboard sometimes and borderline disgusting at others.

While I hold very conservative views on sexuality, one person for life, I also do not get the sometimes vitriolic statements from folks that are closer to my POV. Again, probably brought on by a lot of pain usually from a big lie, not cool or fair BTW.


Honesty is always the best policy. If a person meets someone that they fall head over heals for only to discover in the "talk" that Mr. Wonderful,(this usually applies to women), views sex as very precious and a low number is important to him, she might start to feel bad or uncomfortable about her past. Here is someone she looks up to, someone she dearly wants in her life and his view of her past might not be favorable....Crushing really.

Here comes the big problem. She realizes that the guy is so great that she is willing to change her view of sexuality for him, (I have seen this more times than I can even count), no problem with that. He is fine to have whatever views suit him and she can decide he is worth changing for, again just fine. BUT.......

In a jumble of emotions and rationalizing that she will be a different person, she lies.

A woman, or man in some cases, needs to be brave enough to realize that this situation comes up a lot in many relationships and be prepared. I am only talking about those that want to change for someone, nothing wrong with that or not changing for that matter. But at that point, they need to be heartfelt and honest.

People do change, all the time and for a multitude of reasons.

A woman in the above situation should, shamelessly, let the man know that she has not lived her life according to the views that he holds dear, but that she thinks enough of him to change her views, obviously not her past, as long as she won't have it held against her. There is no need for lying, anger, pride or shame in this situation. I think many, if not most, men would appreciate the honesty and vulnerability of the moment.

If the man, or woman in fewer cases, just can't go for it, life is full of heartbreak. The woman should not apologize for her past, unless she really was hurting people or herself, and let the man know she is hurt but understands.

Honestly, if a man is a jerk instead of gentle about this issue, why would anyone want to risk a relationship with him?

Good Lord!!! I need more sleep or coffee! Sorry to be so long winded!


----------



## ConanHub

firebelly1 said:


> Ok...seems folks might think I'm the odd one out so what I have to say may be easily dismissed but here is the bottom line for me...I don't know if I will find real love again. But I don't want to be sexless for the rest of my life and so I will settle for loveless sex rather than being alone and sexless.


I sincerely hope you are wrong. I hope you find someone to love and cherish you. I certainly won't be judging you for your views on sex. Just be careful and cherish yourself somewhat. Your affection is valuable, just as you are.

I believe someone will recognize your worth. Never devalue yourself.


----------



## EleGirl

There are at least a gazillion threads here on this very topic. The topic gets hashed and rehashed ad nauseam.


----------



## JCD

People would get fewer lies if they didn't raise the price of honesty so high.


----------



## bandit.45

EleGirl said:


> There are at least a gazillion threads here on this very topic. The topic get hashed and rehashed ad nauseam.


...and there is never a consensus. Or it turns into a gender war.


----------



## bandit.45

JCD said:


> People would get fewer lies if they didn't raise the price of honesty so high.


I guess it comes down to the fact that a woman needs to feel safe with the man she's with. The man has to have enough courage to listen to the truth and be the safe harbor. If he cannot do that, whether because of her history or his insecurity, then he needs to tell her "I'm not your man. Sorry. ". And move on and not judge her or toy with her.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> Ok...seems folks might think I'm the odd one out so what I have to say may be easily dismissed but here is the bottom line for me...I don't know if I will find real love again. But I don't want to be sexless for the rest of my life and so I will settle for loveless sex rather than being alone and sexless.


And there is nothing wrong with this at all. Just make sure that you are aware that every choice we make can and often does have consequences, often time unforseen or intended. Those decisions are in a constant flux of opening some doors, but closing others.

The biggest personal example for me is the fact that my wife slept with her ex husband about four months before we met. That was over two years after he abandoned her. He like my wife is NPD. He was abusive in all ways, and was a serial cheat. She was down after a break up, he offered and she accepted. My ex wife frequently approached me for sex after we separated, and I turned her down every time.

I learned about that well after we were engaged. We talked a lot about it, her mindset, her reasons, and while I could not remotely understand them, I did accept them. There will likely be long term side affects from that in our relationship, possibly until the day one of us dies. I am hypersensitive to any and all interactions she has with him about anything. More so than if he was just her ex-husband.

The reason it is more of an issue for me than it otherwise might be is the disconnect she and I have with regards to emotional vs purely physical sex. For her, it was purely physical. I am not worried that she is still in love with him, or will want to go back to him, but he was good enough in bed to draw her physically to him despite the horrible history they had...that is a pretty strong draw.

As I said, we have talked about it, and are good now. She has said that if she knew then what she would have now, that she never would have gone back to him...not because she was shamed, but rather because it wasn't nearly good enough to be worth the slightest risk to what we have.


----------



## WandaJ

Interesting.... The thread is about number of past sexual partners. The conversation is mostly about the number of past sexual partners of women.

Really, really interesting...


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

IMHO, it doesn't matter to me what a women does with her body - except when a serious relationship develops and then I care. Right or wrong, I believe that the person I ended up with should have an equivalent amount of experience to what I had. That's who I ended up marrying - a person who was similar to me in experience. She dated more than I did, but I had more sexual partners. We both are very low on the number of partners we each had based on what is typical of a TAM poster. 

I'm not a player and never have been in my past. That's not who I am and I don't value that type of personality in others. To me the past matters. It tells you a lot about someone, and it allows you to make an informed decision on who you are marrying or even having a serious relationship.

I appreciate the notion that people can change, and that everyone deserves a second chance. In my opinion though, I wanted to get it right when it comes to marriage, so right or wrong applied certain criteria for selecting a mate. If I dated someone and they told me "none of your business" or I could tell that I was being lied to when it came to sexual pasts, then I was done with the relationship. I never dated a highly experienced person (to my knowledge), so I don't know how I would have handled it if I later found out my GF had sex with 50 or 100 men. But I know when the topic is avoided, I didn't pursue. 

IMHO, everyone has the right to have as many or as few sexual partners in life. I won't judge them as people. By the same token, I feel that people like me who care about sexual pasts when making a life altering decision like marriage should be given the same respect from others who DO want to marry someone with a similar value system and experience level. I fully agree that it is hypocrisy for a man (or woman) to bed dozens upon dozens of people but will only marry someone with much less experience. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## FalconKing

bandit.45 said:


> ...and there is never a consensus. Or it turns into a gender war.


Yeah. I know it's best sometimes to avoid these type of threads for my sanity. But whenever people talk about being deeply in love and emotionally connected, but then in the same breath talking about how their past in their own business and not that of their current partner I just feel like:


----------



## JCD

samyeagar said:


> The biggest personal example for me is the fact that my wife slept with her ex husband about four months before we met. That was over two years after he abandoned her. He like my wife is NPD. He was abusive in all ways, and was a serial cheat. She was down after a break up, he offered and she accepted. My ex wife frequently approached me for sex after we separated, and I turned her down every time.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason it is more of an issue for me than it otherwise might be is the disconnect she and I have with regards to emotional vs purely physical sex. For her, it was purely physical. *I am not worried that she is still in love with him, or will want to go back to him, but he was good enough in bed to draw her physically to him despite the horrible history they had...that is a pretty strong draw.*


The past is never the past. The things we've done always have the risk of coming back to haunt us. This is an aspect of what is commonly called 'slvt shaming' which is truer than some people might want to admit.

I can envision a half a dozen scenarios where the past suddenly imposes itself forcefully upon a nice monogamous partnership because of prior attachments, even assuming that the wife is _currently_ as pure as the driven snow and has no intention of repeating history. It goes the same with men, but honestly, I think the propensity of 'crazy exes' is dominated by the male gender and their darned flags.


----------



## naiveonedave

firebelly1 said:


> Ok...accepting the premise that this research is valid, is it not more important that the person with the high count be honest about whether the high count means they are, by nature, non-monogamous vs. promiscuous while single?
> 
> I've been married twice. Last one was relatively sexless and I was miserable about it, but I didn't cheat. It was his idea to divorce. I've never cheated on a significant other. In between attached periods I've slept with multiple people. How I conduct myself in relationship seems more relevant to me than the number of people I've been with overall.


the count is just one data point. and the study is a general study. For me, a high count would make me more nervous/require more time to committ. A high enough count would be a no go, as the person clearly has different values than me.

And lying about it would make it worse.


----------



## michzz

I can only speak for myself.

I don't care if the woman i am with has had more or less partners than me.

What I would worry about includes:

1. STDs. Any current infections? any that will kill me if i get it? any that are permanent?

2. Is there any overlap in partners? as in cheating?

3. Is the number 5, 10, 200, 2,000? Depending on the age, some numbers are easier to take than others.

4. Is she done cruising through sex partners?

5. Based on item 3 above, how will I know it?


----------



## bandit.45

FalconKing said:


> To make it simple. I don't want to be with someone who feels I don't need to know everything about them for whatever reason. And someone's sexual number bothering me would be based on the circumstances of their sexual encounters. I'm 31. If I meet an attractive woman my age, her number could be double digits easily. There is high school, college, dating after school, and maybe a few "mistakes" thrown in there. But if she has the mindset of having sex with people whether or not she is invested in them emotionally, then I am not interested in that kind of person.


Who is the poster here on TAM...he's an older man who was married to his wife for close to thirty five years? She had a MLC and asked him for a separation so she could "figure things out"...Then she came back a year or two later wanting to reconcile, but he wouldn't because he found out she had slept with numerous men during their separation? 

Then her son confronted her and she admitted that the number of men she bedded in the space of a couple years numbered in the hundreds? And she actually expected her husband to take her back and was dumbfounded when he wouldn't! :rofl:


----------



## FalconKing

WandaJ said:


> Interesting.... The thread is about number of past sexual partners. The conversation is mostly about the number of past sexual partners of women.
> 
> Really, really interesting...


Well..the OP seemed to specify.



Cleigh said:


> Just curious as to what people think on this site about the number of past sexual relationships a girl has.


----------



## samyeagar

Cleigh said:


> *Just curious as to what people think on this site about the number of past sexual relationships a girl has*.
> Would you not be with someone if they have had many partners?
> How many to you is too many?
> Why would/wouldn't you be with someone who has had a lot?





WandaJ said:


> Interesting.... The thread is about number of past sexual partners. The conversation is mostly about the number of past sexual partners of women.
> 
> *Really, really interesting...*


Ummmm...Not really considering the original question was about how many sexual relationships a female has...

Please don't try to turn this into a gender war. These topics have a way of turning into that, and so far, things have been respectful, with good dialogue. Don't screw that up by stirring the pot please.


----------



## GTdad

WandaJ said:


> Interesting.... The thread is about number of past sexual partners. The conversation is mostly about the number of past sexual partners of women.
> 
> Really, really interesting...


Well, in fairness the original question posed is what people thought about the number of partners a woman might have.

The only surprising thing is that we haven't completely launched into some other direction.


----------



## GTdad

bandit.45 said:


> Who is the poster here on TAM...he's an older man who was married to his wife for close to thirty five years? She had a MLC and asked him for a separation so she could "figure things out"...Then she came back a year or two later wanting to reconcile, but he wouldn't because he found out she had slept with numerous men during their separation?
> 
> Then her son confronted her and she admitted that the number of men she bedded in the space of a couple years numbered was in the hundreds? And she actually expected her husband to take her back and was dumbfounded when he wouldn't! :rofl:


Yeah, I might not be a numbers guy, but that would be a little hard to swallow. So to speak.


----------



## devotion

To answer the question, as someone who married his first girlfriend (and did not cheat) I was very anxious when getting back into dating that women would be more 'experienced' than me (and yes, I was thinking mostly about sex). My sister counselled me that was almost by definition going to be the case and I just would have to deal with it. 

I then found a woman who had the same experience level as me, so all is well. Lucky me. But to answer the question, a) it is important to me b) I know it shouldn't be and c) when asked about the # I expect the honest answer. If the honest answer is past whatever magic number that wouldn't be acceptable to me then its my right to end the relationship. Not slvt shaming. Just not for me.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I'd like to throw in that while I personally see a ton of double standards and gender bias on TAM I honestly don't see it in these threads addressing sexual history. I don't see any men that have an extensive past demanding women with limited pasts, but what I do see sometimes is people with extensive pasts very defensive that someone could have an issue with it. People can decide for themselves what works for them, but I do think its best have like minded people together.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

devotion said:


> To answer the question, as someone who married his first girlfriend (and did not cheat) I was very anxious when getting back into dating that women would be more 'experienced' than me (and yes, I was thinking mostly about sex). My sister counselled me that was almost by definition going to be the case and I just would have to deal with it.
> 
> I then found a woman who had the same experience level as me, so all is well. Lucky me. But to answer the question, a) it is important to me b) *I know it shouldn't be* and c) when asked about the # I expect the honest answer. If the honest answer is past whatever magic number that wouldn't be acceptable to me then its my right to end the relationship. Not slvt shaming. Just not for me.


Why shouldn't it be important to YOU?


----------



## firebelly1

ConanHub said:


> I sincerely hope you are wrong. I hope you find someone to love and cherish you. I certainly won't be judging you for your views on sex. Just be careful and cherish yourself somewhat. Your affection is valuable, just as you are.
> 
> I believe someone will recognize your worth. Never devalue yourself.


Well this is one of those value things - I don't feel I'm devaluing myself by having meaningless sex. In fact, I see it as a gift to myself to let myself be sexual rather than force myself to be celibate. It's not my goal to have sex with lots of different people, and I don't (depending on your definition of "lots") but even if I did, I wouldn't see it as a matter of self-value just like I don't see a man who has a high count as having devalued himself by doing that.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

lifeistooshort said:


> what I do see sometimes is people with extensive pasts very defensive that someone could have an issue with it. People can decide for themselves what works for them, but I do think its best have like minded people together.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think the objection is about the fact that some men won't want to be with a woman who has a sexual past. That's perfectly fine and everyone should make their own choice of partner.

The defensiveness comes in with the labels- slVt, loose, immoral, cheater, h0e, player, non-committal 

People can have personal deal breakers without considering anyone who doesn't fall into them wrong or bad.


----------



## Thundarr

WandaJ said:


> Interesting.... The thread is about number of past sexual partners. The conversation is mostly about the number of past sexual partners of women.
> 
> Really, really interesting...


It's not all that interesting. Women don't care as often about a guy's number but women care about other things that guys don't care about so it equals out. Men nor women are wrong for having different priorities regarding relationship criteria.


----------



## Miss Taken

firebelly1 said:


> Ok...seems folks might think I'm the odd one out so what I have to say may be easily dismissed but here is the bottom line for me...I don't know if I will find real love again. But I don't want to be sexless for the rest of my life and so I will settle for loveless sex rather than being alone and sexless.


This reminded me of my SIL. She refuses to commit to someone new until both of her boys are grown. However, until they are she does have casual partners just for the sake of getting her physical needs met.


----------



## firebelly1

lifeistooshort said:


> I'd like to throw in that while I personally see a ton of double standards and gender bias on TAM I honestly don't see it in these threads addressing sexual history. I don't see any men that have an extensive past demanding women with limited pasts, but what I do see sometimes is people with extensive pasts very defensive that someone could have an issue with it. People can decide for themselves what works for them, but I do think its best have like minded people together.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I've seen a double standard in all of the threads about this. Men aren't ever characterized as "devaluing" themselves by having multiple partners. Men aren't thought of as losing their eligibility as marriage partners. But women are. To me, that's a double standard. Promiscuous women can't be trusted. Promiscuous men are just doing what comes naturally.

And I do mean the VERY SAME GUY who says "i wouldn't marry a promiscuous woman" says he *would*, however, fvck one. Blinding double standard.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> Well this is one of those value things - I don't feel I'm devaluing myself by having meaningless sex. In fact, I see it as a gift to myself to let myself be sexual rather than force myself to be celibate. It's not my goal to have sex with lots of different people, and I don't (depending on your definition of "lots") but even if I did, I wouldn't see it as a matter of self-value just like I don't see a man who has a high count as having devalued himself by doing that.


And there is nothing wrong with that at all. No reason you should feel devalued. Just realize that this could be a deal breaker, or at least a sore spot with potential otherwise wonderful partners, and there is nothing wrong with them feeling that way as well.


----------



## wmn1

First of all, the number of partners do matter to me. If it is a handful, so be it. I don't want to be in a relationship with a woman who has had 50 partners. It shows that you could be just a number, that sex could be devalued and there is a chance that some of the guys who have nailed her are still in her life which could lead to another encounter and such .... Even more important than the number of partners is how those past relationships ended. One of my good friends got married to a woman who was divorced twice. He never felt compelled to ask her why or what happened, and it turns out she had affairs behind both other guys backs , then did it again to my bud. So the past does matter IMO. In the case of someone who is bi- that is an automatic disqualification IMO because it doubles the trouble on their potential loyalty.


----------



## Thundarr

firebelly1 said:


> I've seen a double standard in all of the threads about this. Men aren't ever characterized as "devaluing" themselves by having multiple partners. Men aren't thought of as losing their eligibility as marriage partners. But women are. To me, that's a double standard. Promiscuous women can't be trusted. Promiscuous men are just doing what comes naturally.
> 
> And I do mean the VERY SAME GUY who says "i wouldn't marry a promiscuous woman" says he *would*, however, fvck one. Blinding double standard.


So who do we blame for the double standard? Men who on average think it matters more or women who on average could care less.


----------



## FalconKing

firebelly1 said:


> I've seen a double standard in all of the threads about this. Men aren't ever characterized as "devaluing" themselves by having multiple partners. Men aren't thought of as losing their eligibility as marriage partners. But women are. To me, that's a double standard. Promiscuous women can't be trusted. Promiscuous men are just doing what comes naturally.
> 
> And I do mean the VERY SAME GUY who says "i wouldn't marry a promiscuous woman" says he *would*, however, fvck one. Blinding double standard.


It's not a double standard if women accept it. These guys aren't dating and marrying themselves. If a lot of women had a standard for less promiscuous men then a lot of men wouldn't be as promiscuous. 

Or maybe some men would still be promiscuous but get defensive about it when some women said they didn't like it

There are double standards everywhere. Some women have kids but don't want men with them or vice versa. Some people want someone that makes a certain income when they themselves don't make it. It may seem unfair but people can want whatever if both parties are cool with it.


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> And there is nothing wrong with that at all. No reason you should feel devalued. Just realize that this could be a deal breaker, or at least a sore spot with potential otherwise wonderful partners, and there is nothing wrong with them feeling that way as well.


I totally get that that would be a deal breaker for many and people are entitled to have deal breakers. And I get that if you are someone who is inclined to ask how many partners your SO has had, it most likely will be a deal breaker. 

If you feel the way you do because of a false premise, then I think there is something wrong with feeling that way. Like:

- the higher the number, the higher the likelihood of deceptiveness
- it's worse when a woman has a high number than when a man does
- a high number means you are non-monogamous by nature
- a woman having a high number means she doesn't value herself
- if you can have sex without love, sex is always meaningless to you


----------



## firebelly1

FalconKing said:


> It's not a double standard if women accept it. These guys aren't dating and marrying themselves. If a lot of women had a standard for less promiscuous men then a lot of men wouldn't be as promiscuous.
> 
> *The double standard in this case belongs to the man. The double standard is that when women sleep around, it's bad, but when men sleep around, it's not. *
> 
> 
> There are double standards everywhere. Some women have kids but don't want men with them or vice versa. Some people want someone that makes a certain income when they themselves don't make it. It may seem unfair but people can want whatever if both parties are cool with it.


*Not here to defend other double standards. The existence of other double standards doesn't justify this one.*


----------



## ConanHub

firebelly1 said:


> Well this is one of those value things - I don't feel I'm devaluing myself by having meaningless sex. In fact, I see it as a gift to myself to let myself be sexual rather than force myself to be celibate. It's not my goal to have sex with lots of different people, and I don't (depending on your definition of "lots") but even if I did, I wouldn't see it as a matter of self-value just like I don't see a man who has a high count as having devalued himself by doing that.


Then I hope you meet someone with similar views.


----------



## firebelly1

Thundarr said:


> So who do we blame for the double standard? Men who on average think it matters more or women who on average could care less.


I think this happened on the last thread I read about this - disconnect on the definition of "double standard." 

A man who thinks he can be a good husband even if he sleeps around but doesn't think a woman who sleeps around can be a good wife holds a double standard. One standard for men and a different standard for women. That's what a double standard is. 

You seem to be suggesting there is a "societal" double standard? Our society thinks it's okay for men to sleep around but not women? 

Or are you blaming women for the double standard men hold?


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> I totally get that that would be a deal breaker for many and people are entitled to have deal breakers. And I get that if you are someone who is inclined to ask how many partners your SO has had, it most likely will be a deal breaker.
> 
> If you feel the way you do because of a false premise, then I think there is something wrong with feeling that way. Like:
> 
> - the higher the number, the higher the likelihood of deceptiveness
> - it's worse when a woman has a high number than when a man does
> - a high number means you are non-monogamous by nature
> - a woman having a high number means she doesn't value herself
> *- if you can have sex without love, sex is always meaningless to you*


The more evidence to the contrary makes it more difficult to believe.

As I said before, and I'll be totally honest here, given my wife's past, the fact that she has sex with me in and of itself does not make me know she loves me. That said, there are certain aspects of our sex life that do indeed show me that she loves me, desires me above anything she's ever known...that, and I'm far and away the best she's ever had 

And I am one man who cannot be accused of having a double standard. I have lived my sex life very consistently from the very beginning.


----------



## firebelly1

ConanHub said:


> Then I hope you meet someone with similar views.


Sounds like that's the bottom line, right?


----------



## FalconKing

firebelly1 said:


> *Not here to defend other double standards. The existence of other double standards doesn't justify this one.*


And I don't think this is any more significant than the other ones. 

My point is that the standard exist because a lot of women don't care about a man's past. To me, that is stupid. So my response isn't that the men should stop caring, it's that the women should.

And I think a lot of guys here are saying that want someone who is compatible with them experience wise. I know from their stories at least 5 guys who have posted here that have low numbers and want a woman who is the same. So what do you say to that?


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

firebelly1 said:


> I totally get that that would be a deal breaker for many and people are entitled to have deal breakers. And I get that if you are someone who is inclined to ask how many partners your SO has had, it most likely will be a deal breaker.
> 
> If you feel the way you do because of a false premise, then I think there is something wrong with feeling that way. Like:
> 
> - the higher the number, the higher the likelihood of deceptiveness
> - it's worse when a woman has a high number than when a man does
> - a high number means you are non-monogamous by nature
> - a woman having a high number means she doesn't value herself
> - if you can have sex without love, sex is always meaningless to you


When you review this list and combine it with your earlier comment about why it seems OK for men but not OK for women to have high numbers of sexual partners, I can sympathize with it because stereotyping is not fair. But then again, life isn't fair either. Men and women ARE different. Deep down in our lower level brains, males have an instinct to try to spread their seed. Women don't have that same instinct. Also, because of the differences between men and women, a man typically would have an easier time having meaningless sex than a woman. Note, I'm not saying all men can and all women can't but if you look at it statistically, men generally have the greater urge to go after more sexual partners. It's part of what makes a male a male. 

When you take those more base instincts and complement them with the higher level brain functions of thoughts and the more complex emotions, women statistically tend to put more meaning behind the decision to have sex than a man does. So when a woman decides to pursue a lot of partners, it's not unreasonable to assume that either 1) she's very different than a typical woman so there is a concern about what type of wife she may be and 2) she is a typical woman, but is pursuing these men due to some psychological need that wasn't met at home when she was growing up, i.e. daddy issues, etc. While this does not describe all women, on average it cannot be dismissed out of hand given the differences we know about men vs women. Then factor in another facet that does not get discussed - pregnancy. If a man gets a woman pregnant, he experiences zero changes. When a woman gives birth, she experiences permanent changes. Even an abortion can cause scarring in the womb. A man would not be affected. Whether it's fair or not, there is also a physical component to sex that is different for a man than a woman.

Having said all that, I elected to NOT be a player and chose to NOT try to bang everything that moved. I WANTED a connection with the women I slept with. I never had a ONS. I wanted a woman that had a value system similar to mine. So while I can understand both sides of this debate, I knew I wanted someone that shared my views and values. Therefore, I made the choices I made and am very happy because of it. I will never judge a woman or a man for being a poor excuse of a human being just because they slept with a lot of people. I think we all have value because we are human. But I would choose not to date them based on my value system and beliefs.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

firebelly1 said:


> Sounds like that's the bottom line, right?


Really, it all comes down to compatibility and what you value most in a person, as well as how your traits are valued by another.


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> The more evidence to the contrary makes it more difficult to believe.
> 
> As I said before, and I'll be totally honest here, given my wife's past, the fact that she has sex with me in and of itself does not make me know she loves me. That said, there are certain aspects of our sex life that do indeed show me that she loves me, desires me above anything she's ever known...that, and I'm far and away the best she's ever had


And you know that I think "so what?" Her having sex with you in and of itself doesn't prove to you that she loves you. But so what? The fact that she is ONLY having sex with you when she has committed to do that is proof that she loves you. Honesty and commitment prove her love. Not sex.


----------



## firebelly1

FalconKing said:


> And I don't think this is any more significant that the other ones.
> 
> My point is that the standard exist because a lot of women don't care about a man's past. To me, that is stupid. So my response isn't that the men should stop caring, it's that the women should.
> 
> And I think a lot of guys here are saying that want someone who is compatible with them experience wise. I know from there stories at least 5 guys who have posted here have low numbers and want a woman who is the same. So what do you say to that?


Or...women don't care because it doesn't matter.


----------



## firebelly1

Plan 9 from OS said:


> When you review this list and combine it with your earlier comment about why it seems OK for men but not OK for women to have high numbers of sexual partners, I can sympathize with it because stereotyping is not fair. But then again, life isn't fair either. Men and women ARE different. Deep down in our lower level brains, males have an instinct to try to spread their seed. Women don't have that same instinct.
> 
> *This just isn't true. This is a case of the medical and psychological community finding evidence to support what we want to believe. There is plenty of research out there to suggest this is not true. *
> 
> Also, because of the differences between men and women, a man typically would have an easier time having meaningless sex than a woman.
> 
> *What do you mean by an "easier time"? If women want to have meaningless sex, there are lots of volunteers to help her out. If by psychologically, men have fewer emotional / societal qualms about it, I would agree. *
> 
> 
> When you take those more base instincts and complement them with the higher level brain functions of thoughts and the more complex emotions, women statistically tend to put more meaning behind the decision to have sex than a man does. So when a woman decides to pursue a lot of partners, it's not unreasonable to assume that either 1) she's very different than a typical woman so there is a concern about what type of wife she may be and 2) she is a typical woman, but is pursuing these men due to some psychological need that wasn't met at home when she was growing up, i.e. daddy issues, etc. While this does not describe all women, on average it cannot be dismissed out of hand given the differences we know about men vs women. Then factor in another facet that does not get discussed - pregnancy. If a man gets a woman pregnant, he experiences zero changes. When a woman gives birth, she experiences permanent changes. Even an abortion can cause scarring in the womb. A man would not be affected. Whether it's fair or not, there is also a physical component to sex that is different for a man than a woman.
> 
> *Pregnancy is really a non-issue anymore psychologically because of birth control. Rape is still a real fear and I think that's actually the biggest factor that holds a lot of women back from being as promiscuous as they might otherwise be inclined to be.
> 
> I am a woman who tends to get emotionally attached to her sex partners. I understand the hormonally driven emotional difference between men and women in this. But I don't believe it's as big as we want to believe.*


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> Or...women don't care because it doesn't matter.


Here is an example of the disconnect I was talking about a few pages back. I get that it doesn't matter to you, and that is fine for you, and others of like mind. To some people it DOES matter, and to them, it should. By telling them it shouldn't is a form of shaming.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

FalconKing said:


> And I think a lot of guys here are saying that want someone who is compatible with them experience wise. I know from there stories at least 5 guys who have posted here have low numbers and want a woman who is the same. So what do you say to that?


Compatibility for me has a lot more than just experience. I want someone who looks at sex the same way as I do. The reasons behind their choice is more important than the choice itself. 
Someone who has few partners due to religion is out.
Someone who views people who have a past as bad or should be changed is out
Someone who puts too little or too much importance on sex or the idea of sexuality in their own life is out


Switch that around as someone who does care for their own reasons and that is fine too. 

The only times it becomes a problem are when people assume one of those is better or worse than the other universally. It's a personal choice, like wanting someone without kids or with blonde hair, or with a certain income. Some people don't care about those things, others do. Nothing wrong with not being someone's type or having a type. Number of partners shouldn't be treated any different than any other potential deal breaker.


----------



## ConanHub

firebelly1 said:


> I've seen a double standard in all of the threads about this. Men aren't ever characterized as "devaluing" themselves by having multiple partners. Men aren't thought of as losing their eligibility as marriage partners. But women are. To me, that's a double standard. Promiscuous women can't be trusted. Promiscuous men are just doing what comes naturally.
> 
> And I do mean the VERY SAME GUY who says "i wouldn't marry a promiscuous woman" says he *would*, however, fvck one. Blinding double standard.


I do not think that there great numbers of men like that here. Some, but there are also many like me.

It seems that you and others might be overly sensitive or aware of individuals like that. Probably been hurt and I am sorry about that, but you maybe have to ignore many men who in know way share that view.


----------



## Thor

ConanHub said:


> *Honesty is always the best policy.*


Without honesty, the relationship is a lie built upon lies.




ConanHub said:


> Here comes the big problem. She realizes that the guy is so great that she is willing to change her view of sexuality for him


I don't think people can change their "view of sexuality" like that. It is a fundamental value system which is either wired genetically or is based on a lifetime of learning. Starting from our very youngest age we observe and learn about relationships, and are taught values including those about sex and relationships.

I don't think a person can make a change in their fundamental thought processes and emotions based on wanting to appear to a mate to be compatible.


----------



## Thor

bandit.45 said:


> I guess it comes down to the fact that a woman needs to feel safe with the man she's with. The man has to have enough courage to listen to the truth and be the safe harbor. If he cannot do that, whether because of her history or his insecurity, then he needs to tell her "I'm not your man. Sorry. ". And move on and not judge her or toy with her.


Yes, because compatibility is a 2 way street. If I am not comfortable with something about a woman, she should not be comfortable with me as a husband. Which is why honesty is so important.


----------



## FalconKing

firebelly1 said:


> Or...women don't care because it doesn't matter.


It doesn't matter to you because you feel you are being judged by it. So it's just easier for you to say nobody should care about something like that. Let me ask you this. You want to have a deep fulfilling emotional connection with somebody, yet you have this wall. A subject matter you don't ever really want to discuss or maybe avoid. But I want somebody that I can discuss anything with and lay it all out on the line. So tell me, what is it you have figured out that says you should not know everything about this person and somehow feel its supposed to be that way?


----------



## ConanHub

firebelly1 said:


> Or...women don't care because it doesn't matter.


Bad form fire.

In your view it does not matter. To many men and women it does.

I am not trying to invalidate your POV for your life but you just disrespected and disregarded everyone that does not agree with you.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> And you know that I think "so what?" Her having sex with you in and of itself doesn't prove to you that she loves you. But so what? The fact that she is ONLY having sex with you when she has committed to do that is proof that she loves you. Honesty and commitment prove her love. Not sex.


Yes and no. She, like many many others has a history of serial monogamy with no love involved...just sex, sometimes with someone they like. From what you have said about yourself here, I think in some ways, you can relate to that. The fact that she is having sex only with me proves she is faithful and loyal, but not necessarily love. As I said before, there are aspects of our sex life that leave me with no doubt that she loves me, and shows that through sex...but at the same time, that is counter to a significant part of her sexual history.


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> Here is an example of the disconnect I was talking about a few pages back. I get that it doesn't matter to you, and that is fine for you, and others of like mind. To some people it DOES matter, and to them, it should. By telling them it shouldn't is a form of shaming.


I think if you are a person that wants sex to be meaningful and only have sex with someone you love, and value that trait in another person, there is nothing wrong with that, and in fact, I think it's admirable. If I've come across as shaming for that, I didn't mean to. 

If you think it's ok for men to sleep around but not women, I think you should be shamed. If you equate a high number of partners with deceptiveness, I question your logic. (And I don't mean "you" sam cuz I know you don't think these last two things.)


----------



## Thor

Cleigh said:


> Just curious as to what people think on this site about the number of past sexual relationships a girl has.


The short answer to the specific question is I think the number is only one part of the compatibility issue, and the closer her number is to a conservative average for her age the better. Outside of the normal range for an age would indicate possible issues.


----------



## tulsy

firebelly1 said:


> ...To me, that's a double standard. Promiscuous women can't be trusted. Promiscuous men are just doing what comes naturally.
> 
> And I do mean the VERY SAME GUY who says "i wouldn't marry a promiscuous woman" says he *would*, however, fvck one. Blinding double standard.


It comes naturally for *both* sexes:



Miss Taken said:


> This reminded me of my SIL. She refuses to commit to someone new until both of her boys are grown. However, until they are she does have casual partners just for the sake of getting her physical needs met.


Good for her...she doesn't want to serious relationship, but needs the itch scratched. Lots of women do this, but they tend to keep it on the down low. Men brag more, though they brag less as they grow up.

I think on average women feel more shame for being promiscuous, but they are as much responsible for perpetuating the "double-standard" as men are. 

In my experience, the so called "promiscuous women" are much better in bed. They know what they want, they know how it works, and they know what to do. They know what they like, they know what men like, and they aim to please.


----------



## FalconKing

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Compatibility for me has a lot more than just experience. I want someone who looks at sex the same way as I do. The reasons behind their choice is more important than the choice itself.
> 
> Someone who has few partners due to religion is out.
> 
> Someone who views people who have a past as bad or should be changed is out
> 
> Someone who puts too little or too much importance on sex or the idea of sexuality in their own life is out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Switch that around as someone who does care for their own reasons and that is fine too.
> 
> 
> 
> The only times it becomes a problem are when people assume one of those is better or worse than the other universally. It's a personal choice, like wanting someone without kids or with blonde hair, or with a certain income. Some people don't care about those things, others do. Nothing wrong with not being someone's type or having a type. Number of partners shouldn't be treated any different than any other potential deal breaker.



I honestly think we are saying the same thing. Like 100 percent. So now I am curious as to what do you think I meant?


----------



## ConanHub

Thor said:


> Without honesty, the relationship is a lie built upon lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think people can change their "view of sexuality" like that. It is a fundamental value system which is either wired genetically or is based on a lifetime of learning. Starting from our very youngest age we observe and learn about relationships, and are taught values including those about sex and relationships.
> 
> I don't think a person can make a change in their fundamental thought processes and emotions based on wanting to appear to a mate to be compatible.


You and I will have to disagree. I have seen far too many examples of this to believe otherwise.

Many times, our thoughts and views change in life based on new information and experiences.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

FalconKing said:


> I honestly think we are saying the same thing. Like 100 percent. So now I am curious as to what do you think I meant?


Must have misread your tone. Sorry, I agree with you


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> I think if you are a person that wants sex to be meaningful and only have sex with someone you love, and value that trait in another person, there is nothing wrong with that, and in fact, *I think it's admirable*. If I've come across as shaming for that, I didn't mean to.
> 
> If you think it's ok for men to sleep around but not women, I think you should be shamed. If you equate a high number of partners with deceptiveness, I question your logic. (And I don't mean "you" sam cuz I know you don't think these last two things.)


Ok, now I am just picking on you  I would be careful using a word like admirable, because that again tends to carry it's own judgement, of saying that the 'admiral' quality is better than the different quality, when in fact they are merely different, not better.

Along the lines of stereotypes and double standards, I think more women are inclined to try and tame the bad boy, to get that ego boost from being the one he desires above all else than a man trying to tame the bad girl. A lot of men just aren't that interested in putting in that kind of effort. I think that is a part of why women are more accepting of a broader past in men than the reverse.


----------



## firebelly1

FalconKing said:


> It doesn't matter to you because you feel you are being judged by it. So it's just easier for you to say nobody should care about something like that. Let me ask you this. You want to have a deep fulfilling emotional connection with somebody, yet you have this wall. A subject matter you don't ever really want to discuss or maybe avoid. But I want somebody that I can discuss anything with and lay it all out on the line. So tell me, what is it you have figured out that says you should not know everything about this person and somehow feel its supposed to be that way?


I'm saying it doesn't matter because when men sleep around, we don't assign the same moral code to it that we do when women do. Women don't think of men as man slvts when they sleep around because we are all okay with men being sexual beings. 

I do want deep emotional connection. I don't think getting shallow sexual connection now and then prevents me from ever doing that. 

And I'm not saying I think we should lie or that I think lying is the best policy. If a guy I'm dating asks me my number, I won't hide it. I WILL ask him why he wants to know first, but I'm not going to be purposely deceptive.


----------



## FalconKing

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Must have misread your tone. Sorry, I agree with you


Therein lies to the problem. It's hard to bring up this subject matter without women feeling attacked or just men being judgmental. But I just think everything matters when getting to know someone and something like sexual history is something a lot of people just don't really care to know. I want to know where you went to school, you favorite color, what kind of men you went for and what you go for now, best and worst sexual experiences, I want to know decisions you've made and why you made those decisons, family life, etc.. I want to KNOW you!(not you literally, although i'm sure you are a nice woman!)


----------



## firebelly1

ConanHub said:


> I do not think that there great numbers of men like that here. Some, but there are also many like me.
> 
> It seems that you and others might be overly sensitive or aware of individuals like that. Probably been hurt and I am sorry about that, but you maybe have to ignore many men who in know way share that view.


I believe in the quote I was responding to the person used an "always" or "never" statement - as in there was never a double standard in threads about sexual partner numbers. I was more responding to that. Because, you're right. For the most part I've found the men on TAM who respond to this question thoughtful. 

I do get my hackles up about the assumption that women are just biologically less sexual than men too.


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> Ok, now I am just picking on you  I would be careful using a word like admirable, because that again tends to carry it's own judgement, of saying that the 'admiral' quality is better than the different quality, when in fact they are merely different, not better.
> 
> *Fair enough Sam. The "admirable" thing comes a little bit from the fact that holding out for finding someone you love means not having sex for long periods of time. Ugh.*
> 
> Along the lines of stereotypes and double standards, I think more women are inclined to try and tame the bad boy, to get that ego boost from being the one he desires above all else than a man trying to tame the bad girl. A lot of men just aren't that interested in putting in that kind of effort. I think that is a part of why women are more accepting of a broader past in men than the reverse.


*There could definitely be some truth in that. My general feeling: we as a society are generally more okay with men being sexual than women. In fact we expect it, right?*


----------



## FalconKing

firebelly1 said:


> *I'm saying it doesn't matter because when men sleep around, we don't assign the same moral code to it that we do when women do. Women don't think of men as man slvts when they sleep around because we are all okay with men being sexual beings. *
> 
> I do want deep emotional connection. I don't think getting shallow sexual connection now and then prevents me from ever doing that.
> 
> And I'm not saying I think we should lie or that I think lying is the best policy. If a guy I'm dating asks me my number, I won't hide it. I WILL ask him why he wants to know first, but I'm not going to be purposely deceptive.


I just don't think that's true for all women. I know it's not. And you can be a sexual being without having many partners. I know some women who masturbate often and are very sexual but they just don't want to have sex with men they don't really have emotional investment in. I am not saying this to say anything negative about you. I guess my problem is you making blanket statements about how people behave and think.


----------



## firebelly1

FalconKing said:


> I just don't think that's true for all women. I know it's not. And you can be a sexual being without having many partners. I know some women who masturbate often and are very sexual but they just don't want to have sex with men they don't really have emotional investment in. I am not saying this to say anything negative about you. I guess my problem is you making blanket statements about how people behave and think.


No...it's not fair to make blanket statements. There are lots of them in this thread. I was responding to a blanket statement about how women contribute to the double standard. 

I know it does matter to some women. There aren't a lot of threads asking women how they feel about men having a large number of sex partners before they got together. The fact that this question mostly gets asked about women IS telling.


----------



## ConanHub

firebelly1 said:


> I believe in the quote I was responding to the person used an "always" or "never" statement - as in there was never a double standard in threads about sexual partner numbers. I was more responding to that. Because, you're right. For the most part I've found the men on TAM who respond to this question thoughtful.
> 
> I do get my hackles up about the assumption that women are just biologically less sexual than men too.


LOL! Women are every bit as sexual as men!

I have had some women who just about wore my wiener out!


----------



## EleGirl

FalconKing said:


> Therein lies to the problem. It's hard to bring up this subject matter without women feeling attacked or just men being judgmental. But I just think everything matters when getting to know someone and something like sexual history is something a lot of people just don't really care to know. I want to know where you went to school, you favorite color, what kind of men you went for and what you go for now, best and worst sexual experiences, I want to know decisions you've made and why you made those decisons, family life, etc.. I want to KNOW you!(not you literally, although i'm sure you are a nice woman!)


You bring up a good point: the things we want to know about someone when in a relationship with them.

The level of info that some people have talked about here on TAM is what gets me. Wanting to know some general info makes sense. But some have talked about wanting to know what sexual positions, what experimentation, which partners she did what with, etc. And then if the woman has done anything with a previous partner she has to do it with him. She has to do it even if it's something that she does not like, that hurts, that she found humiliating, etc. It's like the guy needs the details so that he can even some score he's keeping.

This gets back to the point of making it safe. If a man starts using the info a woman shares with him to basically emotionally blackmail her into doing things that she is not comfortable with then I hope the woman is smart and strong enough to just walk away from the relationship. All too often she's not.


----------



## treyvion

FalconKing said:


> And I don't think this is any more significant than the other ones.
> 
> My point is that the standard exist because a lot of women don't care about a man's past. To me, that is stupid. So my response isn't that the men should stop caring, it's that the women should.
> 
> And I think a lot of guys here are saying that want someone who is compatible with them experience wise. I know from their stories at least 5 guys who have posted here that have low numbers and want a woman who is the same. So what do you say to that?


Women should stop putting a premium and overvaluing males who get "heavy traffic". They have this thing about them, that their competitiveness kicks in and like one of the tv reality shows they want to be the top one.

For a man, that's like trying to wife a h0e, and it's not usually a good idea.

It's the same thing, men can be h0e's and ****s too, but for some reason women always thought that's what men are supposed to do and have imitated it in this last run.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

> Originally Posted by Plan 9 from OS View Post
> When you review this list and combine it with your earlier comment about why it seems OK for men but not OK for women to have high numbers of sexual partners, I can sympathize with it because stereotyping is not fair. But then again, life isn't fair either. Men and women ARE different. Deep down in our lower level brains, males have an instinct to try to spread their seed. Women don't have that same instinct.
> 
> *This just isn't true. This is a case of the medical and psychological community finding evidence to support what we want to believe. There is plenty of research out there to suggest this is not true. *
> 
> Also, because of the differences between men and women, a man typically would have an easier time having meaningless sex than a woman.
> 
> *What do you mean by an "easier time"? If women want to have meaningless sex, there are lots of volunteers to help her out. If by psychologically, men have fewer emotional / societal qualms about it, I would agree. *
> 
> 
> When you take those more base instincts and complement them with the higher level brain functions of thoughts and the more complex emotions, women statistically tend to put more meaning behind the decision to have sex than a man does. So when a woman decides to pursue a lot of partners, it's not unreasonable to assume that either 1) she's very different than a typical woman so there is a concern about what type of wife she may be and 2) she is a typical woman, but is pursuing these men due to some psychological need that wasn't met at home when she was growing up, i.e. daddy issues, etc. While this does not describe all women, on average it cannot be dismissed out of hand given the differences we know about men vs women. Then factor in another facet that does not get discussed - pregnancy. If a man gets a woman pregnant, he experiences zero changes. When a woman gives birth, she experiences permanent changes. Even an abortion can cause scarring in the womb. A man would not be affected. Whether it's fair or not, there is also a physical component to sex that is different for a man than a woman.
> 
> *Pregnancy is really a non-issue anymore psychologically because of birth control. Rape is still a real fear and I think that's actually the biggest factor that holds a lot of women back from being as promiscuous as they might otherwise be inclined to be.
> 
> I am a woman who tends to get emotionally attached to her sex partners. I understand the hormonally driven emotional difference between men and women in this. But I don't believe it's as big as we want to believe.*


No. Men and women do think differently. They use their brains differently to process situations and come up with responses to them. So while it's true that a man and a woman can respond to a situation in a similar manner, both have used different methods to come to a similar conclusion. That also demonstrates that there are certain natural feelings the are more prominent in a woman's brain vs a man's brain as well as each having natural strengths to better at certain tasks than the other. Also, men and women can adapt to get better at doing the things that they are not naturally good at; however, it takes time to rewire parts of the brain to do this. 

Yes, men have less emotional qualms about ONS than a woman does typically. Again, it goes back to our biology and how we're made up.

Pregnancy is still a big deal even though you have more technology at your disposal to prevent it, terminate it or bring a baby to term. But regardless, it's still a fact of life for women that men can never relate to. 

Again, I'm not saying that you don't have points about there being double standards in how people think. But it's silly to not acknowledge that there are certain facts about men and women that helped to build those stereotypes. Stereotypes don't develop out of thin air. It's not an accident that for generations moms were thought of as nurturing while dads were more geared towards justice and discipline. Even the court system today will normally award primary custody of kids to the mother in divorce cases. Why do they do that? In today's world, sure you see enough situations to see traditional roles reversed from the way things used to be.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

treyvion said:


> Women should stop putting a premium and overvaluing males who get "heavy traffic". They have this thing about them, that their competitiveness kicks in and like one of the tv reality shows they want to be the top one.


Which came first? Maybe them having a _thing _about them is what is making the women want to have sex with him therefore his numbers raise higher and faster than other men. 

You're assuming the women want him because of his number, not that his number is because women want him. There is a difference IMO


----------



## firebelly1

Plan 9 from OS said:


> No. Men and women do think differently. They use their brains differently to process situations and come up with responses to them. So while it's true that a man and a woman can respond to a situation in a similar manner, both have used different methods to come to a similar conclusion. That also demonstrates that there are certain natural feelings the are more prominent in a woman's brain vs a man's brain as well as each having natural strengths to better at certain tasks than the other. Also, men and women can adapt to get better at doing the things that they are not naturally good at; however, it takes time to rewire parts of the brain to do this.
> 
> Yes, men have less emotional qualms about ONS than a woman does typically. Again, it goes back to our biology and how we're made up.
> 
> Pregnancy is still a big deal even though you have more technology at your disposal to prevent it, terminate it or bring a baby to term. But regardless, it's still a fact of life for women that men can never relate to.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying that you don't have points about there being double standards in how people think. But it's silly to not acknowledge that there are certain facts about men and women that helped to build those stereotypes. Stereotypes don't develop out of thin air. It's not an accident that for generations moms were thought of as nurturing while dads were more geared towards justice and discipline. Even the court system today will normally award primary custody of kids to the mother in divorce cases. Why do they do that? In today's world, sure you see enough situations to see traditional roles reversed from the way things used to be.


I acknowledge that there are biological differences between men and women that effect behavior. I reject the idea that the biological difference is so great that there must be something wrong with a woman who has sex with a "high" number of men, as one person alluded to on this thread.


----------



## ConanHub

Gotta go for the day but just from me, my SO could have been one of the biggest slvts, wild woman, party girls in the world and as long as she was 100% mine, I'm fine.:smthumbup:

I was her male counterpart. I would just look at us as two hot fvckers that found their mate. I am also confident bordering on arrogance so maybe that helps.

I also do not believe my POV is superior or inferior to anyone.

It really is between two people to decide about each other and no one else.

Cheers! and God bless truly!


----------



## Thundarr

firebelly1 said:


> I think this happened on the last thread I read about this - disconnect on the definition of "double standard."
> 
> A man who thinks he can be a good husband even if he sleeps around but doesn't think a woman who sleeps around can be a good wife holds a double standard. One standard for men and a different standard for women. That's what a double standard is.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting there is a "societal" double standard? Our society thinks it's okay for men to sleep around but not women?
> 
> Or are you blaming women for the double standard men hold?


I would suggest that it's mostly a biological double standard rather than societal. I could be convinced that it's also a societal issue as well but biology is root of it in my opinion.

I'm not blaming men or women. I blame irreconcilable differences between the genders. Probably the same thing that makes us men more vulnerable to mind movies after infidelity is at play. But trust me that men would prefer not to have them.


----------



## lifeistooshort

firebelly1 said:


> I acknowledge that there are biological differences between men and women that effect behavior. I reject the idea that the biological difference is so great that there must be something wrong with a woman who has sex with a "high" number of men, as one person alluded to on this thread.



But that one person is entitled to feel how he feels. Unless you're trying to date him why would you care? There's a thread about what's going on in Gaza and it's revealed some real anti-semetism and I'm Jewish, but they are entitled to their opinions as long as they don't mess with my life or the lives of any Jews.

I agree with others that the extent to which women are shamed more than men is directly related to women putting up with it and accepting it. I prefer someone with a slightly lower number and view men who get around exactly the same way I view women who do it, though I think name calling is unproductive. I see it more as a value difference, but I certainly don't think you're less of a human being if you disagree.

As for the guy that won't marry a woman that gets around but will f!ck her? The woman that agrees to marry him should consider whether he's really such a prize. If he couldn't find a woman to accept it he might reconsider.

To each his own I say, just be honest and accept that choices have consequences.


----------



## treyvion

ConanHub said:


> Gotta go for the day but just from me, my SO could have been one of the biggest slvts, wild woman, party girls in the world and as long as she was 100% mine, I'm fine.:smthumbup:
> 
> I was her male counterpart. I would just look at us as two hot fvckers that found their mate. I am also confident bordering on arrogance so maybe that helps.
> 
> I also do not believe my POV is superior or inferior to anyone.
> 
> It really is between two people to decide about each other and no one else.
> 
> Cheers! and God bless truly!


Ya'll where two ****s that luckily found each other.:toast:


----------



## treyvion

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Which came first? Maybe them having a _thing _about them is what is making the women want to have sex with him therefore his numbers raise higher and faster than other men.
> 
> You're assuming the women want him because of his number, not that his number is because women want him. There is a difference IMO


Good point. But when they overinduldge on their options due to their demand, shouldn't a woman decide she doesn't want the d1ck that's been passed around like jesus passed around bread to feed a multitude?


----------



## FalconKing

EleGirl said:


> You bring up a good point: the things we want to know about someone when in a relationship with them.
> 
> 
> 
> The level of info that some people have talked about here on TAM is what gets me. Wanting to know some general info makes sense. But some have talked about wanting to know what sexual positions, what experimentation, which partners she did what with, etc. And then if the woman has done anything with a previous partner she has to do it with him. She has to do it even if it's something that she does not like, that hurts, that she found humiliating, etc. It's like the guy needs the details so that he can even some score he's keeping.
> 
> 
> 
> This gets back to the point of making it safe. If a man starts using the info a woman shares with him to basically emotionally blackmail her into doing things that she is not comfortable with then I hope the woman is smart and strong enough to just walk away from the relationship. All too often she's not.



I just want to let it be known that this can go both ways. I have had women try to emotionally blackmail and shame me when I shared intimate things about myself with them. I had a woman whose number was 5x mine. And none of them were stable relationships. I just wanted to understand her and never threw anything in her face. But. Had I not known anything about her past I would not have realized her ability to sabotage relationships because she didn't like being emotionally vulnerable. If I hadn't of known those things I would have thought I truly WAS everything that was wrong with a human being.


----------



## treyvion

FalconKing said:


> I just want to let it be known that this can go both ways. I have had women try to emotionally blackmail and shame me when I shared intimate things about myself with them. I had a woman whose number was 5x mine. And none of them were stable relationships. I just wanted to understand her and never threw anything in her face. But. Had I not known anything about her past I would not have realized her ability to sabotage relationships because she didn't like being emotionally vulnerable. If I hadn't of known those things I would have thought I truly WAS everything that was wrong with a human being.


She probably had that porcupine effect thing going on.


----------



## Thor

firebelly1 said:


> I know it does matter to some women. There aren't a lot of threads asking women how they feel about men having a large number of sex partners before they got together. The fact that this question mostly gets asked about women IS telling.


It seems that generally women don't care about a man's number as long as it isn't stratospheric. So it doesn't matter to women. And that is fine.

And generally men do care about a woman's number. So it does matter to men. And that, too, is fine.

This isn't a double standard, it is a difference between male and female. I think it goes back to ancient genetic brain wiring. Men want a woman they can feel confident is not carrying someone else's baby. Women want a man they can feel confident does not father other children which could dilute his ability to provide for her and her children. This is instinctual, and we have no control over it.

FWIW, I believe the science shows that women are every bit as sexual as men, maybe even more so. Only very recently has contraception allowed women true freedom to explore their sexuality without fear of pregnancy. And only very recently in only some societies do women have the social freedom to explore their sexuality. That social freedom is where the double standard comes into play, where we are not able to separate the instinctual from the social. 

Younger people who are growing up today in this new society will likely be a lot less prone to the double standard than my generation. Though I have an intellectual understanding and a libertarian philosophy of women's right to sexual freedom, it still grinds against my programming.


----------



## michzz

if asked, 99% of men or more would have a visceral reaction to the idea that they may be dipping their wick in the leavings of another man's "visit."

But if I were to hazard a guess, I doubt a woman who would risk that, has that type of reaction at all.

Note: I'm using hyperbole to make a point. The point is, we are territorial about the woman we are intimate with.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

firebelly1 said:


> I acknowledge that there are biological differences between men and women that effect behavior. I reject the idea that the biological difference is so great that there must be something wrong with a woman who has sex with a "high" number of men, as one person alluded to on this thread.


I never said that the differences were so great that people have their fates predetermined. I'm only pointing out that some of the stereotypes aren't created out of thin air. Higher brain function can trump instincts that are in our lower brain. However, it's naive to dismiss our differences out of hand.


----------



## lifeistooshort

treyvion said:


> Good point. But when they overinduldge on their options due to their demand, shouldn't a woman decide she doesn't want the d1ck that's been passed around like jesus passed around bread to feed a multitude?


I think so. I don't find said d!ck to be appealing, but I think womens' competitive instincts kick in and it's a real ego boost to think that the guy that couldn't be tamed is willing to settle with her. I don't get it but I think it's a common thought process, at least subconsciously.


----------



## lifeistooshort

michzz said:


> if asked, 99% of men or more would have a visceral reaction to the idea that they may be dipping their wick in the leavings of another man's "visit."
> 
> But if I were to hazard a guess, I doubt a woman who would risk that, has that type of reaction at all.
> 
> Note: I'm using hyperbole to make a point. The point is, we are territorial about the woman we are intimate with.


I'm a little territorial about the guy I'm with, but a psychic once told me that I've spent most of my past lives as a man and that's why I'm unlike a lot of women so what do I know.

For the record I have plenty of women friends


----------



## FalconKing

treyvion said:


> She probably had that porcupine effect thing going on.



That is the most simplistic and brilliant way I have ever heard somebody define that.


----------



## michzz

lifeistooshort said:


> I'm a little territorial about the guy I'm with, but a psychic once told me that I've spent most of my past lives as a man and that's why I'm unlike a lot of women so what do I know.
> 
> For the record I have plenty of women friends


Ignore psychics


----------



## RoseAglow

It may be true that men are "biologically wired" differently than women to care about their mates numbers, there are clear societal trends showing that men care less than they once did.

100 years ago in the US it was taboo for women to wear dresses that came above the ankles, let alone have premarital sex.

It took the Roaring 20s for "certain types" of women- the Flappers- to start to break out, wearing their hair short, smoking, wearing short dresses. 

Sixty years ago in the US it was still taboo for women to have any premarital sex, let alone live with a man prior to marriage.

Since the mid-late 1960s things have gotten looser (yeah, pun intended) as time has gone by.

Men have jumped right in and gone along with the changes, so TAMmers notwithstanding, I think the societal trend is for men to become MUCH more accepting of women having >1 partners. Men and women both are more likely to have greater numbers in 2014 than they would have in 1914.

While I think there will always be religious and conservative groups who truly value virginity at marriage and want to keep their number low, I think a girl who is 5 years old today will face much less "shaming" when she is teen than a 16 yr old girl would today.


----------



## lifeistooshort

michzz said:


> Ignore psychics


Ha ha, I do. But it's a good story :smthumbup:


----------



## RoseAglow

michzz said:


> if asked, 99% of men or more would have a visceral reaction to the idea that they may be dipping their wick in the leavings of another man's "visit."
> 
> But if I were to hazard a guess, I doubt a woman who would risk that, has that type of reaction at all.
> 
> Note: I'm using hyperbole to make a point. The point is, we are territorial about the woman we are intimate with.


You're wrong, dude. 

I don't know a single woman who would be fine with their man coming to get with them, with another woman's gunk still on his dipstick.

Well- OK- maybe in the case of a rock band groupie....or in 3-somes or other act, where it is known and there is an open agreement; but certainly not in their intimate, thought-to-be-monogomous relationships.

It's not an issue of who would "risk" that. If it was known that one's partner had just been with someone else and wanted to get it on, most men AND women would turn that down pronto.

You're talking about fidelity here, which is a completely different topic than how many people your partner's slept with overall.


----------



## richardsharpe

Goood evening Treyvion
depends on what they DID do to their last boyfriend.....

They might dump me, but I'm happy to assume that I'm more awesome than anyone else they've met, so I wouldn't worry much about that. 




treyvion said:


> And with a slvt, how can you guarantee that she/he won't do to you what they did to their last "boyfriend" or "gf".
> 
> That's why we lable it.


----------



## treyvion

michzz said:


> if asked, 99% of men or more would have a visceral reaction to the idea that they may be dipping their wick in the leavings of another man's "visit."
> 
> But if I were to hazard a guess, I doubt a woman who would risk that, has that type of reaction at all.
> 
> Note: I'm using hyperbole to make a point. The point is, we are territorial about the woman we are intimate with.


Some of the women "make" you do it without your knowledge of it going on. Also eating after someone has stuffed it.


----------



## treyvion

richardsharpe said:


> Goood evening Treyvion
> depends on what they DID do to their last boyfriend.....
> 
> They might dump me, but I'm happy to assume that I'm more awesome than anyone else they've met, so I wouldn't worry much about that.


They could dump you because your too awesome:smthumbup:


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

treyvion said:


> Good point. But when they overinduldge on their options due to their demand, shouldn't a woman decide she doesn't want the d1ck that's been passed around like jesus passed around bread to feed a multitude?


It's up to each person to decide what their deal breakers are. 

H has been with many, many women. I don't know the exact #, neither does he. Doesn't matter.
All that matters is that when we met he wanted a monogamous relationship with me. 

It had nothing to do with my ego or catching the bad boy. It just doesn't matter. 

FTR- he hasn't cheated, loyalty to one person is what he thinks is most important in a relationship. He doesn't look at other women around me, he doesn't chat, flirt or befriend other women. He doesn't go to clubs or bars or hang out with groups of single people. Women still clearly want him, or whatever _thing _people see in him, but he's BTDT, has no interest in doing it again, doesn't cross any lines and remains 100% focused on me. 
There's a lot of reasons why I am on TAM, he's not perfect.. trust me.. but him being a "player" has not been negative.


----------



## michzz

much easier to find out on a guy than on a girl.



RoseAglow said:


> You're wrong, dude.
> 
> I don't know a single woman who would be fine with their man coming to get with them, with another woman's gunk still on his dipstick.
> 
> Well- OK- maybe in the case of a rock band groupie....or in 3-somes or other act, where it is known and there is an open agreement; but certainly not in their intimate, thought-to-be-monogomous relationships.
> 
> It's not an issue of who would "risk" that. If it was known that one's partner had just been with someone else and wanted to get it on, most men AND women would turn that down pronto.
> 
> You're talking about fidelity here, which is a completely different topic than how many people your partner's slept with overall.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> You bring up a good point: the things we want to know about someone when in a relationship with them.
> 
> The level of info that some people have talked about here on TAM is what gets me. Wanting to know some general info makes sense. But some have talked about wanting to know what sexual positions, what experimentation, which partners she did what with, etc. And then if the woman has done anything with a previous partner she has to do it with him. She has to do it even if it's something that she does not like, that hurts, that she found humiliating, etc. It's like the guy needs the details so that he can even some score he's keeping.
> 
> This gets back to the point of making it safe. If a man starts using the info a woman shares with him to basically emotionally blackmail her into doing things that she is not comfortable with then I hope the woman is smart and strong enough to just walk away from the relationship. All too often she's not.





I disagree. I don't think it's blackmail, I have had girlfriends who wanted to do everything that I did with past girlfriends. I think it is good. They want to open up all areas with me. The problem is if I am willing to do things with ex girlfriends and not willing to do it with my own wife, then the insecurity is on my part, not hers. Why would I be willing to do something with an ex who means less but not willing to do everything with my own wife ? What does that make me? It makes no sense. At some point, people say it's a respect thing. Like some sex positions or different types of sex. However, if my wife wants to do something and I refuse but did it with an ex, then I am not respecting my wife or am simply implying that she is either not good enough or that I was doing the act with another woman though I found it disrespectful and then what would that make me ??? 

Either I was disrespecting a woman at one point or aren't respecting my wife now. Which is it ???????


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

wmn1 said:


> I disagree. I don't think it's blackmail, I have had girlfriends who wanted to do everything that I did with past girlfriends. I think it is good. They want to open up all areas with me. The problem is if I am willing to do things with ex girlfriends and not willing to do it with my own wife, then the insecurity is on my part, not hers. Why would I be willing to do something with an ex who means less but not willing to do everything with my own wife ? What does that make me? It makes no sense. At some point, people say it's a respect thing. Like some sex positions or different types of sex. However, if my wife wants to do something and I refuse but did it with an ex, then I am not respecting my wife or am simply implying that she is either not good enough or that I was doing the act with another woman though I found it disrespectful and then what would that make me ???
> 
> Either I was disrespecting a woman at one point or aren't respecting my wife now. Which is it ???????


Some things you try and just realize you don't enjoy (anal, oral, etc). Other things you may have been willing to do (like threesomes) in less serious relationship or maybe risky sex (video taped or public sex) that you aren't wanting to do now that you have a family.

Those are some examples I can think of. Doesn't mean anyone was disrespected, doesn't mean anyone should _have _to do these things with their current partner just because you tried it before.


----------



## treyvion

lifeistooshort said:


> I think so. I don't find said d!ck to be appealing, but I think womens' competitive instincts kick in and it's a real ego boost to think that they guy that couldn't be tamed is willing to settle with her. I don't get it but I think it's a common thought process, at least subconsciously.


Alot of them do it. It's a competitive "h0e" thing. One of my friends has this psychology, they believe the unsolveable rubix cube ( which she doesn't accept this is what it is ) provides challenge and is interesting.

By design, the guys who are out there like that, WILL NOT GET CAUGHT. They will also string on and interleave several women at a time all the time.

It's kinda crazy, that you can model this bad behavior and have better success at least in creating and maintaining interest and attract as a result of it.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

I Don't Know said:


> I think this is valid for some guys, myself included. I don't know why. I've never really cared much before, but with my wife I do care. And her past isn't even that colorful.
> 
> The only part I disagree with is thinking about the past. I don't think about it unless something brings it up, and I hope she doesn't either. It seems to me that if she's thinking about some past partner, then there is something that I'm not doing right or something she's missing and wants.


For me, the reason why past loves are past loves is because of circumstances not related to the relationship, i.e. separated by distance or by other factors (near fatal health conditions) etc. So I reserve the right to think what I want, when I want, and it's nobody's business but mine. If I think fondly about past lovers and remember my past, it's no reflection on who I am with now. Other than following quality with quality. 

I don't think anyone can control or should hope to control or even know what someone else thinks about. There are some boundaries that intimate relationships can't erase. People are still separate entities outside of a bonded relationship, that can't be changed. 

Warm fuzzy feelings are hard to come by in this world. Expecting someone to eradicate them or suppress them or view them as wrong when and if they surface is....awkward at best...irrational at worst (maybe there is worse, but I don't want to go there.)


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

wmn1 said:


> I disagree. I don't think it's blackmail, I have had girlfriends who wanted to do everything that I did with past girlfriends. I think it is good. They want to open up all areas with me. The problem is if I am willing to do things with ex girlfriends and not willing to do it with my own wife, then the insecurity is on my part, not hers. Why would I be willing to do something with an ex who means less but not willing to do everything with my own wife ? What does that make me? It makes no sense. At some point, people say it's a respect thing. Like some sex positions or different types of sex. However, if my wife wants to do something and I refuse but did it with an ex, then I am not respecting my wife or am simply implying that she is either not good enough or that I was doing the act with another woman though I found it disrespectful and then what would that make me ???
> 
> Either I was disrespecting a woman at one point or aren't respecting my wife now. Which is it ???????


But people are shaped differently and made differently, and also age differently. For instance, doggie style might only be enjoyable to a guy if a woman has the right shaped bum that is especially pleasing to a guy, whereas another woman might have amazing flexibility. 

I would never expect sexual parity from a guy with regard to his former partners, that's like saying you are a body double with someone else, also a personality double. It's saying or believing that women are interchangeable when it comes to pleasing a guy, forgetting that it's all different and that's the point, really. Why would anyone want to do exactly the same as someone else, and get all upset if denied, even if it doesn't work for their partner because of differences in taste....


----------



## treyvion

FalconKing said:


> That is the most simplistic and brilliant way I have ever heard somebody define that.


That $hit is painful to try to attach to. There is kind of a male joke about the porcupines, that each porcupine barb is equivilent to one male appendage. The more male appendages and disconnects, the more painful and grating it is to someone who is good hearted and loving.


----------



## JCD

michzz said:


> I can only speak for myself.
> 
> I don't care if the woman i am with has had more or less partners than me.
> 
> What I would worry about includes:
> 
> 1. STDs. Any current infections? any that will kill me if i get it? any that are permanent?
> 
> 2. Is there any overlap in partners? as in cheating?
> 
> 3. Is the number 5, 10, 200, 2,000? Depending on the age, some numbers are easier to take than others.
> 
> 4. Is she done cruising through sex partners?
> 
> 5. Based on item 3 above, how will I know it?


Um...number three means you DO care about her number. Just saying.


----------



## JCD

firebelly1 said:


> Or...women don't care because it doesn't matter.


I.E. what I believe is true and what you believe is false.

Um...not going to get very far with that.

Let's face it: dating is a 'job interview'. Always is, always will be. And the ONLY standard that matters is that of the person hiring you. And if he doesn't like to see you dancing from one job to another in short little bursts, you ain't getting the job...

So you can lie on your resume or not get the job. But you don't have the right to tell the person 'hiring' you that what he wants doesn't matter....though you can try like hell to change his mind on your other positive attributes.

And as I outlined in my 'questions', girls have quite a few finicky little deal breakers as well which men don't care about.

How would you feel if I told you THEY did not matter?


----------



## Angelou

Asking some questions relating to the topic is a given. Human nature. But wanting to know the exact number, for what?


----------



## Cleigh

Well... that go busy quickly. Not going to reply to everyone but just wanted to say that I don't have daddy issues and I make great marriage materiel. Like I said I'm 100% faithful and truthful to a fault. I didn't get an emotional connection to most as most of them ( all but maybe 5?) Were ONS. I'm only 28. Started when I was 14, though most happened between 18 and 21. Then I had my kids and in two long term relationships. The kids dad was 4 years and the one I'm in now is coming up to the 4th year. I'm more then happy being with one person but don't see the point when single when I like sex...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Here is something I don't care for about the whole casual sex thing.. we're suppose to live & enjoy the sex, it's good, it's plentiful, it's there for the taking with many people today...and it's GREAT FUN, no one wants to be celibate....and some surely don't want to marry young !!!.. 

I've read many a men on here speak of the good ol' days before they married.. those women, those encounters are REAL...they are embedded memories even.. a song can bring you back in time to that wonder of your youth.... like Oh what a night  / "Summer of '69"... (just make sure you don't let your future wife know she was hotter or better in the backseat!)...nothing to be ashamed of.. it was a time to celebrate, explore.. I get it..

Ok.. then we marry another... and suddenly it's like EVERY SINGLE PERSON we've had penetrative sex with (usually this is the hang up- did she **** him or did he ****her)....we suddenly need to ERASE their memory , or act like they never existed... wives get bent out of shape if old photos are even left in a photo album... Heaven forbid if one looks another up on Facebook... all hell breaks loose.. not to mention what men struggle with [email protected]#

I guess it really bothers me personally ..this idea , "we had Joy we had fun, we had seasons in the sun"...but really I am DEAD to you - once you took another's hand....I am reduced to NOTHINGNESS... a ghost shut out in the cold, you would turn your back on me if we seen each other out & about. 

WHY?? .... if sex is just no big deal ..it's just a little pleasure to get through your days.... we can spread it around, then why does it matter so much -that it has to be so severe in it's *erasing* once you are taken? 

Someone mentioned we can't change how we feel here... it's just a part of us.. ingrained almost... I believe this to be true... If I cross that line... it's suppose to mean "something" ...it has a way of changing things...

If one can separate this so easily... I would not understand them.. it is a very different mindset for me.. I wouldn't be capable of doing this.. I would struggle with it gravely..

Some may feel that is a flaw.. but I don't.. I feel that is something beautiful ... but yet it seems ridiculed too.. to speak of feeling like this.. because WE wouldn't be able to "be Ok' with partaking easily with a variety of partners....separating the emotions from the sexual...

I ask.. is this erasure EASY for those who do?? 

See , coming from the perspective I have... this is just not acceptable to me. .. I don't feel I could EVER erase the memory of someone I shared that deeply with... a part of them would always remain with me.


----------



## Cleigh

Out of the people I have slept with there is only one of them that I still hold in high regard (other than my current partner) he is an amazing man who I shared an amazing 6 months with. My partner knows how I feel about him but says he isn't threatened by him what so ever, but feels more threatened / jealous over my kids dad, who I despise. 
I could bump into anyone of these men and could say a quick hello and what not. I hold no hurt or hate for any of them. We actually did bump into this one guy that I still hold dearly, I introduced him to my partner and my children and we went on our way. I was glad they got to meet, but I don't have contact with anyone from my past really. My partner says it would be awkward because I actually met him the first time through my boyfriend of 2 years, they were friends back then but aren't now. 
Like I said before, I have an emotional connection to my partner and if I didn't o wouldn't be able to make love or have sex with him. Once that's gone I can't do it but if it was never there I could have ONS and move on.


----------



## Adeline

when I was a virgin I think that number would have mattered to me. Now that I'm not, I don't give a f*ck about it. Is that weird?


----------



## JCD

Cleigh said:


> Out of the people I have slept with there is only one of them that I still hold in high regard (other than my current partner) he is an amazing man who I shared an amazing 6 months with. My partner knows how I feel about him but says he isn't threatened by him what so ever, but feels more threatened / jealous over my kids dad, who I despise.
> I could bump into anyone of these men and could say a quick hello and what not. I hold no hurt or hate for any of them. We actually did bump into this one guy that I still hold dearly, I introduced him to my partner and my children and we went on our way. I was glad they got to meet, but I don't have contact with anyone from my past really. My partner says it would be awkward because I actually met him the first time through my boyfriend of 2 years, they were friends back then but aren't now.
> Like I said before, I have an emotional connection to my partner and if I didn't o wouldn't be able to make love or have sex with him. Once that's gone I can't do it but if it was never there I could have ONS and move on.



Wait...do you need an emotional connection to make love or not? That last sentence contradicts itself.


----------



## Cleigh

*Re: Re: Number of past sexual partners*



JCD said:


> Wait...do you need an emotional connection to make love or not? That last sentence contradicts itself.


With my spouse, yes. With a ons, no. I can't even do angry sex with my partner. Make up sex, I can't do until I'm completely over it and have forgiven him


----------



## JCD

Cleigh said:


> With my spouse, yes. With a ons, no. I can't even do angry sex with my partner. Make up sex, I can't do until I'm completely over it and have forgiven him



I am by nature a gadfly. It would make my life much more pleasant if this were not true, but I am making mention of this fact so you know that the next comment isn't a slam, but just poking at this statement from a different direction. I pick at ideas.

So...partner has to pay a high cost in emotional coin for the same commodity/service that you have no issue giving to someone else for free if you were single?

I would not share this fact with him.


----------



## Cleigh

*Re: Re: Number of past sexual partners*



JCD said:


> I am by nature a gadfly. It would make my life much more pleasant if this were not true, but I am making mention of this fact so you know that the next comment isn't a slam, but just poking at this statement from a different direction. I pick at ideas.
> 
> So...partner has to pay a high cost in emotional coin for the same commodity/service that you have no issue giving to someone else for free if you were single?
> 
> I would not share this fact with him.


Well I'm guessing he would already know. To me there is a difference to f*cking and leaving a guy, and to passionately making love and putting effort into a long term relationship.


----------



## lifeistooshort

JCD said:


> I.E. what I believe is true and what you believe is false.
> 
> Um...not going to get very far with that.
> 
> Let's face it: dating is a 'job interview'. Always is, always will be. And the ONLY standard that matters is that of the person hiring you. And if he doesn't like to see you dancing from one job to another in short little bursts, you ain't getting the job...
> 
> So you can lie on your resume or not get the job. But you don't have the right to tell the person 'hiring' you that what he wants doesn't matter....though you can try like hell to change his mind on your other positive attributes.
> 
> And as I outlined in my 'questions', girls have quite a few finicky little deal breakers as well which men don't care about.
> 
> How would you feel if I told you THEY did not matter?


Let's not forget that lying on your resume is generally grounds for termination.


----------



## just got it 55

I Don't Know said:


> I think this is valid for some guys, myself included. I don't know why. I've never really cared much before, but with my wife I do care. And her past isn't even that colorful.
> 
> The only part I disagree with is thinking about the past. I don't think about it unless something brings it up, and I hope she doesn't either. It seems to me that if she's thinking about some past partner, then there is something that I'm not doing right or something she's missing and wants.


My wife and I are HS sweethearts as far as I know I am her one and only

Sometime I wish that wasn't the case

Cause in **my mind** at least she must be thinking what if.

Now I am very confident she enjoys our intimate time together

But still it makes me wonder!

55


----------



## JCD

Cleigh said:


> Well I'm guessing he would already know. To me there is a difference to f*cking and leaving a guy, and to passionately making love and putting effort into a long term relationship.


"I've had good sex and I've had bad sex and even the worst was wonderful."


----------



## Miss Taken

I feel after reading this thread that I am more capable of cognitive dissonance than some when it comes to sex. I'm not saying that it's a good thing or bad thing. If anything, it's more in line with my general nature. I tend to be moderate in my thinking...almost always seeing the grey areas and considering viewpoints on both sides of the fence. 

I really don't think a woman who has been more sexually adventurous in terms of partner count is devaluing herself. Nor is a man. I do think the reasons and motivations behind it make more of a difference to me, as do their attitudes towards fidelity and monogamy once in an exclusive relationship/marriage. 

I have never wanted to know every single past detail about a man's sex life. Nor have I wanted to share everything about mine. Although my spouse and I have discussed certain things about it. I don't want my past sex life or his influencing the one we have together.

For example, the idea with having sexual parity with each other's past partners. I have no desire to re-enact every past experience my spouse has had. By this point - eleven years of a fairly active sex life (save when we separated but even during then we had sex) there isn't much we have not done together that was done with someone else.

If I was with someone new, I also wouldn't want them trying to gain sexual parity with my and my current spouse's past experiences... in eleven years that is a lot to try to "beat" or compete with. Possibly even more than someone that had multiple partners in a span of eleven years as I would tend to think those tend to be more standard/vanilla sex whereas years together permits a lot of experimentation and trying new things to add excitement and diversity to the monogamy.


----------



## I Don't Know

Homemaker_Numero_Uno said:


> For me, the reason why past loves are past loves is because of circumstances not related to the relationship, i.e. separated by distance or by other factors (near fatal health conditions) etc. So I reserve the right to think what I want, when I want, and it's nobody's business but mine. If I think fondly about past lovers and remember my past, it's no reflection on who I am with now. Other than following quality with quality.
> 
> I don't think anyone can control or should hope to control or even know what someone else thinks about. There are some boundaries that intimate relationships can't erase. People are still separate entities outside of a bonded relationship, that can't be changed.
> 
> Warm fuzzy feelings are hard to come by in this world. Expecting someone to eradicate them or suppress them or view them as wrong when and if they surface is....awkward at best...irrational at worst (maybe there is worse, but I don't want to go there.)


See this area is tricky and confusing for me. I don't really have a problem with someone having occasional good memories or thinking so and so was a good guy. Where I would have a problem is if it was to the point that there was a "I wish things had worked out differently" type of thought. Which it's all irrelevant because like you said I can never know what someone else is thinking.

If someone else were constantly or even regularly on my wife's mind (and I knew it), she'd be more than free to go make more warm fuzzies with him. I wouldn't knowingly be her, "well you'll do, since I can't be with ________."

Maybe it's just how I process the words. To me having fond memories is more than a passing thought. It sounds more like regret. I'm sure that's me.


----------



## bandit.45

How did this thread devolve into whether or not a woman devalues herself having sex with multiple partners?

I thought this thread was about whether or not a woman should be an open book about her sexual past to a man who she is considering having an exclusive relationship with. 

Look gals, if you have a man who you really like, a man who may be THE one, then you need to discern from your experience with him whether he's the kind of guy who can accept your past or not. If he's not, then you may be better off letting him go and look elsewhere before even mentioning it. 

If your headed toward nuptials, then I believe you owe it to your partner to fill them in on all your history, not just the sexual part. They have a right to an informed decision about their future.


----------



## bandit.45

I Don't Know said:


> See this area is tricky and confusing for me. I don't really have a problem with someone having occasional good memories or thinking so and so was a good guy. Where I would have a problem is if it was to the point that there was a "I wish things had worked out differently" type of thought. Which it's all irrelevant because like you said I can never know what someone else is thinking.
> 
> If someone else were constantly or even regularly on my wife's mind (and I knew it), she'd be more than free to go make more warm fuzzies with him. I wouldn't knowingly be her, "well you'll do, since I can't be with ________."
> 
> Maybe it's just how I process the words. To me having fond memories is more than a passing thought. It sounds more like regret. I'm sure that's me.


This is the problem Marduk is going through as we speak.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

EleGirl said:


> You bring up a good point: the things we want to know about someone when in a relationship with them.
> 
> The level of info that some people have talked about here on TAM is what gets me. Wanting to know some general info makes sense. But some have talked about wanting to know what sexual positions, what experimentation, which partners she did what with, etc. And then if the woman has done anything with a previous partner she has to do it with him. She has to do it even if it's something that she does not like, that hurts, that she found humiliating, etc. It's like the guy needs the details so that he can even some score he's keeping.
> 
> This gets back to the point of making it safe. If a man starts using the info a woman shares with him to basically emotionally blackmail her into doing things that she is not comfortable with then I hope the woman is smart and strong enough to just walk away from the relationship. All too often she's not.


I think this is a KEY point.

Now I can give you my and my wife's example. We've told each other EVERYTHING....and I mean EVERYTHING...LOL. But it was the context in which we told each other everything.

The only component that I looked at as to whether or not I would continue the relationship was her attitude about sex in regards to how important it is to her and whether or not she had the same views as I did in regards to the emotional connections etc. I would say both of our numbers are low....but hers is still more than double mine because she was single longer than I was. The issues of what my wife has done sexually wasn't discussed as a qualifier to our relationship though, it was discussed as a fun topic, because lets be honest, talking sex is fun and there's no reason a husband and wife, who are also best friends, can't discuss previous sexual partners in a positive light. There are things that my wife did with previous partners she'd never do with me. And I'm totally okay with that. Some of it wouldn't fit into our relationship. Frankly some of it falls under the category that she tried things with partners she knew she wouldn't marry because she wanted to try it, but wouldn't want to stay with a man who would do it....if that makes sense LOL.

But I've never held anything over her head OR judged her for what she did. We have our relationship and it's awesome. 

If a husband, after things have been discussed truthfully etc., has chosen to marry his wife, he needs to be a safe place for her, a no-judgement zone if you will, if he's blackmailing her or shaming her, he needs help.


----------



## firebelly1

SimplyAmorous said:


> Here is something I don't care for about the whole casual sex thing.. we're suppose to live & enjoy the sex, it's good, it's plentiful, it's there for the taking with many people today...and it's GREAT FUN, no one wants to be celibate....and some surely don't want to marry young !!!..
> 
> I've read many a men on here speak of the good ol' days before they married.. those women, those encounters are REAL...they are embedded memories even.. a song can bring you back in time to that wonder of your youth.... like Oh what a night  / "Summer of '69"... (just make sure you don't let your future wife know she was hotter or better in the backseat!)...nothing to be ashamed of.. it was a time to celebrate, explore.. I get it..
> 
> Ok.. then we marry another... and suddenly it's like EVERY SINGLE PERSON we've had penetrative sex with (usually this is the hang up- did she **** him or did he ****her)....we suddenly need to ERASE their memory , or act like they never existed... wives get bent out of shape if old photos are even left in a photo album... Heaven forbid if one looks another up on Facebook... all hell breaks loose.. not to mention what men struggle with [email protected]#
> 
> I guess it really bothers me personally ..this idea , "we had Joy we had fun, we had seasons in the sun"...but really I am DEAD to you - once you took another's hand....I am reduced to NOTHINGNESS... a ghost shut out in the cold, you would turn your back on me if we seen each other out & about.
> 
> WHY?? .... if sex is just no big deal ..it's just a little pleasure to get through your days.... we can spread it around, then why does it matter so much -that it has to be so severe in it's *erasing* once you are taken?
> 
> Someone mentioned we can't change how we feel here... it's just a part of us.. ingrained almost... I believe this to be true... If I cross that line... it's suppose to mean "something" ...it has a way of changing things...
> 
> If one can separate this so easily... I would not understand them.. it is a very different mindset for me.. I wouldn't be capable of doing this.. I would struggle with it gravely..
> 
> Some may feel that is a flaw.. but I don't.. I feel that is something beautiful ... but yet it seems ridiculed too.. to speak of feeling like this.. because WE wouldn't be able to "be Ok' with partaking easily with a variety of partners....separating the emotions from the sexual...
> 
> I ask.. is this erasure EASY for those who do??
> 
> See , coming from the perspective I have... this is just not acceptable to me. .. I don't feel I could EVER erase the memory of someone I shared that deeply with... a part of them would always remain with me.


Yes - the erasure is easy. JUST SEX is easy to not think about again because it didn't mean anything. In my experience, it doesn't equate to sharing deeply. That is an emotional connection. 

There's a ONS I had once who was a fabulous kisser. Now and then I think - wow, he was a good kisser. But, that is it. We didn't connect on an emotional level at all so there is no emotion to think back on. The people I have to make an effort to erase from my memory are people I a) had an emotional connection with and b) thought there might be potential for long term relationship. But the sex itself doesn't create the "what if's."


----------



## firebelly1

JCD said:


> So...partner has to pay a high cost in emotional coin for the same commodity/service that you have no issue giving to someone else for free if you were single?


I get what you're trying to say...but part of the problem is this - that somehow when women have sex it's a commodity or service to be given away to someone else, not a thing for herself .


----------



## richardsharpe

I Don't Know said:


> snip I don't really have a problem with someone having occasional good memories or thinking so and so was a good guy. snip.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:

I think this is important. I think it is fine to have fond memories of previous partners. Not all breakups need to be rancorous. There was a woman I was dating briefly in college. We had a great time together, in and out of bed - but we both knew that our life goals were not compatible so we separated on friendly terms. I never wish I had made a different choice, but I can still appreciate the happy memories.


----------



## firebelly1

I Don't Know said:


> See this area is tricky and confusing for me. I don't really have a problem with someone having occasional good memories or thinking so and so was a good guy. Where I would have a problem is if it was to the point that there was a "I wish things had worked out differently" type of thought. Which it's all irrelevant because like you said I can never know what someone else is thinking.
> 
> If someone else were constantly or even regularly on my wife's mind (and I knew it), she'd be more than free to go make more warm fuzzies with him. I wouldn't knowingly be her, "well you'll do, since I can't be with ________."
> 
> Maybe it's just how I process the words. To me having fond memories is more than a passing thought. It sounds more like regret. I'm sure that's me.


But this has nothing to do with the number of partners, right? This is a tangent?


----------



## bandit.45

Dad&Hubby said:


> The only component that I looked at as to whether or not I would continue the relationship was her attitude about sex in regards to how important it is to her and whether or not she had the same views as I did in regards to the emotional connections etc. I would say both of our numbers are low....but hers is still more than double mine because she was single longer than I was. The issues of what my wife has done sexually wasn't discussed as a qualifier to our relationship though, it was discussed as a fun topic, because lets be honest, talking sex is fun and there's no reason a husband and wife, who are also best friends, can't discuss previous sexual partners in a positive light. There are things that my wife did with previous partners she'd never do with me. And I'm totally okay with that. Some of it wouldn't fit into our relationship. Frankly some of it falls under the category that she tried things with partners she knew she wouldn't marry because she wanted to try it, but wouldn't want to stay with a man who would do it....if that makes sense LOL.
> 
> But I've never held anything over her head OR judged her for what she did. We have our relationship and it's awesome.


Most husbands would not tolerate this. But that is most likely why she picked you, because you are one of the rare ones who would not be jealous about not being allowed to go where others have gone. 

To me it would be like owning a big piece of property up in a beautiful swath of the Rocky Mountains. But right in the middle of your property there is a square mile of land surrounding a big majestic mountain...a mountain you would love to climb and enjoy. But the Federal government owns it and has an easement to this mountain, and the land is fenced off with a 12' chain link fence and razor wire. You are not allowed to go in and explore that piece of land because the Feds have a missile silo there. 

All you can do is sit on your porch and stare at it longingly, wishing you could just have one chance to go in and hike that country. But you can't.


----------



## firebelly1

But doesn't it matter what she did with the other guy? If your wife had a threesome with another guy and decided group sex wasn't for her, would you be offended because she won't do that with you?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

bandit.45 said:


> Look gals, if you have a man who you really like, a man who may be THE one, then you need to discern from your experience with him whether he's the kind of guy who can accept your past or not. If he's not, then you may be better off letting him go and look elsewhere before even mentioning it.


But that's the thing, that man already isn't going to be THE one for a woman who has a sexual history. Someone who has to learn to accept or tolerate or not be 100% ok with the fact that his wife had partners before him is not going to be the right man to begin with. It's not a matter of finding the right man and _then _hoping he's ok with your past. 

Taking sex out of it, it would be the same as if me (a woman with kids) was looking for a man and found one who hated kids and doesn't want a single Mother. He just wouldn't be the one for me, there wouldn't be a point where he's the ONE but......


----------



## bandit.45

firebelly1 said:


> But doesn't it matter what she did with the other guy? If your wife had a threesome with another guy and decided group sex wasn't for her, would you be offended because she won't do that with you?


Yes I would. 

And I would not tolerate it. I would end the relationship.


----------



## bandit.45

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But that's the thing, that man already isn't going to be THE one for a woman who has a sexual history. Someone who has to learn to accept or tolerate or not be 100% ok with the fact that his wife had partners before him is not going to be the right man to begin with. It's not a matter of finding the right man and _then _hoping he's ok with your past.
> 
> Taking sex out of it, it would be the same as if me (a woman with kids) was looking for a man and found one who hated kids and doesn't want a single Mother. He just wouldn't be the one for me, there wouldn't be a point where he's the ONE but......


Yep. I agree. 

Except...when the woman lies about her past gets him to stay with her anyway.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

bandit.45 said:


> Most husbands would not tolerate this. But that is most likely why she picked you, because you are one of the rare ones who would not be jealous about not being allowed to go where others have gone.
> 
> To me it would be like owning a big piece of property up in a beautiful swath of the Rocky Mountains. But right in the middle of your property there is a square mile of land surrounding a big majestic mountain...a mountain you would love to climb and enjoy. But the Federal government owns it and has an easement to this mountain, and the land is fenced off with a 12' chain link fence and razor wire. You are not allowed to go in and explore that piece of land because the Feds have a missile silo there.
> 
> All you can do is sit on your porch and stare at it longingly, wishing you could just have one chance to go in and hike that country. But you can't.


If your wife had done a semester in Paris, would she HAVE to go there with you too once she met you? Would you feel the same way if she didn't want to go again, for whatever reason, even though you didn't get to go with her? 

A woman isn't owned, she's not property. Who she is and what's she's done in the past is the whole package. There's nothing missing from it, nothing taken away. If you don't like the 'land' as is, find someplace else to live.


----------



## Married but Happy

bandit.45 said:


> Yes I would.
> 
> And I would not tolerate it. I would end the relationship.


And if she'd pegged some guy with her strap-on, you'd end the relationship if she wouldn't do that with you? 

Have you never tried something that you wouldn't want to do again? I have, so I'd understand if my wife didn't want to do something she once did - but if it were something I really wanted and needed, I wouldn't marry her because we'd be incompatible.


----------



## bandit.45

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If your wife had done a semester in Paris, would she HAVE to go there with you too once she met you? Would you feel the same way if she didn't want to go again, for whatever reason, even though you didn't get to go with her?
> 
> A woman isn't owned, she's not property. Who she is and what's she's done in the past is the whole package. There's nothing missing from it, nothing taken away. If you don't like the 'land' as is, find someplace else to live.


No I don't own my woman. You are right. Totally right. 

And I would sell the land and buy a beach house.


----------



## bandit.45

Married but Happy said:


> And if she'd pegged some guy with her strap-on, you'd end the relationship if she wouldn't do that with you?


You're a d!ck.


----------



## JCD

firebelly1 said:


> I get what you're trying to say...but part of the problem is this - that somehow when women have sex it's a commodity or service to be given away to someone else, not a thing for herself .


I get that.

But if it is just a thing she likes for herself, why are there two vastly different sets of hoops she is using to pleasure herself and why are the STRICTEST standards used for the person who frankly has shown himself more caring?

The point is 'emotional connection' is demanded of a partner (even though she loves sex for herself speaking generically) but emotional connection is not demanded of Larry the Lounge Lizard. Cause she is just rubbing one out.

Why can't she just rub one out with hubby? It seems paradoxical.

Again, not speaking of the OP. Just as a principle.


----------



## Married but Happy

bandit.45 said:


> You're a d!ck.


LOL. Or just a rabble rouser.


----------



## JCD

firebelly1 said:


> But doesn't it matter what she did with the other guy? If your wife had a threesome with another guy and decided group sex wasn't for her, would you be offended because she won't do that with you?


I think you raise an interesting point.

I have been thinking about my 'guidelines' about sexual history (God willing I never have to use them! I am happy where I am!)

1) If she has done something I have absolutely no interest in, this isn't an issue (water sports, scat, threesomes, pegging etc)

2) If she did something she tried ONCE and truly loathed, i.e. anal etc, than I would not be a loving partner if I forced her into doing such a thing. She does not have to do it with me to verify she still hates it.

3) If she did something wild and crazy she loved doing, i.e. oral or dressing up or mild bondage...did it a hundred times! Wrote a blog about it! Said it was the bomb...but then she hit me with 'but I don't have that sort of sexual relationship with you that I had with Bradley the Stud...' and it was something I wanted to at least try...

Door...ass...don't let it hit you.

That kind of double standard is not acceptable. If I am the love of her life, she should want to give me MORE, not LESS. I try to do the same. I've tried things I was uncomfortable with.

And I have my limits too. I would not like to be forced past my STRICT boundaries. But I think that most things in a loving relationship should be negotiable. Get a safe word!

Honestly though...I tend to be a very 'meat and potatoes' kind of guy sexually (though there is always room for a popsicle for dessert...or an appetizer)


----------



## bandit.45

JCD said:


> I think you raise an interesting point.
> 
> I have been thinking about my 'guidelines' about sexual history (God willing I never have to use them! I am happy where I am!)
> 
> 1) If she has done something I have absolutely no interest in, this isn't an issue (water sports, scat, threesomes, pegging etc)
> 
> 2) If she did something she tried ONCE and truly loathed, i.e. anal etc, than I would not be a loving partner if I forced her into doing such a thing. She tried and hated. She does not have to be with me trying it to learn she still hates it.
> 
> 3) If she did something wild and crazy she loved doing, i.e. oral or dressing up or mild bondage...did it a hundred times! Wrote a blog about it! Said it was the bomb...but then she hit me with 'but I don't have that sort of sexual relationship with you that I had with Bradley the Stud...' and it was something I wanted to at least try...
> 
> Door...ass...don't let it hit you.
> 
> That kind of double standard is not acceptable. If I am the love of her life, she should want to give me MORE, not LESS. I try to do the same. I've tried things I was uncomfortable with.
> 
> And I have my limits too. I would not like to be forced past my STRICT boundaries. But I think that most things in a loving relationship should be negotiable. Get a safe word!


This. :iagree:

I think you more accurately enumerated what I was trying to convey.


----------



## I Don't Know

firebelly1 said:


> But this has nothing to do with the number of partners, right? This is a tangent?


Yeah, pretty much a tangent. Sorry bout that.


----------



## Miss Taken

JCD said:


> I get that.
> 
> But if it is just a thing she likes for herself, why are there two vastly different sets of hoops she is using to pleasure herself and why are the STRICTEST standards used for the person who frankly has shown himself more caring?
> 
> The point is 'emotional connection' is demanded of a partner (even though she loves sex for herself speaking generically) but emotional connection is not demanded of Larry the Lounge Lizard. Cause she is just rubbing one out.
> 
> Why can't she just rub one out with hubby? It seems paradoxical.
> 
> Again, not speaking of the OP. Just as a principle.


I think this is a paradox that men (in general) help to (contribute to) creating but will never fully understand. 

GENERALLY 

Women are told not to sleep with men they want to pursue long term relationships with right away. If you want him to commit, you have to make him wait.

Men are told women who put out too soon in a relationship are not marriage/long-term partnership material. 

I'm not saying it's right but it makes sense on some level that women who just need that itch scratched will sleep with Larry the Lounge Lizard while making "Prince Charming" wait. 

She could care less that Larry the Lounge Lizard thinks she's loose and disposable. But since she wants Prince Charming to love her, she makes him wait.

ETA: Eddie Murphy Raw -NSFW!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

just got it 55 said:


> *My wife and I are HS sweethearts as far as I know I am her one and only
> 
> Sometime I wish that wasn't the case
> 
> Cause in **my mind** at least she must be thinking what if.
> 
> Now I am very confident she enjoys our intimate time together
> 
> But still it makes me wonder!*


How about you, do you wish ? Myself & husband has graced this subject a # of times...we are very open with each other (if we had a sexual past, we'd be like Dad&Hubby & his wife)-that sort of willing transparency is what I want in a relationship...that's just how I am wired. 

At one time, I didn't like him doing oral on me, even then he still didn't want another, he just wanted *ME* to want *THAT.*...it's something we talked about this morning with this thread in mind.. (I got over this inhibition, even if I still don't orgasm this way & I love that he wants to go there). 

We, too, were High school sweethearts ...

Speaking on how I feel...Sure, one wonders in a moment what it would be like to be with another (human nature?)....yet on the other end of this... is what I've always had.. even after 30+ yrs ... I still desire for him to DO me every night.... I still look at him THAT WAY... there is an exhilaration there...it makes me feel on top of the world.. I count it a very large part of my happiness even...

I tell him he can't ever loose sensitivity in his C0ck or we're in trouble.. we can talk like that.. does a woman really need more than One ? ...but I say this with all else in play, his feeding my soul in the ways I crave in our daily life ...take this away.., it has a way of rocking our foundations...& the what if's may enter in... but I feel the same would be true even if one had prior lovers...

Sure, I can understand an intoxicating Lust in the moment..(I watch R Rated scenes, my temperature rises)...this is normal !... they have done brain scans on what parts of the brain light up... *Lust* and *Love* are different!...

Thank you Firebelly ...using your response to explain this... 



firebelly1 said:


> *Yes - the erasure is easy. JUST SEX is easy to not think about again because it didn't mean anything. In my experience, it doesn't equate to sharing deeply. That is an emotional connection.
> 
> There's a ONS I had once who was a fabulous kisser. Now and then I think - wow, he was a good kisser. But, that is it. We didn't connect on an emotional level at all so there is no emotion to think back on. The people I have to make an effort to erase from my memory are people I a) had an emotional connection with and b) thought there might be potential for long term relationship. But the sex itself doesn't create the "what if's.*"





> Loving with all your ... brain
> 
> *Is it love -- or sex?*
> 
> Scientists then wondered: Does a brain in love look much like a sexually stimulated brain? After all, we associate love and sex and sometimes confuse them.
> 
> The answer is: Brains in love and brains in lust don't look too much alike.
> 
> In studies when researchers showed erotic photos to people as they underwent brain scans, they found activity in the hypothalamus and amygdala areas of the brain. The hypothalamus controls drives like hunger and thirst and the amygdala handles arousal, among other things.
> 
> In the studies of people in love, "we didn't find activity in either," according to Dr. Fisher, an anthropologist and author of "Why We Love -- the Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love."
> 
> "We now have physiological data that suggests there are different brain systems for sex and love," says Dr. Fisher.
> 
> At some point, the two do become linked. People in love have elevated levels of dopamine. Lots of dopamine, in turn, triggers the production of testosterone, which is responsible for the sex drive in both men and women.
> 
> This helps explain why falling in love can make someone all of a sudden seem sexy.
> 
> "Three weeks ago he was just another nice guy in the office and now everything about him is sexual," says Dr. Fisher.


We ALL want to be "THE BEST" in our lovers eyes..... Some of us are by default...but that doesn't nullify what we share. 

Could another man have given me what he has of himself...I can't see it... not to his heights -no matter his skills in the sack.. also how HE makes me feel about myself...

I remember telling him he was an amazing lover ... asking "How do you know just what to do with me!?"...I always felt lost in his kisses, in each other.....we near always climaxed together too ...we didn't even talk about sex because I was fulfilled .. kinda ridiculous looking back!... I'm not one to stay silent or be passive when I am frustrated.. boy would he vouch for [email protected]# 

Someone always makes a comment " those with more sex partners are obviously better in bed, at least you know they love sex!"....but there are a myriad of reasons people have sex ....like *comfort*...that old classic "We've got tonight" by Bob Seger -captures this.....*Lust* (that hunger/thirst), *pure Fun, pleasure*, don't want to live like a Monk.... *to snag a man*...* to boost an EGO*....having read a little on women & sex addiction.. some do it for all other reasons besides pleasure, many do not even orgasm..but *the high* of feeling wanted IN THAT MOMENT.. then the crash! 

When asking men what they want in the bedroom.. isn't the answer always feeling *the Passion* from the woman, *her enthusiasm for HIM, engulfed in the pleasure HE GIVES*...it's even part of the allure in porn, they are all panting after him... 

Then bring it all back to the one so emotionally connected...the one who never tires of being with *just YOU* .... because of the memories shared, a life lived through good times & bad.. ..because of ALL you bring to her life.. (surely passion resides HERE)....nothing can TOP when the brain scans are lighting up on both ends.. the LOVE & desire ...then we collapse in each others arms afterwards & just want to do it all over again... 

This CAN be had in marriage, for the long haul...even a lifetime...but how very important.. let us not neglect each other..or take each other for granted.


----------



## JCD

Miss Taken said:


> I think this is a paradox that men (in general) help to (contribute to) creating but will never fully understand.
> 
> GENERALLY
> 
> Women are told not to sleep with men they want to pursue long term relationships with right away. If you want him to commit, you have to make him wait.
> 
> Men are told women who put out too soon in a relationship are not marriage/long-term partnership material.
> 
> I'm not saying it's right but it makes sense on some level that women who just need that itch scratched will sleep with Larry the Lounge Lizard while making "Prince Charming" wait.
> 
> She could care less that Larry the Lounge Lizard thinks she's loose and disposable. But since she wants Prince Charming to love her, she makes him wait.
> 
> ETA: Eddie Murphy Raw -NSFW!


I can see everything that you say. But at the end of the day, the 'coin of the realm' is the orgasm...and one person pays for the privilege and the other doesn't. So if a man found out that 'I need to be emotionally connected to you to screw' but the last 17 guys weren't? Hmm! =/= happy camper!


I think, from the comments of the majority of men, that like this cultural meme of 'making Prince Charming wait' men just worry about numbers. Right, wrong, indifferent as a woman sees it, it just is.

And like, if I have a box of Ho-Hos a day and still want to be a slender reed...well...it isn't happening. I have to accept the consequences of my choices.

Same with a girl who thinks she has the right to run through a hundred men. She has that right. The issue I see is that she doesn't want to have to suffer any adverse consequences for her choices...and that is frankly unrealistic.

Because PEOPLE are judgmental in their own little ways. You know...like all the women who went batsh!t at the idea of a man being with a pro. Juxtapose that with a woman's 'wanting to get her itch scratched' and the difference between her and the man visiting the pro? He is actually offering something. She is just offering sex.

Just saying...


----------



## Coco2014

I'm a woman. I will feel concerned if my spouse's number is much higher than mine. 

If his number is above 50, I will doubt if he is monogamy material. 

If his number is 1, I will feel concerned as well.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> I can see everything that you say. But at the end of the day, the 'coin of the realm' is the orgasm...and one person pays for the privilege and the other doesn't. So if a man found out that 'I need to be emotionally connected to you to screw' but the last 17 guys weren't? Hmm! =/= happy camper!
> .


Why not instead think of it as you get to have emotionally connected sex with her while the other guys didn't?
Passionate sex with someone you are connecting with is the privilege, not the cost. 

If he wants meaningless sex he can go find 17 other women too.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

JCD said:


> I think you raise an interesting point.
> 
> I have been thinking about my 'guidelines' about sexual history (God willing I never have to use them! I am happy where I am!)
> 
> 1) If she has done something I have absolutely no interest in, this isn't an issue (water sports, scat, threesomes, pegging etc)
> 
> 2) If she did something she tried ONCE and truly loathed, i.e. anal etc, than I would not be a loving partner if I forced her into doing such a thing. She does not have to do it with me to verify she still hates it.
> 
> 3) * If she did something wild and crazy she loved doing, i.e. oral or dressing up or mild bondage...did it a hundred times! Wrote a blog about it! Said it was the bomb...but then she hit me with 'but I don't have that sort of sexual relationship with you that I had with Bradley the Stud...' and it was something I wanted to at least try...*
> 
> Door...ass...don't let it hit you.
> 
> *That kind of double standard is not acceptable. If I am the love of her life, she should want to give me MORE, not LESS. I try to do the same. I've tried things I was uncomfortable with.*
> 
> *And I have my limits too. I would not like to be forced past my STRICT boundaries. But I think that most things in a loving relationship should be negotiable*. Get a safe word!


As a woman, I completely agree with this.. I have wanted my H to be more aggressive.. more on the wild side/ shake it up, surprise me.... Had he had no qualms being THIS way with a former EX...then seen me as some Madonna & couldn't go here (when it's something I wanted to experience)..... the SH** would hit the fan big time... No, that would NOT be working at all. 

Ladies...try to turn this around.. I realize the men generally WANT MORE "hanging from the chandeliers" & all..so you can't relate.. but it IS relateable.. 

To express it another way...What if You knew of his past relationship -maybe you knew them both...(we all compare)...what if he spent more time with his old flame, going shopping with her, catering to her every whim.. maybe she was hotter, didn't even treat him as good... yet there he was ....all over her ....but you don't feel he's THAT into you, at least not to THAT extent.....it's not on the same plane...you even feel ignored...a little pushed aside.. 

Any women is going to feel that... Is this OK??...oh but it happens.. . some threads here like that... how a Husband jumps for his ex wife (so she feels he is secretly pining for her- maybe he is !).....we're VERY sensitive to things like that, we want to feel his #1 priority.. we are his wife, after all..good enough to marry...... 

It's a similar comparison isn't it...so the men wants more enthusiastic sex acts.... the woman wants to know she is the queen of his ATTENTION / affection, feeling He is her #1 fan.....he or she should be elevated above all.. and get *the best of our love.*.


----------



## firebelly1

JCD said:


> I can see everything that you say. But at the end of the day, the 'coin of the realm' is the orgasm...and one person pays for the privilege and the other doesn't. So if a man found out that 'I need to be emotionally connected to you to screw' but the last 17 guys weren't? Hmm! =/= happy camper!
> 
> 
> *This is a fair point. I don't think sex should be used for reward and punishment either. BUT - here's the downside for the guy in relationship - the ONS guy doesn't have any history of disappointing her. There are no lingering resentments or unresolved conflicts that she has with ONS guy. Having emotional connection also means negative emotional connection and there are consequences for the sex life. *
> 
> Because PEOPLE are judgmental in their own little ways. You know...like all the women who went batsh!t at the idea of a man being with a pro. Juxtapose that with a woman's 'wanting to get her itch scratched' and the difference between her and the man visiting the pro? He is actually offering something. She is just offering sex.
> 
> *I missed that thread, but for the record, I wouldn't care if my guy had been with a prostitute in the past. You probably could have guessed that.*


----------



## pragmaster

Experience = Skill 

It sounds bad but the higher the number the better for me. I can't stand virgins or women who don't know how to ride or give head. 

For the record, I was married for three years and completely faithful yet before her, easily 50+. Just opportunities seized. Does not mean I would be the promiscuous type. Whoever said that is an idiot. 

I would never ask someone how many people they have been with. That's none of your business, married or not. I would be much more relieved to hear 50 then 2. It's also less personal that way.

All I ask is no STD/STI. All it takes is one person to catch something from, so the argument is moot. 

I just hate smokers. SO GROSS.


----------



## samyeagar

pragmaster said:


> *Experience = Skill*
> 
> It sounds bad but the higher the number the better for me. I can't stand virgins or women who don't know how to ride or give head.
> 
> For the record, I was married for three years and completely faithful yet before her, easily 50+. Just opportunities seized. Does not mean I would be the promiscuous type. Whoever said that is an idiot.
> 
> I would never ask someone how many people they have been with. That's none of your business, married or not. I would be much more relieved to hear 50 then 2. It's also less personal that way.
> 
> All I ask is no STD/STI. All it takes is one person to catch something from, so the argument is moot.
> 
> I just hate smokers. SO GROSS.


Experience does not in any way necessarily equal skill. Nor does number of partners necessarily equal skill.


----------



## Amplexor

My wife's number is considerably higher than mine. Never really bothered me. As long as the last c0ck she has in her and the next one she's gonna get are mine, I'm fine with the rest.


----------



## Buddy400

Miss Taken said:


> I think this is a paradox that men (in general) help to (contribute to) creating but will never fully understand.
> 
> GENERALLY
> 
> Women are told not to sleep with men they want to pursue long term relationships with right away. If you want him to commit, you have to make him wait.
> 
> Men are told women who put out too soon in a relationship are not marriage/long-term partnership material.
> 
> I'm not saying it's right but it makes sense on some level that women who just need that itch scratched will sleep with Larry the Lounge Lizard while making "Prince Charming" wait.
> 
> She could care less that Larry the Lounge Lizard thinks she's loose and disposable. But since she wants Prince Charming to love her, she makes him wait.
> 
> ETA: Eddie Murphy Raw -NSFW!


This may make logical sense from a woman's point of view. But if I ever discovered that a woman I was with did this (held out from me what she gave to someone she cared less about)), it would be over. Immediately.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening samyeagar
It doesn't necessarily equate, but I expect it correlates. Someone who has had a large number of partners likely enjoys and is enthusiastic about sex. That by itself is a critical part of being good in bed.



samyeagar said:


> Experience does not in any way necessarily equal skill. Nor does number of partners necessarily equal skill.


----------



## pragmaster

What sort of bulls is that samyeagar?

Experience totally does equal skill! Otherwise it's beginners luck. You can tell if a woman has given head before!! That's how it is in life. You want to be a good musician? Practice practice practice. 

Love takes no experience. Love is not a skill. But we aren't talking about love here. Sexual skills. Love is the exception.


----------



## firebelly1

In Sam's defense...you can get better at a particular skill by having sex with only one person and conversely never learn anything from multiple partners because there was no opportunity to build on your skill. Know what I mean? You get better at giving head when a guy is comfortable enough to say "could you do it this way instead? Let's try this..." Typically short-lived flings don't provide the trust and comfort for that.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

bandit.45 said:


> Most husbands would not tolerate this. But that is most likely why she picked you, because you are one of the rare ones who would not be jealous about not being allowed to go where others have gone.
> 
> To me it would be like owning a big piece of property up in a beautiful swath of the Rocky Mountains. But right in the middle of your property there is a square mile of land surrounding a big majestic mountain...a mountain you would love to climb and enjoy. But the Federal government owns it and has an easement to this mountain, and the land is fenced off with a 12' chain link fence and razor wire. You are not allowed to go in and explore that piece of land because the Feds have a missile silo there.
> 
> All you can do is sit on your porch and stare at it longingly, wishing you could just have one chance to go in and hike that country. But you can't.


To address this specifically.

Here are a few examples. 
1. My wife enjoyed anal, but between a combination of me being a bit "girthier" than previous lovers (so it hurts) and hemorrhoids after the birth of our child (hurts more)....am I going to "make" my wife have anal? I'd have to be a HUGE a$$hat to EVER ask my wife for anal when I know it causes pain more than pleasure. It doesn't mean we don't play in that area...but just no PIA.
2. My wife experimented with BDSM, she did one encounter and as much as she enjoyed it in fulfilling a fantasy of hers, she did find it degrading and wouldn't want to try it again. Why would that begrudge me. We do some things but we don't go down the Dom/Sub path (again to the level she did).

Those were experiences she had and doesn't want to do again. We've also experimented with new things, some of which we've continued, some we only did once. Why would I want to bring something into our sex life that she doesn't enjoy. To address a point made earlier, what if she really wanted to use a strap on on a guy (which is something that was a fantasy for her) but I'm not going to do it...so it stays in her fantasy mind...Should she "blackmail me" (now I've never allowed it but still you get the point). 

It's not like my wife "just lies there". We have an active and fulfilling sex life. I'm 100% content (except when the baby is having a rough night LOL).

I'm not going to pass judgement on her experimenting or experiences. Again, the only thing that mattered to me was that we have similar beliefs about sex, and yes the "number" was part of that.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

pragmaster said:


> Experience = Skill
> 
> It sounds bad but the higher the number the better for me. I can't stand virgins or women who don't know how to ride or give head.
> 
> For the record, I was married for three years and completely faithful yet before her, easily 50+. Just opportunities seized. Does not mean I would be the promiscuous type. Whoever said that is an idiot.
> 
> I would never ask someone how many people they have been with. That's none of your business, married or not. I would be much more relieved to hear 50 then 2. It's also less personal that way.
> 
> All I ask is no STD/STI. All it takes is one person to catch something from, so the argument is moot.
> 
> I just hate smokers. SO GROSS.





samyeagar said:


> Experience does not in any way necessarily equal skill. Nor does number of partners necessarily equal skill.


I 100% agree with Sam. Especially with male lovers. Every woman is VERY different in how to please them. Just thinking of oral for instance. Every woman I've been with had a "unique" clit. The techniques and maneuvers I had to do was completely different from one to the next. It doesn't matter if I'm with 4 (my real number) or 400 women....I learned (with my first by the way) that it's about learning THAT ONE woman's body and how it responds that makes you a good lover.

Would you rather have a lover who has had 100 ONS (so in reality they've mostly been about THEIR personal pleasure) or 1 LTR where they had sex 1000 times. 

With your thought process, the 100 partner for a total of 100 times is more experienced than the 1 partner 1000 times. I would bet the 1000 times lover is 10 times the lover of the ONS guy. The 1000 times 1 partner has learned that you have to do a number of different things to bring pleasure.

Sorry but number of partners has ZERO to do with how good of a lover a person is.

Now if a person is a virgin, or has only had sex a few times...that's a different story.


----------



## samyeagar

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening samyeagar
> It doesn't necessarily equate, but I expect it correlates. *Someone who has had a large number of partners likely enjoys and is enthusiastic about sex*. That by itself is a critical part of being good in bed.


I don't deny a possible correlation, but I am not certain it is a strong correlation.

It is possible that someone who has had lots of partners enjoys and is enthusiastic about sex, but it is also quite possible they really aren't.

I do suspect that in many cases, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to numbers vs skill and enjoyment. Often times it takes time and practice to really get good with a partner, and every partner is different with different responses to different things. A person with a high number, but maybe only a few encounters with a particular person is not necessarily going to be as good in bed as someone with five partners at 1,000 times each.


----------



## lifeistooshort

My ex hb had plenty of experience but still sucked in bed. But he was a selfish a$$ with no desire to please. .... but maybe that only applied to me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

pragmaster said:


> Experience = Skill
> 
> It sounds bad but the higher the number the better for me.* I can't stand virgins or women who don't know how to ride or give head. *
> 
> For the record, I was married for three years and completely faithful yet before her, easily 50+. Just opportunities seized. Does not mean I would be the promiscuous type. Whoever said that is an idiot.
> 
> I would never ask someone how many people they have been with. That's none of your business, married or not. I would be much more relieved to hear 50 then 2. It's also less personal that way.
> 
> All I ask is no STD/STI. All it takes is one person to catch something from, so the argument is moot.
> 
> I just hate smokers. SO GROSS.


I need not get offended when I read others preferences...we should be honest , that's who we are....it goes both ways... I would be AS TURNED OFF by the way you feel as you would be as to the woman I was in my youth..and what I personally cared about .... but I sure can ride & take care of the bone today.. no greater Bliss !

I know one thing.. had I been naive enough (which I wasn't) to hook up with one who felt as you...it would have left me feeling worthless....I am sure I would have struggled to TRUST men even...but how wrong it would be to lump them all in the same basket. 

Because of the way I was treated, loved, cared for...for who I am, in ALL ways, not just in the sexual....this opened me up to who I could be and thrive as...a Lover, a Giver...his porn star basically.. 

We were all "inexperienced" at one time.


----------



## samyeagar

I suppose it's a little bit bragging, but it is also a case in point. I have had sex with three different women in my life, for a total of somewhere over 6,000 times. Each of them had far more partners than I did. 10, 8, ad 30+ respectively. All three would tell you that I was the best they ever had, and they would be telling the truth. My ex wife who pretty much hates me in just about every way will still admit that she thought I was fantastic in bed.

My current wife , the one with by far the highest number, when we first got together was the least skilled of the three. It was kind of funny the first time we were together...she later admitted that she felt superior going into it, and was kind of apprehensive, thinking it would be awkward at best, and most likely down right crappy. 

When we were done, she seriously questioned if I had been lying to her about only having two other women before her. All it took was that one time, our first time for her to feel like she was the one who needed to catch up to me. 

My biggest skill, technique, maneuver, what ever you want to call it...paying attention, reading the responses, noticing the slightest details of her body and reactions to mine...almost imperceptible changes in breathing, skin tightening up reflexively, muscles twitching in response...and reacting accordingly and immediately...I'm good at that.


----------



## treyvion

pragmaster said:


> Experience = Skill
> 
> It sounds bad but the higher the number the better for me. I can't stand virgins or women who don't know how to ride or give head.
> 
> For the record, I was married for three years and completely faithful yet before her, easily 50+. Just opportunities seized. Does not mean I would be the promiscuous type. Whoever said that is an idiot.
> 
> I would never ask someone how many people they have been with. That's none of your business, married or not. I would be much more relieved to hear 50 then 2. It's also less personal that way.
> 
> All I ask is no STD/STI. All it takes is one person to catch something from, so the argument is moot.
> 
> I just hate smokers. SO GROSS.


What's better and more experience:

A. 20 girlfriends or boyfriends over a 10 years period, 2000 conjugations and sex sessions.
B. 572 super short term flings, 720 conjugations and sex sessions.


----------



## Married but Happy

Experience (number of partners) does not equal skill. I've had experienced women who were awful at sex, and inexperienced women who were fantastic. Some learn better and faster than others, even within a single relationship. However, there is usually a correlation between more experience and more skill.


----------



## treyvion

Married but Happy said:


> Experience (number of partners) does not equal skill. I've had experienced women who were awful at sex, and inexperienced women who were fantastic. Some learn better and faster than others, even within a single relationship. However, there is usually a correlation between more experience and more skill.


More sex partners doesn't == more skills necessarily because if they were all one or two time stands, you would have never got good with anyone. Plus if you where a hard head you would insist on doing it your way with most of them, making you an even harder head.

I do think with experience you need repetitions, but not necessarily a higher body count.


----------



## Thundarr

1. The point was that experience is something that makes most people better at things in general.

2. A separate topic is that sexual compatibility and preference can make someone with no experience pretty damn good.

These are separate topics and both true :smthumbup:


----------



## samyeagar

Physical activities like dancing, swimming, throwing a ball, some people are just naturals at it, and keep getting better. Most people, given enough time and practice could become decent at something, but never as good as someone with the natural ability, and some people, no matter how much or how hard they try will just never be good at it. Sex is no different.


----------



## treyvion

Thundarr said:


> 1. The point was that experience is something that makes most people better at things in general.
> 
> 2. A separate topic is that sexual compatibility and preference can make someone with no experience pretty damn good.
> 
> These are separate topics and both true :smthumbup:


No experience + willingness and desire + open minded and expiramentive can be a lot of fun.


----------



## samyeagar

Thundarr said:


> 1. The point was that experience is something that makes most people better at things in general.
> 
> 2. A separate topic is that sexual compatibility and preference can make someone with no experience pretty damn good.
> 
> These are separate topics and both true :smthumbup:


I agree, but number of partners does not equal experience does not equal being good at it. It might, but not necessarily


----------



## pragmaster

Completely agree man. 

It really depends on the person. 

I gave my honest opnion. I personally like dating women who are very sexually active to answer the OP. I'm not going to defend the 4000 year old misconception that having multiple sex partners is wrong. It's not. Everyone is different. I know many many men who fantasize being with virgins but I guess I am part of the 1% that thinks it's overrated. 

Experience = Skill; whether with one partner or ten.


----------



## treyvion

pragmaster said:


> Completely agree man.
> 
> It really depends on the person.
> 
> I gave my honest opnion. I personally like dating women who are very sexually active to answer the OP. I'm not going to defend the 4000 year old misconception that having multiple sex partners is wrong. It's not. Everyone is different. I know many many men who fantasize being with virgins but I guess I am part of the 1% that thinks it's overrated.
> 
> Experience = Skill; whether with one partner or ten.


ten is fine, we were concerned about body counts into the hundreds. Some are in this endless pattern of new p0ssy is better p0ssy or new c0ck is better than old c0ck, so they are always doing pick up. One to a couple of times and they are done onto the next.


----------



## Cleigh

I have to agree with the more experience doesn't equal better. My partner was a virgin yet he is one of the best lovers I have had. It's only with him and the other guys I have had orgasims. I never finished with the ONS guys. That to me is mine and mine alone to share with whom I choose.


----------



## Cleigh

The other guys I had an emotional connection with. Sorry. It's early I'm still waking up. The father to my kids had had quite a few partners before me and he was useless in the sack. That's not a deal breaker to me though. 
And as to the my partners expecting me to do with them what I have done with others... well like someone said he doesn't was the strap on up the bum so that will never happen, and neither of us would have threesome while in a serious relationship so that's out. Everything else though I'm up for.


----------



## Thundarr

samyeagar said:


> Physical activities like dancing, swimming, throwing a ball, some people are just naturals at it, and keep getting better. Most people, given enough time and practice could become decent at something, but never as good as someone with the natural ability, and some people, no matter how much or how hard they try will just never be good at it. Sex is no different.


One caveat. Natural selection hasn't impacted our ball throwing skills that I'm aware of. But we are all the product of successful mating. So the number of people capable of awesome sex even before practice should be higher than chance. 

We all think we're much better after experience but nature gave us a head start so who knows. I dated a girl at 19 (she was 18) and I've got to say she cannot be better now.


----------



## ConanHub

pragmaster said:


> What sort of bulls is that samyeagar?
> 
> Experience totally does equal skill! Otherwise it's beginners luck. You can tell if a woman has given head before!! That's how it is in life. You want to be a good musician? Practice practice practice.
> 
> Love takes no experience. Love is not a skill. But we aren't talking about love here. Sexual skills. Love is the exception.


I was not going to challenge your first post because everyone gets to have their preference.

Since you made this challenge however......

Just because someone has multiples of partners does not mean they are more skilled. That is a stupid statement born of ignorance.

Sex is like dancing or couples ice skating. The longer you are with the same partner, the better you get with that partner.

I, unfortunately, have quite massive experience. Just a FYI so you may know I am speaking from personal as well as research knowledge.

The more times you have sex with the SAME person, the better at sex you get with that person.

My wife and I had many partners before we met each other. I lost count for myself.
In the beginning of our relationship, we were only so-so in the sexual skill department with each other. We loved each other very much however and kept working at it.

After a couple of years, we learned to satisfy each other in ways that no one else ever had.

I had been with some women, who society would consider, "high end" or "top tier". Very beautiful, models, even some very accomplished, as well as attractive, business women. I rocked more than one of their worlds and had a few of them seem to explode the very first time we were together. All that experience was actually a detriment the first time I got naked with Mrs. Conan. Those women were not her. They all responded differently and could handle, respond to me differently than my wife.

It takes time with one person to get good with that person.

Some people are just sloppy slvts, men and women, with high numbers and still are absolutely crappy lovers.

High numbers do not equate to skill in bed.


----------



## FalconKing

JCD said:


> I am by nature a gadfly. It would make my life much more pleasant if this were not true, but I am making mention of this fact so you know that the next comment isn't a slam, but just poking at this statement from a different direction. I pick at ideas.
> 
> So...partner has to pay a high cost in emotional coin for the same commodity/service that you have no issue giving to someone else for free if you were single?
> 
> I would not share this fact with him.





Cleigh said:


> Well I'm guessing he would already know. To me there is a difference to f*cking and leaving a guy, and to passionately making love and putting effort into a long term relationship.


I think many men would have a problem with this. Me included. I would not feel special and If I knew a person did that I would feel like a fool.


----------



## treyvion

FalconKing said:


> I think many men would have a problem with this. Me included. I would not feel special and If I knew a person did that I would feel like a fool.


That's the whole paying for the whole cow when you can get the milk for free analogy?


----------



## Thundarr

FalconKing said:


> I think many men would have a problem with this. Me included. I would not feel special and If I knew a person did that I would feel like a fool.





treyvion said:


> That's the whole paying for the whole cow when you can get the milk for free analogy?


Free milk is also overrated.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cleigh said:


> I have to agree with the more experience doesn't equal better. *My partner was a virgin yet he is one of the best lovers I have had. It's only with him and the other guys I have had orgasims.* I never finished with the ONS guys. That to me is mine and mine alone to share with whom I choose.





> *ConanHub said*:
> *The more times you have sex with the SAME person, the better at sex you get with that person*.


Sounds about right...speaking of relationship types... being with the same person......










I always found it kinda odd how Sex therapists downplay the orgasm.. should never be the goal... but come on.. we all WANT the almighty "O" ! The man/ men who can bring us to the heights, hold us there, a little lingering to make it last... being in sync with our greatest pleasure euphoria...we can't help but feel the Lover's hold on us.. 

And women...we're just not all the same.. .some can only orgasm through oral, some gotta have the rod...some revel in sensual , some want it rough.. some may need a toy to get there....and it's great to want to try it all... the variety, the sexual quirks / fetishes ...it keeps the exploring never ending .. and ever fascinating..even with the same person.


----------



## FalconKing

treyvion said:


> That's the whole paying for the whole cow when you can get the milk for free analogy?


I'm just saying. What is the point of being a decent man? If I am emotionally available to you, you will attach weight to the intimacy. If you have any negative feelings towards me or yourself, it will effect your desire to be intimate with me. If I am not emotionally available to you, then you will feel liberated from judgement and be willing to have sex with me immediately. We will have some of the most wild and nasty sex possible because the freedom from lack of judgement allows you to be freely caught in pleasure. You would also be willing to experiment because you may not see me again. And if you do see me again only sex will be expected. Why should I compromise and sacrifice and become vulnerable to you? I will gain knowledge of your insecurities which may also effect you ability to be intimate with me. You may never be that sexual vixen with me but if you do it will take time and effort. Someone else can have that without either. Yet I am special in the fact that I get all the baggage. 

Why not just go around pretending to be dark and mysterious with a sense of charisma and wear clothes that show off a good body? I will fvck a lot of women and they will only want me for that. And if I desire companionship I'll get a dog and hang out with my guy friends. And if I want a female perspective on things i'll just call my mother or sisters. Why not just do that:yawn2:?


----------



## wmn1

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Some things you try and just realize you don't enjoy (anal, oral, etc). Other things you may have been willing to do (like threesomes) in less serious relationship or maybe risky sex (video taped or public sex) that you aren't wanting to do now that you have a family.
> 
> Those are some examples I can think of. Doesn't mean anyone was disrespected, doesn't mean anyone should _have _to do these things with their current partner just because you tried it before.



I don't agree with this for the most part. There are things that we don't like to do and there are things that we will not do under any circumstances. 

For example, I have three ground rules. 1) Don't cheat on me 
2) No threesomes which is related to #1 and 3) No stool fool stuff. Outside of that, whether I like to do things or certain sexual acts or not is really irrelevant to me because making my wife happy is often more important than my own desires. It's called marriage and it's called pleasing your spouse. I abide by her ground rules as well.

However, I will give you an example from my own personal life. I have 7 divorced friends. All guys. 5 divorced because their wives cheated, one cheated himself and got divorced. The 7th, it was simply a two way abusive relationship. In 4 of the 5 cases where the woman stepped out, they had great sex lives before meeting their spouses (my friends). The guys asked and it was revealed to them. They ultimately grew very conservative in their sexual relationships citing stress, respect for their spouse, and family. Then, when their midlife crisis hit or some attractive guy moved in on them years later, they all reverted back to their pre-marital days and engaged in the adventurous sex acts which they enjoyed before bogging my friends down in sexual relationships which were mundane. My friend base is a graveyard of guys who sacrificed their prime years of sexual activity trying to respect their wives and got screwed over as a result. One of the guys always loved doggie style. His wife practically refused to do it with him because she thought it was 'demeaning'. He even vented to me twice about it. Then, low and behold, after 12 years of marriage, he walks into his hotel room in Kansas City and his wife is doing it that way with some guy she met at the bar. WTF ???

Moral of the story. Make your sex life the best in marriage, don't hold back and deprive the other of what they want as long as it fits within your set of mandatory ground rules and treat you husband/wife the best that you have ever treated anybody else before - mentally, physically and sexually. You owe it to that person. 

That's the point I was trying to make. 

I give my wife perfect loyalty as she gives me that. I endured slumps, attitudes etc... and that's fine. However, if she was to step out, it's over. If she was to do things in stepping out with another guy that she wouldn't do with me, it's called hypocrisy and I would find that disrespectful (on top of the cheating). 

Don't tell me that I am the only one or #1 and then deprive me of certain things that you would gladly flaunt to other people if I didn't exist. It doesn't work that way, at least not with me.

I have read Bandit's posts here and agree with almost every one of them


----------



## wmn1

Homemaker_Numero_Uno said:


> But people are shaped differently and made differently, and also age differently. For instance, doggie style might only be enjoyable to a guy if a woman has the right shaped bum that is especially pleasing to a guy, whereas another woman might have amazing flexibility.
> 
> I would never expect sexual parity from a guy with regard to his former partners, that's like saying you are a body double with someone else, also a personality double. It's saying or believing that women are interchangeable when it comes to pleasing a guy, forgetting that it's all different and that's the point, really. Why would anyone want to do exactly the same as someone else, and get all upset if denied, even if it doesn't work for their partner because of differences in taste....


to me, it's about doing what each other wants. If I hold back because of my wife looks different than a past girlfriend, then I feel I am doing her a disservice (although to me, my wife is a rock star and that wouldn't be the case). You don't have to be married to Kate Upton in order to want to do everything and what does it say to your wife for example if you won't do, as you suggest, doggie style because she doesn't have Kate's azz. I am not perfect either. However if I want to perform a certain sexual act, I don't want my wife to deny me that act because I don't have the body of an ex or Brad Pitt or something like that. Love makes those boundaries disappear unless it violates certain ground rules like cheating for example


----------



## wmn1

Homemaker_Numero_Uno said:


> For me, the reason why past loves are past loves is because of circumstances not related to the relationship, i.e. separated by distance or by other factors (near fatal health conditions) etc. So I reserve the right to think what I want, when I want, and it's nobody's business but mine. If I think fondly about past lovers and remember my past, it's no reflection on who I am with now. Other than following quality with quality.
> 
> I don't think anyone can control or should hope to control or even know what someone else thinks about. There are some boundaries that intimate relationships can't erase. People are still separate entities outside of a bonded relationship, that can't be changed.
> 
> Warm fuzzy feelings are hard to come by in this world. Expecting someone to eradicate them or suppress them or view them as wrong when and if they surface is....awkward at best...irrational at worst (maybe there is worse, but I don't want to go there.)



control and wanting similar treatment are two different things. Getting into a marriage and growing conservative while depriving your spouse of what they may want is IMO disrespectful. Some people may be ok with that, others won't. And personally, I can't ever be with a woman who still thinks fondly of getting hammered by an ex when she won't do the same things with me (as long as they fit within our moral guidelines). I see many victims of affairs on this website because of this type of attitude


----------



## wmn1

JCD said:


> Um...number three means you DO care about her number. Just saying.


Obviously he was saying 'within reason'


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

But this isn't about cheating. It's past partners.

and IMO the best sex life for your marriage is one that doesn't include guilty someone into doing something they don't want just because they did it a decade ago with a past partner. 

You had sex next to your parents room in high school? Guess your husband can make you go back there and do it with him too. Experimented in your teen? Better be ready to give a full run down of it all so your spouse can make a check list of everything he gets to do now. 

Just because you don't do everything you've ever tried with your spouse doesn't mean it's not the best sexual relationship you've had. The good part of figuring out your likes and dislikes through exploring your sexuality is that when you find someone you want to commit to, you know yourself and can have great sex knowing how you want it.


----------



## wmn1

bandit.45 said:


> Most husbands would not tolerate this. But that is most likely why she picked you, because you are one of the rare ones who would not be jealous about not being allowed to go where others have gone.
> 
> To me it would be like owning a big piece of property up in a beautiful swath of the Rocky Mountains. But right in the middle of your property there is a square mile of land surrounding a big majestic mountain...a mountain you would love to climb and enjoy. But the Federal government owns it and has an easement to this mountain, and the land is fenced off with a 12' chain link fence and razor wire. You are not allowed to go in and explore that piece of land because the Feds have a missile silo there.
> 
> All you can do is sit on your porch and stare at it longingly, wishing you could just have one chance to go in and hike that country. But you can't.



very good analogy


----------



## Miss Taken

Making my sex life the best will never include re-enacting things I tried but hated doing with an ex because my current spouse/partner cares more about sexual parity/superiority with my exes than me. Surely, if the goal was to be superior to my past lovers, forcing me to redo what I felt was a negative experience certainly wouldn't be it. 

Making sex the best does lend itself to giving generously and enthusiastically but not at the price of hurting one's self in the process. I don't think non-stop hoop jumping or constantly moving targets are okay at all. I do think boundaries and preferences are though. A prerequisite for great sex to me is that it is enjoyable for both of us.


----------



## wmn1

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But this isn't about cheating. It's past partners.
> 
> and IMO the best sex life for your marriage is one that doesn't include guilty someone into doing something they don't want just because they did it a decade ago with a past partner.
> 
> You had sex next to your parents room in high school? Guess your husband can make you go back there and do it with him too. Experimented in your teen? Better be ready to give a full run down of it all so your spouse can make a check list of everything he gets to do now.
> 
> Just because you don't do everything you've ever tried with your spouse doesn't mean it's not the best sexual relationship you've had. The good part of figuring out your likes and dislikes through exploring your sexuality is that when you find someone you want to commit to, you know yourself and can have great sex knowing how you want it.


No it's not about cheating but dull sex lives often lead to cheating or wandering minds and putting it all on the table with other guys, then depriving the person you claim is the most important to you makes many men feel devalued and I would be one in that category though that hasn't happened to me (as far as I know).

Secondly, is it the spouse guilting their spouse into doing things or is it the spouse with the previous experiences depriving their current spouse over their own insecurities ? For example, there is one sexual move my wife doesn't like. I have done it with previous exs. My wife however has offered it to me because she knows I like it and said to me that she would do anything for me. There was no guilting as some here call it. It's called being cognizant of your spouses needs and not being selfish.

Your last paragraph I agree with much of what you say. However, to me, the best sexual relationships IMO is when you are willing to lower your barriers in order to please the other person, not hold something exclusive for someone who doesn't mean crap to you now


----------



## Cleigh

Hmm... many people might have a problem with the way I see it, glad my partner doesn't. There is more to a relationship then just sex. If my partner wanted just sex then I'm sure he wouldn't of been a 25 year old virgin at the time we met. I never made him wait for sex when we first hooked up. He got that the first night, so if that's all either of us wanted it would of stayed at that but we wanted more. 
I'm working hard to keep a relationship with him and keep the passion alive and the sex going, we are comfortable in each others company and enjoy a good life together. 
I'm sure others will agree that there is a lot more then just sex with a partner that keeps you in a marriage. 

I don't know. I'm not very good at expressing what I'm trying to say.


----------



## wmn1

Cleigh said:


> I have to agree with the more experience doesn't equal better. My partner was a virgin yet he is one of the best lovers I have had. It's only with him and the other guys I have had orgasims. I never finished with the ONS guys. That to me is mine and mine alone to share with whom I choose.


The thing I respect most about you Cleigh is your commitment to loyalty and monogamous relationships. I am the type of person who can work through 5000 mazes, depression, sexual slumps, etc... as long as the wife is loyal, we have the base to fix other problems as they arise. Once that loyalty isn't there, then the base is broken and life turns into a mess. So while we agree on many things and disagree on a few, I certainly respect your opinion on that and applaud you for your feelings there


----------



## JCD

firebelly1 said:


> In Sam's defense...you can get better at a particular skill by having sex with only one person and conversely never learn anything from multiple partners because there was no opportunity to build on your skill. Know what I mean? You get better at giving head when a guy is comfortable enough to say "could you do it this way instead? Let's try this..." Typically short-lived flings don't provide the trust and comfort for that.


Or to put it simply (and selfishly): I don't care how good she is at pleasing EVERYONE. I care how good she is at pleasing me.


I am an audience of one.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *wmn1 said*: In 4 of the 5 cases where the woman stepped out, they had great sex lives before meeting their spouses (my friends). The guys asked and it was revealed to them. *They ultimately grew very conservative in their sexual relationships citing stress, respect for their spouse, and family. Then, when their midlife crisis hit or some attractive guy moved in on them years later, they all reverted back to their pre-marital days and engaged in the adventurous sex acts which they enjoyed before bogging my friends down in sexual relationships which were mundane. *My friend base is a graveyard of guys who sacrificed their prime years of sexual activity trying to respect their wives and got screwed over as a result. One of the guys always loved doggie style. His wife practically refused to do it with him because she thought it was 'demeaning'. He even vented to me twice about it. Then, low and behold, after 12 years of marriage, he walks into his hotel room in Kansas City and his wife is doing it that way with some guy she met at the bar. WTF ???


 These stories are all so very unfortunate... it had to be *so much more* than just about the sex though... 

A breakdown of communication.. feeling apathy...both allowed it to go on..too busy for each other... not spending time, seeking what fulfills the other, what was lacking..

Mid life is crazy on some women, I ought to know, I thought I had a darn sex addiction when that hormonal surge hit me... ... I wanted MORE out of my husband.. more than he could give me...(why I landed here even -wanting to deal with that)...I suddenly wanted to DO and experience everything I thought we missed ...

In our situation.. I went out of my way to take my husband for that RIDE... . and it's BEEN the greatest blessing.. it shook me in ways that needed shook...I will never be the same.. 

But we had that firm foundation -never a loss of connection between us.. my 1st thread here...I shared with him...every reply ..some harped on him even ...telling me I would resent him .. these things angered me .. I was conflicted but I/ we worked through that.. it wasn't all on him.. I had a part to play too in my handling of my own desires/ lusts & my new expectations on him. 



> *Cleigh said:* There is more to a relationship then just sex. *If my partner wanted just sex then I'm sure he wouldn't of been a 25 year old virgin at the time we met. *I never made him wait for sex when we first hooked up. He got that the first night, so if that's all either of us wanted it would of stayed at that but we wanted more.


 I think that's really special you gave this guy a chance, I am touched to hear stories of such couples.. 

I hate to even say this because I know how others judge so harshly on a male virgin.. most laughing under their breath, maybe outright -women would even shun them thinking something is wrong with them (for this I most certainly DO blame women as well as men for this double standard, I agree with the men on this thread on that too)...

Our oldest son is still one (by choice-oh he's had opportunities with women -though he hangs in christian circles mainly)...even after 4 yrs of college, he is good looking , he is kind, he is honest/ trustworthy...he's in a band...but he's awfully choosy...and he's held strong to his beliefs...even if others would think he is fcking crazy to not be Fcking around.. He is content single for now...he is waiting for the right woman.. But anyway.. 

Good for you Cleigh.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

wmn1 said:


> No it's not about cheating but dull sex lives often lead to cheating or wandering minds and putting it all on the table with other guys, then depriving the person you claim is the most important to you makes many men feel devalued and I would be one in that category though that hasn't happened to me (as far as I know).
> 
> Secondly, is it the spouse guilting their spouse into doing things or is it the spouse with the previous experiences depriving their current spouse over their own insecurities ? For example, there is one sexual move my wife doesn't like. I have done it with previous exs. My wife however has offered it to me because she knows I like it and said to me that she would do anything for me. There was no guilting as some here call it. It's called being cognizant of your spouses needs and not being selfish.
> 
> Your last paragraph I agree with much of what you say. However, to me, the best sexual relationships IMO is when you are willing to lower your barriers in order to please the other person, not hold something exclusive for someone who doesn't mean crap to you now


You're assuming it's insecurity that makes them not want it. You're assuming that the sex life is dull because they don't care to try something again. You're assuming that they put it all out there with other guys (or will...) All these are pretty reaching. If a woman tried anal or a threesome, didn't like it, didn't want to do it again, are you really going to think these things about her? Sometimes it's as simple as it sounds. They just don't care to try it again. 

To me, it would be selfish to expect me to have sex in a way I didn't enjoy just because my H's ex let him. My sexual relationship with him is our own. What previous partners did or didn't do shouldn't factor into it. We build our own together. If it isn't something we both enjoy or both want to try, that should be respected. 

Don't look to the past to measure your current relationship.


----------



## JCD

pragmaster said:


> Completely agree man.
> 
> It really depends on the person.
> 
> I gave my honest opnion. I personally like dating women who are very sexually active to answer the OP. I'm not going to defend the 4000 year old misconception that having multiple sex partners is wrong. It's not. Everyone is different. *I know many many men who fantasize being with virgins but I guess I am part of the 1% that thinks it's overrated. *
> Experience = Skill; whether with one partner or ten.


I don't think it is anywhere near 1%. It is ONE of the iconic twin male fantasies.

1) Sweet Polly Purebread whom you are ready to rock the ruffles right off her skirt.

and 

2) 'The Bad Girl' a woman who is so experienced and sexual that she makes you forget your mom's name.


----------



## Cleigh

*Re: Re: Number of past sexual partners*



SimplyAmorous said:


> These stories are all so very unfortunate... it had to be *so much more* than just about the sex though...
> 
> A breakdown of communication.. feeling apathy...both allowed it to go on..too busy for each other... not spending time, seeking what fulfills the other, what was lacking..
> 
> Mid life is crazy on some women, I ought to know, I thought I had a darn sex addiction when that hormonal surge hit me... ... I wanted MORE out of my husband.. more than he could give me...(why I landed here even -wanting to deal with that)...I suddenly wanted to DO and experience everything I thought we missed ...
> 
> In our situation.. I went out of my way to take my husband for that RIDE... . and it's BEEN the greatest blessing.. it shook me in ways that needed shook...I will never be the same..
> 
> But we had that firm foundation -never a loss of connection between us.. my 1st thread here...I shared with him...every reply ..some harped on him even ...telling me I would resent him .. these things angered me .. I was conflicted but I/ we worked through that.. it wasn't all on him.. I had a part to play too in my handling of my own desires/ lusts & my new expectations on him.
> 
> I think that's really special you gave this guy a chance, I am touched to hear stories of such couples..
> 
> I hate to even say this because I know how others judge so harshly on a male virgin.. most laughing under their breath, maybe outright -women would even shun them thinking something is wrong with them (for this I most certainly DO blame women as well as men for this double standard, I agree with the men on this thread on that too)...
> 
> Our oldest son is still one (by choice-oh he's had opportunities with women -though he hangs in christian circles mainly)...even after 4 yrs of college, he is good looking , he is kind, he is honest/ trustworthy...he's in a band...but he's awfully choosy...and he's held strong to his beliefs...even if others would think he is fcking crazy to not be Fcking around.. He is content single for now...he is waiting for the right woman.. But anyway..
> 
> Good for you Cleigh.


It was a choice for my partner as well. He has had plenty of women try to sleep with him but he turned them all down, his brother, friends and even his father took him to brothels but he never went in. I had every single one of his friends and family members congratulating me on finally getting him laid and have a girlfriend. I hated it. He wasn't a conquer to be won. He is an amazing man and I have no idea why he finally decided to be with someone, let alone a single mother. He had so many people after we got together warning him of being with a single mum, saying all they want is money and will take him for all he has. It was such a roller coaster ride when we first got together but he ignored them and I'm grateful that he did. 

I don't know how a mid life crisis will affect me, but I do hope me and my current partner will enjoy it together and because an even better couple.


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> One caveat. Natural selection hasn't impacted our ball throwing skills that I'm aware of. But we are all the product of successful mating. So the number of people capable of awesome sex even before practice should be higher than chance.
> 
> We all think we're much better after experience but nature gave us a head start so who knows. I dated a girl at 19 (she was 18) and I've got to say she cannot be better now.


If you said fertility, I would agree with you. If you said 'beauty' I would also agree with you.

However, access to alternate mates has been kind of limited culturally (essential monogamy for something like 80% of the population), and we have also erected lots of cultural taboos against 'the bad girl' (see slvt shaming...and it's across all cultures)

So I do not think that necessarily applies...though the fact women are more orgasmic now than other animals (where females don't orgasm) is still an evolutionary change _in work_ (A girl who enjoys sex will do it more. Ergo more likely to have sex, ergo passes on the genes)

This thread is going ALL OVER THE PLACE!

I don't mind. How about you, OP?


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But this isn't about cheating. It's past partners.
> 
> and IMO the best sex life for your marriage is one that doesn't include guilty someone into doing something they don't want just because they did it a decade ago with a past partner.
> 
> You had sex next to your parents room in high school? Guess your husband can make you go back there and do it with him too. Experimented in your teen? Better be ready to give a full run down of it all so your spouse can make a check list of everything he gets to do now.
> 
> Just because you don't do everything you've ever tried with your spouse doesn't mean it's not the best sexual relationship you've had. The good part of figuring out your likes and dislikes through exploring your sexuality is that when you find someone you want to commit to, you know yourself and can have great sex knowing how you want it.


This is exaggerating the point to ridiculousness to try to discredit it.

Let's keep this simple. Oral. In your 'wild and experimental youth', your fellow girl friends bought you a pair of knee pads as a gag gift (sorry) because you always seemed to have skinned knees after a date. You considered that 'the price of doing business' or whatever. Maybe you had a slightly abusive boyfriend who felt the date wasn't complete without an orgasm (for him).

So, taking control of your sexuality, you decide you aren't putting up with that nonsense anymore. Oral is no longer in the repertoire!

Enter me. I come in and support you. I rub your back. I give you a living at home. I help take care of your kids. I put up with your jack ass relatives. I held your hand when your best friend died. I made sure you got that vacation you always wanted.

And I like oral. I am not checking things off a list. I just like oral.

You don't want to give me oral...because of your history a long time ago with other people who are no longer a factor, in relationships which aren't like ours at all and you refuse to discuss the matter.

The oral itself is a neutral act. Heck, a lot of times, you enjoyed it in the past. But it's associated with Brad and feeling a little stupid about yourself and 'I don't want to talk about it. Why don't we just go to bed and do the usual, okay?'

This isn't a discussion about a guy meticulously running down a checklist of 'how about upside down? Did you ever do it that way?' 

It is about a person asking for a *comfortable and previously experienced sexual act* that for some reason is now off the table for...'reasons'. I am not Brad. I did not do those things to you. But I get to suffer the consequences and you refuse to analyze your reasoning.

So if you make that call, you better give me a valid reason. And if I found out you lied...hmm!

Please note this is a hypothetical.

And let me be clear...it is wrong to 'force' you into doing it. But you got to live with the consequences on the relationship of these choices as well.

To use the milk analogy. It is like finding out that the 'paid for' milk is skim milk and you happily gave away whole milk to a-holes. Not exactly strengthening the relationship.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> It is about a person asking for a *comfortable and previously experienced sexual act* that for some reason is now off the table for...'reasons'. I am not Brad. I did not do those things to you. But I get to suffer the consequences and you refuse to analyze your reasoning.
> 
> So if you make that call, you better give me a valid reason. And if I found out you lied...hmm!
> 
> Please note this is a hypothetical.


Well, the topic didn't specify only comfortable and previously experienced sexual act. Simply any sexual acts done with a previous partner. 

But either way, this is where openness and honestly- and finding someone sexually compatible and knowing yourself and what you like- comes in. 
We meet, start a sexual relationship, we communicate about where my boundaries are and what I do/don't like and will/won't do, you decide it's not for you and you go on to the next. Rinse and repeat until you find the one who meets your needs/wants. Just be careful not to do it too many times or you'll be a slvt.

Every relationship I've had has shown me more deal breakers and needs, not just sexual, on my checklist. The more info I have on there, the better I'll be at finding a suitable partner IMO.


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well, the topic didn't specify only comfortable and previously experienced sexual act. Simply any sexual acts done with a previous partner.
> 
> But either way, this is where openness and honestly- and finding someone sexually compatible and knowing yourself and what you like- comes in.
> We meet, start a sexual relationship, we communicate about where my boundaries are and what I do/don't like and will/won't do, you decide it's not for you and you go on to the next. Rinse and repeat until you find the one who meets your needs/wants. Just be careful not to do it too many times or you'll be a slvt.
> 
> Every relationship I've had has shown me more deal breakers and needs, not just sexual, on my checklist. The more info I have on there, the better I'll be at finding a suitable partner IMO.


This is all fair and good.

I can show you four posts where guys were quite clear that forcing a woman to do something she does not like at all and is painful is being oafish in the extreme. Very few people get off on hurting the one they love.

And thinking about the scenario I posted above...what is the aftermath, both of his insistence and her ultimatum?

Nothing good. Every blow job given and every blow job denied would be another chalk mark of resentment in the relationship no matter who 'won'.

In fact, in that instance, there is no winning, just damage.

So guys...think hard about what you push for and ladies, think hard about what you 'need' to deny. It is unlikely to end well.


----------



## larry.gray

bandit.45 said:


> Who is the poster here on TAM...he's an older man who was married to his wife for close to thirty five years? She had a MLC and asked him for a separation so she could "figure things out"...Then she came back a year or two later wanting to reconcile, but he wouldn't because he found out she had slept with numerous men during their separation?
> 
> Then her son confronted her and she admitted that the number of men she bedded in the space of a couple years numbered in the hundreds? And she actually expected her husband to take her back and was dumbfounded when he wouldn't! :rofl:


That's a coworker of mine. I've relayed the story a couple of times now.


----------



## Cleigh

*Re: Re: Number of past sexual partners*



JCD said:


> If you said fertility, I would agree with you. If you said 'beauty' I would also agree with you.
> 
> However, access to alternate mates has been kind of limited culturally (essential monogamy for something like 80% of the population), and we have also erected lots of cultural taboos against 'the bad girl' (see slvt shaming...and it's across all cultures)
> 
> So I do not think that necessarily applies...though the fact women are more orgasmic now than other animals (where females don't orgasm) is still an evolutionary change _in work_ (A girl who enjoys sex will do it more. Ergo more likely to have sex, ergo passes on the genes)
> 
> This thread is going ALL OVER THE PLACE!
> 
> I don't mind. How about you, OP?


I don't mind. Slowly reading along.


----------



## JCD

Personal said:


> On occasion I have readily turned down some women's offers of their virginity.


Now that's just bragging!


----------



## wmn1

Personal said:


> The bolded part is really significant, that caring about parity and or wanting to feel somehow superior to those from before is demonstrative of a partners internal feeling of inadequacy. it points to their own sexual experience being far more important to them than their partners.
> 
> Such thinking regardless of the euphemism used to camouflage it, is clearly selfish.
> 
> I hope all of my sexual partners have had tremendously awesome sex before me and likewise have had and or will have tremendously awesome sex after me.


First of ll, I think this logic is based on assumptions which most on here didn't make and I think is partially flawed as well. 

For starters, noone said that sexual parity with exs are more important than your current partner. I believe what many on the opposite side of the aisle are saying is that it is wrong to get into a relationship with the most important person of all and then hold back sexually and deny them part of the sexual flame that you once exhibited to others. There are many who feel this way so it's not like it's not a priority to some. The sexual aspect of a relationship is an important one and the argument I think is being presented by you and others is similar to discussing how great a team can move the ball from the 20 to the 20 without discussing how bad they are or how good they are in the red zone.


It is also common among many men to want to be 'the best' in their spouses experience and there is really nothing wrong with that. Many women I know are like that too so it's not exclusive to men. If it is something some here don't want, so be it. However, as I illustrated earlier, none of us want to be sitting there holding the ball on the beach in our mid 40s or so with a spouse who has held back and then blames you for being a sexual dud in comparison to prior experiences and YES that scenario does happen.

Personally, I don't understand the mentality of going into the most important relationship of your life and taking a half swing at a very important (not the only, though) aspect of the relationship.

Someone brought up on here (can't remember who) if your wife goes to Paris and you don't go but want to at some point and she had her fill and doesn't want to go back, then she shouldn't. Again, flawed IMO. I have gone to many places with my wife that I never wanted to go and made the best of it regardless. I even did a 'band' cruise with her which was awkward but did it for her knowing that she reciprocates often. In the above analogy, if she goes to Paris without me, which wouldn't happen, then didn't want to go again, what am I going to do ? ask another woman to go ??? NO. Ask one of the guys to go ? Does anybody really think this would happen or how it would look or what ? Slim chance here. Or never go to paris at all ? or go by yourself to a strange country while the same wife who 'cake ate' is up your azz about going to Paris and spending that $$ instead of taking her to somewhere new ? and then who is trying to deny who the opportunity to see Paris ? at that point, I believe the wife would be the selfish one.

The same line of thought can be transferred to a sexual relationship IMO


----------



## wmn1

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You're assuming it's insecurity that makes them not want it. You're assuming that the sex life is dull because they don't care to try something again. You're assuming that they put it all out there with other guys (or will...) All these are pretty reaching. If a woman tried anal or a threesome, didn't like it, didn't want to do it again, are you really going to think these things about her? Sometimes it's as simple as it sounds. They just don't care to try it again.
> 
> To me, it would be selfish to expect me to have sex in a way I didn't enjoy just because my H's ex let him. My sexual relationship with him is our own. What previous partners did or didn't do shouldn't factor into it. We build our own together. If it isn't something we both enjoy or both want to try, that should be respected.
> 
> Don't look to the past to measure your current relationship.


again disagreed. Other than a set of moral boundaries which both agree can't be crossed (like the threesome thing you mention which would be a deal breaker fr me as it is cheating - regardless of your consent or knowledge), everything in the middle should be fair game.

I have spent the last 17 years doing many things which I find within the set of my own moral values but things I didn't like to do just to make my wife happy. hell, I just spent the day shopping at Boscovs and Old Navy. Horrible time but did it anyway at the expense of other plans just to tell my wife that she is important to me and that I am willing to make such sacrifices to make her happy. My wife took her past experiences in travel and freely wanted to show me all the places she went so we could experience them together as I did for her. It's called compromise, sharing values and experiences in a relationship. It is not "well I am here now so let me close the previous chapters and hide them or change who I am to mold myself into this person that I think this newbie wants me to be". 

Personally I am opposed to building through the process of limiting. As long as everything falls within a set of certain values, values which exceed whether I simply like to do something or not'


----------



## samyeagar

JCD said:


> This is exaggerating the point to ridiculousness to try to discredit it.
> 
> Let's keep this simple. Oral. In your 'wild and experimental youth', your fellow girl friends bought you a pair of knee pads as a gag gift (sorry) because you always seemed to have skinned knees after a date. You considered that 'the price of doing business' or whatever. Maybe you had a slightly abusive boyfriend who felt the date wasn't complete without an orgasm (for him).
> 
> So, taking control of your sexuality, you decide you aren't putting up with that nonsense anymore. Oral is no longer in the repertoire!
> 
> Enter me. I come in and support you. I rub your back. I give you a living at home. I help take care of your kids. I put up with your jack ass relatives. I held your hand when your best friend died. I made sure you got that vacation you always wanted.
> 
> And I like oral. I am not checking things off a list. I just like oral.
> 
> You don't want to give me oral...because of your history a long time ago with other people who are no longer a factor, in relationships which aren't like ours at all and you refuse to discuss the matter.
> 
> The oral itself is a neutral act. Heck, a lot of times, you enjoyed it in the past. But it's associated with Brad and feeling a little stupid about yourself and 'I don't want to talk about it. Why don't we just go to bed and do the usual, okay?'
> 
> This isn't a discussion about a guy meticulously running down a checklist of 'how about upside down? Did you ever do it that way?'
> 
> It is about a person asking for a *comfortable and previously experienced sexual act* that for some reason is now off the table for...'reasons'. I am not Brad. I did not do those things to you. But I get to suffer the consequences and you refuse to analyze your reasoning.
> 
> So if you make that call, you better give me a valid reason. And if I found out you lied...hmm!
> 
> Please note this is a hypothetical.
> 
> And let me be clear...it is wrong to 'force' you into doing it. But you got to live with the consequences on the relationship of these choices as well.
> 
> To use the milk analogy. It is like finding out that the 'paid for' milk is skim milk and you happily gave away whole milk to a-holes. Not exactly strengthening the relationship.


Another edge on this multi edged sword...a partner not wanting to do something they did before because they DID in fact enjoy it, and it holds a special place in their past. They don't want to taint it, or create a competing memory.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Cleigh said:


> As for me. I have had my fair share of men (and women) and more. my partner was a virgin when we hooked up and he knows about how many I have been with.



Cleigh,

I find it interesting that he was a virgin and you were very experienced.


Do you think being with a virgin was in some way "refreshing" to you after being in many relationships? Like, special to you 'cause (so far at least), you're the only one. Did it give you new life emotionally? Realizing he was a "blank canvas", so to speak. I mean, it's really beautiful in a way.

I just wonder. 'Cause this is something that I will always miss having. I'll never be that significant to anyone.

If that's too personal, I understand you not answering. I don't mean to be overly intrusive.


----------



## JCD

samyeagar said:


> Another edge on this multi edged sword...a partner not wanting to do something they did before because they DID in fact enjoy it, and it holds a special place in their past. They don't want to taint it, or create a competing memory.


That tells me quite a bit about our relationship and none of it good.


----------



## samyeagar

JCD said:


> That tells me quite a bit about our relationship and none of it good.


There is a fine line between fond memories and emotional unavailability. Emotional unavailability is damaging to a relationship, but when it manifests itself as physical unavailability it becomes dangerous.


----------



## Cleigh

*Re: Re: Number of past sexual partners*



intheory said:


> Cleigh,
> 
> I find it interesting that he was a virgin and you were very experienced.
> 
> 
> Do you think being with a virgin was in some way "refreshing" to you after being in many relationships? Like, special to you 'cause (so far at least), you're the only one. Did it give you new life emotionally? Realizing he was a "blank canvas", so to speak. I mean, it's really beautiful in a way.
> 
> I just wonder. 'Cause this is something that I will always miss having. I'll never be that significant to anyone.
> 
> If that's too personal, I understand you not answering. I don't mean to be overly intrusive.


I feel honored that he "chose" me to have a relationship with both sexual and emotional. I didn't go for him because he was a virgin. I had a few over the years and they all had no idea what to do, so I was pleasantly surprised to find out he knew how to move. 

Definitely made me feel special to be his first love and sexual partner.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

wmn1 said:


> I have spent the last 17 years doing many things which I find within the set of my own moral values but things I didn't like to do just to make my wife happy. hell, I just spent the day shopping at Boscovs and Old Navy. Horrible time but did it anyway at the expense of other plans just to tell my wife that she is important to me and that I am willing to make such sacrifices to make her happy'


There's a big difference between shopping and doing something during sex that you don't want to do, only because you've done it with an ex and therefore owe your spouse the same. 

If you were a man who didn't like receiving anal sex yet your wife insisted, that would be comparable. 

I was trying to think of something I've tried but didn't like. I'm not a woman who's 'done it all' with others and not my spouse. But the oral example made me realize one. 
Coming from an abuse background, I can not be tied up or otherwise unable to escape my situation, like held down too forcefully. I've tried. It gives me panic attacks, flashbacks. Won't ever do it again. Believe it or not most women don't just stop something they enjoy for no reason. 

If it's important to a man he should move on, he shouldn't get all pissy about the fact that he can't and stay getting more and more resentful by the day even though we're not compatible... 

This is why having sex as part of getting to know someone is so important IMO. A lot of people who don't want to have a lot of partners would also not have the issues they do if they went through a few, or many, more until they found the right one. 

My number is not high but if I find myself single again it very well could get there. I could find my match on the first try or it could be try #49. Who knows? But don't try to change your partner to suit you, or me to suit him, just find one that already does.


----------



## treyvion

Thundarr said:


> Free milk is also overrated.


Husband or wife pays while OM/OW gets it for free


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Thundarr said:


> 1. The point was that experience is something that makes most people better at things in general.
> 
> 2. A separate topic is that sexual compatibility and preference can make someone with no experience pretty damn good.
> 
> These are separate topics and both true :smthumbup:


Right Thundarr, but define experience.

My first wife had a long list of sexual partners (and we met when we were 19 :scratchhead and was AWFUL in bed. She didn't have long term relationships, she was just active and used sex as a tool. My current wife had approx 10 by the time she was 30, but sex was an act of love for her, something that she put a great deal of energy and enthusiasm into, guess who was the better lover.

Experience is more about how many times you've had sex...not with how many people.

I was a great lover with my first girlfriend. Not the first time, but very quickly. Because I cared about being a great lover. I focused on learning her and what her body craved etc. I was enthusiastic in pleasing her. I put her pleasure (and I always do this) ahead of my own most times (partly because if you're woman is screaming...she's going to return the favor 10 fold). 

Experience comes from attitude mixed with attempts. Not who your attempts come from. I have family that are both their one and only's....been married 22 years or so....and LOVE LOVE LOVE sex with each other. They're open about it. But it's because their sex comes from caring about pleasing each other and being open and honest about what they like and don't like. I bet they'd both be SERIOUSLY disappointed if they each had sex with an "experienced" other person.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

pragmaster said:


> What sort of bulls is that samyeagar?
> 
> Experience totally does equal skill! Otherwise it's beginners luck. You can tell if a woman has given head before!! That's how it is in life. You want to be a good musician? Practice practice practice.
> 
> Love takes no experience. Love is not a skill. But we aren't talking about love here. Sexual skills. Love is the exception.


In regards to "playing the instrument"

Would you rather listen to a woman who's playing a lot of new instruments, but only once, each time...or a woman who has played the same instrument for years and really knows the nuances?

Again...number of partners =/= better.


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I was trying to think of something I've tried but didn't like. I'm not a woman who's 'done it all' with others and not my spouse. But the oral example made me realize one.
> Coming from an abuse background, I can not be tied up or otherwise unable to escape my situation, like held down too forcefully. I've tried. It gives me panic attacks, flashbacks. Won't ever do it again. Believe it or not most women don't just stop something they enjoy for no reason.


There is the rub, isn't it? If she found it ENJOYABLE, there is a reason...and it's not likely good.

What you described cannot in anyway be considered 'an enjoyable experience'. So it really doesn't apply and even a few moments discussing it with your partner is sufficient.

That isn't what we are talking about at all.

However there are milder situations than 'the weekend I accidently spent with a bunch of Hell's Angels' where 'reasons' boil down to preferences which may or may not be valid ala my description.

Is it 'valid' that she never do oral again because Brad was a d!ck? Um...maybe. But then again, maybe not.

Let me lay out another hypothetical which is more in keeping with male fears on this issue: Sue was a wild child. She did a lot, including bondage, anal...let's just say 'wild'.

Now she moves on to Tim. And she's said to herself "I am going to leave Suzette, my wild persona totally behind. I am going to be a 'good housewife and mother. I can keep my slvtty little memories in a warm place in my heart and do zumba and PTO instead.'

Tim finds their sex life uninspired but acceptable. Until they meet someone who knew her from before and the beans are spilled.

There is no 'abuse excuse' there is no earthly reason she doesn't do this except personal autonomy. But she's assumed the dictatorial mantle of 'what thou shalt and shalt not do in the bedroom' without discussion. Because of personal autonomy and crap.

I don't think most women are that stupid, but you get a few where principle is more important than practicality.

NOW, that being said, I can see the fear every woman has about 'if I open up about this, he will think I am his own personal little sex toy to do 'whatever'. 

I think this is as much an overwrought fear as the ladies think that this is.


----------



## Miss Taken

The oral example was too vanilla for me lol. Is that what guys think when I or other women bring up unwillingness to do certain things once done in the past but now deemed painful/unpleasant?

Why does shopping always get brought up? It's either shopping or, "I don't always feel like going to work but I do it because..." when it comes to a woman having boundaries on certain sex acts.

As if women don't also work or do things outside of the bedroom for the sole purpose of pleasing their partner, enhancing the relationship or at least not detracting from it. I can list several non-sexual things that I do for my spouse outside of the bedroom that I'm not enthusiastic about doing but know if I didn't he would be hurt or less satisfied with me if I didn't. 

For instance, him talking for thirty minutes about exactly what was wrong with the car, what he had to do to fix it, what kind of trouble it gave him, what tools he used etc. That topic is about as interesting to me as would be discussing the chemical properties that make up the colour red in food additives. 

Or how about hosting our annual Superbowl party? Making all of the food, doing the planning, the shopping and being a gracious host, missing the game in the process since I'm the one doing most of the catering. 

Or actually he does drag me out shopping - not for the kinds of things I'm interested in buying - car parts, generators, computer parts, electrical equipment to hook up the solar panels at the cottage. Zzzz. 

Anyway, my point is that those things are not on the same level as performing a sex act that's physically painful or emotionally threatening/scary. And it's irrelevant because men don't corner the market on doing things we find monotonous outside of the bedroom for the sake of harmony/pleasing our spouses.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> Sue was a wild child. She did a lot, including bondage, anal...let's just say 'wild'.
> 
> Now she moves on to Tim. And she's said to herself "I am going to leave Suzette, my wild persona totally behind. I am going to be a 'good housewife and mother. I can keep my slvtty little memories in a warm place in my heart and do zumba and PTO instead.'
> 
> Tim finds their sex life uninspired but acceptable. Until they meet someone who knew her from before and the beans are spilled.


But Tim has a choice. He decides if she's acceptable as is and makes a choice based on that. Reluctantly accepting something and then deciding it's not good enough (especially if it's only triggered by her past) isn't a compatible relationship. 
Leave Sue free to find a man suitable for her and Tim to find a woman for himself. But again, this may take time and multiple partners to get it right. It's not like people are in arranged marriages here. We pick our partners. Tim picked a woman who was into vanilla sex, zumba and PTO. That was his choice.


There was an article posted here a while ago about a woman complaining her man didn't change into who she wanted him to. "It's almost as if you're the exact same man I married!" It works both ways. I've tried changing someone. Doesn't work. Next time I'll know better.


ETA- isn't this what men are often complaining about? Woman picks safe man to fulfill her needs of having a good father and provider... suddenly decides that's not enough and wants a bad boy alpha sex god. That's exactly what Tim is doing BTW.


----------



## JCD

Miss,

The fear both sides have is similar: that one spouse will co-opt 'sexual control'. It is a zero sum game.

You find the idea that a wife will deny 'oral' as ridiculous. I doubt many men find it so...or unbelievable. I find the counter examples of 'something really painful' as pretty unlikely as well. Blood is not sexy. Screams are not sexy unless you REALLY picked the wrong partner (should have noticed when he had a picture of Bundy on his wall)

This 'personal autonomy' thing is seen by many men as the ultimate co-opt of all sexual decision making...and that is not good in a relationship.

Maybe YOU wouldn't do it...but as a quick read of 'sex in marriage' shows, you are not everyone.


----------



## Miss Taken

JCD said:


> NOW, that being said, I can see the fear every woman has about 'if I open up about this, he will think I am his own personal little sex toy to do 'whatever'.
> 
> I think this is as much an overwrought fear as the ladies think that this is.


For me, the nervousness may be a misunderstanding of what men as exemplified by some of the responses on this thread and some in the former prostitute one are saying.

As I said in the post I made a second ago. Something like oral being a boundary.... well, I just can't relate to that. I don't want to make myself out to be a cvmslvt but I do enjoy and readily give oral sex...so that's why I couldn't relate to that example - although did get your point.

I think it was you who posted about raising the price of honesty so high. So what you said here:



JCD said:


> NOW, that being said, I can see the fear every woman has about 'if I open up about this, he will think I am his own personal little sex toy to do 'whatever'.


relates to that for me. I am afraid - not with my current spouse but for any potential future ones of them having the attitude that I should do something like anal which I HAVE tried...Several times in this relationship but never liked it or even found it painful.

Is my willingness to try anal several times, (and we tried it several times because I was trying to keep an open mind and hoping to eventually like it going to like it but to no avail), going to be used against me by a future mate?

Is he going to not believe me that I really don't like it or found it painful because I tried it more than once? Is he going to feel robbed and then pressure me into giving it to him because my ex got it and I don't want to try it with him? Is he going to suspect that I'm lying to him? That really it was a "special experience" held only to my ex (now current spouse) and I didn't want to spoil the memory of it no matter how much I insist that's not (and it isn't) the case?

From what I hear in some of these responses is "yes", that the majority of men would expect that regardless of how I really felt about receiving anal, I should give anal to my new guy who should be most important to me, to make sex "the best" (for him of course because it truly wouldn't be the best for me). Or because he probably does things like go shopping with me and doesn't like that so I should bend over and take it?

I hope I'm wrong and if I am, someone please enlighten me because it does make me nervous.


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But Tim has a choice. He decides if she's acceptable as is and makes a choice based on that. Reluctantly accepting something and then deciding it's not good enough (especially if it's only triggered by her past) isn't a compatible relationship.
> Leave Sue free to find a man suitable for her and Tim to find a woman for himself. But again, this may take time and multiple partners to get it right. It's not like people are in arranged marriages here. We pick our partners. Tim picked a woman who was into vanilla sex, zumba and PTO. That was his choice.
> 
> 
> There was an article posted here a while ago about a woman complaining her man didn't change into who she wanted him to. "It's almost as if you're the exact same man I married!" It works both ways. I've tried changing someone. Doesn't work. Next time I'll know better.
> 
> 
> ETA- isn't this what men are often complaining about? Woman picks safe man to fulfill her needs of having a good father and provider... suddenly decides that's not enough and wants a bad boy alpha sex god. That's exactly what Tim is doing BTW.


No. Tim, who grudgingly felt her other good points outweighed her supposed sexual hang ups has made a discovery.

The sexual limits she supposedly imposed due to her 'hang ups/morality/innocence whatever NEVER EXISTED. The menu is limited because she tore off half the sheets for no rational reason.

So, having learned this, if he then asks for a hummer and she STILL tells him 'no', he has to reassess who she is. And part of that is she is deceptive.


----------



## treyvion

Miss Taken said:


> For me, the nervousness may be a misunderstanding of what men as exemplified by some of the responses on this thread and some in the former prostitute one are saying.
> 
> As I said in the post I made a second ago. Something like oral being a boundary.... well, I just can't relate to that. I don't want to make myself out to be a cvmslvt but I do enjoy and readily give oral sex...so that's why I couldn't relate to that example - although did get your point.
> 
> I think it was you who posted about raising the price of honesty so high. So what you said here:
> 
> 
> 
> relates to that for me. I am afraid - not with my current spouse but for any potential future ones of them having the attitude that I should do something like anal which I HAVE tried...Several times in this relationship but never liked it or even found it painful.
> 
> Is my willingness to try anal several times, (and we tried it several times because I was trying to keep an open mind and hoping to eventually like it going to like it but to no avail), going to be used against me by a future mate?
> 
> Is he going to not believe me that I really don't like it or found it painful because I tried it more than once? Is he going to feel robbed and then pressure me into giving it to him because my ex got it and I don't want to try it with him? Is he going to suspect that I'm lying to him? That really it was a "special experience" held only to my ex (now current spouse) and I didn't want to spoil the memory of it no matter how much I insist that's not (and it isn't) the case?
> 
> From what I hear in some of these responses is "yes", that the majority of men would expect that regardless of how I really felt about receiving anal, I should give anal to my new guy who should be most important to me, to make sex "the best" (for him of course because it truly wouldn't be the best for me). Or because he probably does things like go shopping with me and doesn't like that so I should bend over and take it?
> 
> I hope I'm wrong and if I am, someone please enlighten me because it does make me nervous.


You have a potential to be open minded about the anal.

Yes it hurt with previous partners, it may not hurt with him.

You could let him try it a couple of times.


----------



## JCD

Miss Taken said:


> For me, the nervousness may be a misunderstanding of what men as exemplified by some of the responses on this thread and some in the former prostitute one are saying.
> 
> As I said in the post I made a second ago. Something like oral being a boundary.... well, I just can't relate to that. I don't want to make myself out to be a cvmslvt but I do enjoy and readily give oral sex...so that's why I couldn't relate to that example - although did get your point.
> 
> I think it was you who posted about raising the price of honesty so high. So what you said here:
> 
> 
> 
> relates to that for me. I am afraid - not with my current spouse but for any potential future ones of them having the attitude that I should do something like anal which I HAVE tried...Several times in this relationship but never liked it or even found it painful.
> 
> Is my willingness to try anal several times, (and we tried it several times because I was trying to keep an open mind and hoping to eventually like it going to like it but to no avail), going to be used against me by a future mate?
> 
> Is he going to not believe me that I really don't like it or found it painful because I tried it more than once? Is he going to feel robbed and then pressure me into giving it to him because my ex got it and I don't want to try it with him? Is he going to suspect that I'm lying to him? That really it was a "special experience" held only to my ex (now current spouse) and I didn't want to spoil the memory of it no matter how much I insist that's not (and it isn't) the case?
> 
> From what I hear in some of these responses is "yes", that the majority of men would expect that regardless of how I really felt about receiving anal, I should give anal to my new guy who should be most important to me, to make sex "the best" (for him of course because it truly wouldn't be the best for me). Or because he probably does things like go shopping with me and doesn't like that so I should bend over and take it?
> 
> I hope I'm wrong and if I am, someone please enlighten me because it does make me nervous.


I can only speak for myself (and bandit ) but on the issue of 'I tried it and I didn't like it at all!' is very much something I would listen to and respect. I think most guys here would.

What if you told me that you hated anal...and then I met three different boyfriends who all told me you LOVED anal...or dress up...or whatever?

How than should I consider the relationship? How do I enter that metric into how you really feel about me?

The 'Madonna/wh0re' dynamic isn't just a male thing. Some women embrace it too regarding their sexuality.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> No. Tim, who grudgingly felt her other good points outweighed her supposed sexual hang ups has made a discovery.
> 
> The sexual limits she supposedly imposed due to her 'hang ups/morality/innocence whatever NEVER EXISTED. The menu is limited because she tore off half the sheets for no rational reason.
> 
> So, having learned this, if he then asks for a hummer and she STILL tells him 'no', he has to reassess who she is. And part of that is she is deceptive.


She's not deceptive. She didn't trick him into marriage with promises of anal sex and bondage. Whatever her reasons, this is who she is now. If those things were important to Tim he should have kept looking.

Sue has a right to decide she's not into those things anymore and become a vanilla sexual woman. That's who she was when she met Tim, that's not a lie. I _used to_ be a lot of things that I am not anymore. Who I am now is not deception.


----------



## Miss Taken

treyvion said:


> You have a potential to be open minded about the anal.
> 
> Yes it hurt with previous partners, it may not hurt with him.
> 
> You could let him try it a couple of times.


Nah, that door has closed.

I _*had *_the potential to be open-minded about anal until I had enough experience through experimenting to determine I don't like it and probably never will. 

I am of the mind that if you don't like something the first time, try it again that's why I tried it again in every imaginable position and way possible. Don't think a different penis/partner will make a difference. 

In this relationship (where we tried it) and future ones, it is not on the menu.


----------



## JCD

treyvion said:


> You have a potential to be open minded about the anal.
> 
> Yes it hurt with previous partners, it may not hurt with him.
> 
> You could let him try it a couple of times.


So...how many times do you need to have a dildo up your a$$ before YOU know you don't like it? Different girl...

Just asking. 

That is a stupid statement. AT MOST, she might consider trying it ONCE if he was able to convince her she was doing it wrong before.

And even then, she is being a pretty good sport!


----------



## Miss Taken

JCD said:


> So...how many times do you need to have a dildo up your a$$ before YOU know you don't like it? Different girl...
> 
> Just asking.
> 
> That is a stupid statement. AT MOST, she might consider trying it ONCE if he was able to convince her she was doing it wrong before.
> 
> And even then, she is being a pretty good sport!


THANK YOU!

So that's one vote for yes... some men are saying do it regardless of how you feel/think about it. One vote (JCD?) for saying it's okay to have this boundary.


----------



## JCD

Miss Taken said:


> Nah, that door has closed.
> 
> I _*had *_the potential to be open-minded about anal until I had enough experience through experimenting to determine I don't like it and probably never will.
> 
> I am of the mind that if you don't like something the first time, try it again that's why I tried it again in every imaginable position and way possible. Don't think a different penis/partner will make a difference.
> 
> In this relationship (where we tried it) and future ones, it is not on the menu.


I used to want to try anal...until it occurred to me that she might want reciprocation. 

Sorry, if *I* don't even want to try it once, no way am I going to make her try it once.


----------



## ellaenchanted

As a women I prefer a man that hasn't had too many one night stands because to be honest I find the men that can shag anyone aren't the type of people I want to be in a relationship with.... That's just me personally 
I want a man that is experienced but also has high standards if that makes sense.


----------



## JCD

Miss Taken said:


> THANK YOU!
> 
> So that's one vote for yes... some men are saying do it regardless of how you feel/think about it. One vote (JCD?) for saying it's okay to have this boundary.




Yes, I definitely vote that that boundary is firm.


----------



## Miss Taken

JCD said:


> I used to want to try anal...until it occurred to me that she might want reciprocation.
> 
> Sorry, if *I* don't even want to try it once, no way am I going to make her try it once.



Yeah, I gotta say, he wasn't the most thrilled when we got back together after our separation and this was a new boundary of mine but I stuck to it.

I told him, I'll keep doing it but he needs to try it first before we continue it to see what it's like.

At first he laughed, and laughed and then realized I wasn't kidding. It was kind of like this:


----------



## Cleigh

Miss taken. Just a quick note to say that it (anal) Does differ between men. Different penis sizes and shapes make a huge difference in that area. Say a man with a big knob but thinner shaft would be more painful at the point of entrance but not so much after that. But a guy with the same size all the way would be painful/ not so much depending on thickness. Just saying  anal is really an acquired taste hahaha :/


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But Tim has a choice. He decides if she's acceptable as is and makes a choice based on that. Reluctantly accepting something and then deciding it's not good enough (especially if it's only triggered by her past) isn't a compatible relationship.
> Leave Sue free to find a man suitable for her and Tim to find a woman for himself. But again, this may take time and multiple partners to get it right. It's not like people are in arranged marriages here. We pick our partners. Tim picked a woman who was into vanilla sex, zumba and PTO. That was his choice.
> 
> 
> There was an article posted here a while ago about a woman complaining her man didn't change into who she wanted him to. "It's almost as if you're the exact same man I married!" It works both ways. I've tried changing someone. Doesn't work. Next time I'll know better.
> 
> 
> ETA- isn't this what men are often complaining about? Woman picks safe man to fulfill her needs of having a good father and provider... suddenly decides that's not enough and wants a bad boy alpha sex god. That's exactly what Tim is doing BTW.


Few comments.

Tim agreed to Suzie's boundaries up front after taking account all of the other traits she has and chooses to marry her. But to be incredulous over why Tim wants more after realizing that she used to do more things happily and not because she was coerced into doing them (keeping with the example) is silly. This is no different than someone buying product A from a vendor, being happy with it until he/she realizes that the vendor offered a similar product with more features that was never shown to the buyer. However, other buyers were given access to the better product and paid the same price as our original buyer for the stripped down version. Of course the original buyer would want the better product. So should Tim in the hypothetical. That's human nature.

Additionally, I think marriage is also a process where two people come together and grow as people thru shared life experiences. I would never want to be married to the woman I used to know when we were dating. My wife no longer wants the person I used to be years ago either. Because we are supposed to learn and become better people for each other. So yes, if a woman is upset that her husband is exactly the same as he was 20 years ago, I can understand her being irritated by that. He never grew as a person. 

Summarizing both POV's, IMHO, I want it all. I want everything I can get out of my marriage and I want to give everything I have to my marriage. I don't want a wife that was fun and wild in her youth but thought she should settle down to become "marriage material". I wanted a wife who still has a strong connection to her past AND has learned to be a better person. I want that wild child that can also be a great mom and wife. I don't want to be the same young guy with no life skills but fun party skills only. I want to learn too so that I can be a better spouse and father as well as a wild child with my wife. Everyone should want it all.


----------



## Miss Taken

Cleigh said:


> Miss taken. Just a quick note to say that it (anal) Does differ between men. Different penis sizes and shapes make a huge difference in that area. Say a man with a big knob but thinner shaft would be more painful at the point of entrance but not so much after that. But a guy with the same size all the way would be painful/ not so much depending on thickness. Just saying  anal is really an acquired taste hahaha :/


Agreed in that I think it is definitely an acquired taste.

No doubt it differs with sizes. However, my partner is about average sized, in girth on the higher end of average in length but besides one freckle... nothing too unique (weird curvage, pencil thin or coke can sized girth or huge head etc.) and everything is pretty proportionate/symmetrical....perfect for me. 

If he was bigger or thicker, anal would have been worse I am sure. If he was smaller or had less girth, PIV would be less satisfying. Even when I was incredibly aroused and it wasn't painful, it was no more orgasmic to me than taking a #2... actually, that's what it felt like and it was kind of a turn off to keep wondering if I was sh!tting as I am not into scat play.

Like penis size, shape and girth. Women's rectums and clitorises are also different. Some women may have a larger area of clitoral nerves pointed towards the rear wall of the vagina which would make anal more orgasmic or at least pleasurable. Some have a larger area of those nerves (myself included) on the interior wall (towards the front) making them more orgasmic during PiV or capable of g-spot (which doesn't exist ) orgasms. 

Heck, vaginas are also different and depending on the position of the uterus and cervix, PiV may be painful (a tilted uterus for example can make PiV painful). 

I chalk it up to different bodies and different strokes for different folks.


----------



## JCD

Miss Taken said:


> Agreed in that I think it is definitely an acquired taste.
> 
> No doubt it differs with sizes. However, my partner is about average sized, in girth on the higher end of average in length but besides one freckle... nothing too unique (weird curvage, pencil thin or coke can sized girth or huge head etc.) and everything is pretty proportionate/symmetrical....perfect for me.
> 
> If he was bigger or thicker, anal would have been worse I am sure. If he was smaller or had less girth, PIV would be less satisfying. Even when I was incredibly aroused and it wasn't painful, it was no more orgasmic to me than taking a #2... actually, that's what it felt like and it was kind of a turn off to keep wondering if I was sh!tting as I am not into scat play.
> 
> Like penis size, shape and girth. Women's rectums and clitorises are also different. Some women may have a larger area of clitoral nerves pointed towards the rear wall of the vagina which would make anal more orgasmic or at least pleasurable. Some have a larger area of those nerves (myself included) on the interior wall (towards the front) making them more orgasmic during PiV or capable of g-spot (which doesn't exist ) orgasms.
> 
> Heck, vaginas are also different and depending on the position of the uterus and cervix, PiV may be painful (a tilted uterus for example can make PiV painful).
> 
> I chalk it up to different bodies and different strokes for different folks.


The point is moot unless you decide you want a different partner. I don't see that happening.


----------



## samyeagar

Miss Taken said:


> For me, the nervousness may be a misunderstanding of what men as exemplified by some of the responses on this thread and some in the former prostitute one are saying.
> 
> As I said in the post I made a second ago. Something like oral being a boundary.... well, I just can't relate to that. I don't want to make myself out to be a cvmslvt but I do enjoy and readily give oral sex...so that's why I couldn't relate to that example - although did get your point.
> 
> I think it was you who posted about raising the price of honesty so high. So what you said here:
> 
> 
> 
> relates to that for me. I am afraid - not with my current spouse but for any potential future ones of them having the attitude that I should do something like anal which I HAVE tried...Several times in this relationship but never liked it or even found it painful.
> 
> Is my willingness to try anal several times, (and we tried it several times because I was trying to keep an open mind and hoping to eventually like it going to like it but to no avail), going to be used against me by a future mate?
> 
> *Is he going to not believe me that I really don't like it or found it painful because I tried it more than once? Is he going to feel robbed and then pressure me into giving it to him because my ex got it and I don't want to try it with him? Is he going to suspect that I'm lying to him? That really it was a "special experience" held only to my ex (now current spouse) and I didn't want to spoil the memory of it no matter how much I insist that's not (and it isn't) the case?*
> 
> From what I hear in some of these responses is "yes", that the majority of men would expect that regardless of how I really felt about receiving anal, I should give anal to my new guy who should be most important to me, to make sex "the best" (for him of course because it truly wouldn't be the best for me). Or because he probably does things like go shopping with me and doesn't like that so I should bend over and take it?
> 
> I hope I'm wrong and if I am, someone please enlighten me because it does make me nervous.



I think where the complications around this really come into play is that people pay attention to far more than just what their partner says to them. Most people are willing to give their partner the benefit of the doubt and respect their feelings about certain things, but if there is a hint here, wink wink nudge nudge there with an old friend who asked how that ex is doing, a sense of dwelling, reminiscing, something that has an outward sign to the contrary, the credibility is eroded.


----------



## Rayloveshiswife

My wife had many lovers before me. But I've had just one, my wife. It has never bothered me as that is a past she left behind to be with me. It pisses me off how many men think its Ok for them to have been with many women but can't except that of a woman. Get over it. The only important issue is that your partner remains faithful to you for however long your relationship lasts 

Ray
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## treyvion

Miss Taken said:


> Nah, that door has closed.
> 
> I _*had *_the potential to be open-minded about anal until I had enough experience through experimenting to determine I don't like it and probably never will.
> 
> I am of the mind that if you don't like something the first time, try it again that's why I tried it again in every imaginable position and way possible. Don't think a different penis/partner will make a difference.
> 
> In this relationship (where we tried it) and future ones, it is not on the menu.


I'm not telling you what to do, but I'm telling you that the person does matter.

I've heard of it before where anal was a painful ordeal for all but their loving hubby. For some reason with the loving hubby she was more relaxed, and in more of a mode of bliss and surprisingly it did not hurt.

Since you gave other guys the opportunity to see that it hurt, you can perhaps let the loving loyal hubby have one chance to see that it hurts for himself, or it might not hurt.

However if you let him try one time, it kinda ends the argument and can take it off his mind.


----------



## firebelly1

Stealing from Married but Happy: You gonna try getting pegged Treyvion, if the wife wants to? Just once, to prove that it hurts?


----------



## treyvion

firebelly1 said:


> Stealing from Married but Happy: You gonna try getting pegged Treyvion, if the wife wants to? Just once, to prove that it hurts?


I don't have to but I can allow it if I choose to.


----------



## firebelly1

treyvion said:


> I don't have to but I can allow it if I choose to.


But SHOULD you? If a wife SHOULD allow her husband to try anal sex just once to prove that it hurts, then a husband SHOULD allow his wife to penetrate him with a strap on just once to prove that it hurts. Right? Spousal duty.


----------



## treyvion

firebelly1 said:


> But SHOULD you? If a wife SHOULD allow her husband to try anal sex just once to prove that it hurts, then a husband SHOULD allow his wife to penetrate him with a strap on just once to prove that it hurts. Right? Spousal duty.


She knows she allowed other less important men try it, possibly multiple times.

This time under her own she can let him try it so he can see for himself it hurts her, then he won't have to wonder any more.

I think she should to end the argument. But do it when she's ready and not under pressure.

She didn't die or get maimed the last time she did it and she will not this time either.


----------



## firebelly1

You aren't answering the question.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

the word "duty" should never be involved with sex....in anyway.


Now that aside, on the issue of what you've done with past lovers that you don't do now.

I would take offense if my wife loved giving hummers to numerous men and then got married and suddenly "found it humiliating". It's one thing to try something once or twice in your past and realize it's not for you, or because of your partner's anatomy something is painful where it wasn't before. 

It's an entirely different thing to be into something, multiple times with multiple people and then take it off the table. 

Something is up with that and it's not a healthy situation. Unless some trauma happened to my wife in between the other lovers and me that impacted her, I'd have an issue with that. But she wouldn't have made it to being my wife in that case either, so I guess it's somewhat moot.


----------



## norajane

treyvion said:


> She knows she allowed other less important men try it, possibly multiple times.
> 
> *This time under her own she can let him try it so he can see for himself it hurts her, then he won't have to wonder any more.*
> 
> I think she should to end the argument. But do it when she's ready and not under pressure.
> 
> She didn't die or get maimed the last time she did it and she will not this time either.


How does letting him try it on her PROVE that it hurts so he doesn't have to wonder anymore? Wouldn't PROVING it hurts require HIM to undergo the pain? It's not like he is going to feel her pain. If he didn't believe her when she TOLD him it hurt when she tried it before, why would he believe when she TELLS him it hurts with him, too? He's still not going to feel her pain and would be relying on her word.

Why does he need her to go through pain to be satisfied?


----------



## samyeagar

Before we go too far down the road of it being only men who get upset by their partner doing things with other men, but not them...this is something that happens with some women as well.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

treyvion said:


> She knows she allowed other less important men try it, possibly multiple times.
> 
> This time under her own she can let him try it so he can see for himself it hurts her, then he won't have to wonder any more.
> 
> I think she should to end the argument. But do it when she's ready and not under pressure.
> 
> She didn't die or get maimed the last time she did it and she will not this time either.


I totally disagree here. It's okay to have boundaries.

The largest thing entering me is a finger....sorry no interest in anything else. I'm also not going to have a shaft slid down inside my penis, no interest in enemas, scat, golden showers etc.

I don't need to try it, I know I'm not into it. If my wife pushed the issue, I might concede on some...but DEFINITELY not all.

PS what's good for the goose is good for the gander in sex. So yes....if you set the rules that the wife "should try" just to see...so goes for the husband. 

There's also the trust factor that would be unrepairable. My job as a husband is to make my wife feel safe. Well if I'm pressuring her to do things she ALREADY KNOWS are painful, what have I become. That borders on sexual assault via coercion in my book. And what happens once the act starts and...go figure...it hurts? I've just stripped away her trust in me as a lover....sorry...too steep of a price to pay for a little "tail".


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> Before we go too far down the road of it being only men who get upset by their partner doing things with other men, but not them...this is something that happens with some women as well.


Thread is specifically asked about women's past but yeah. And I think this applies to emotional things too. I would be upset if I knew that my SO had shared a secret or memory with a past gf that he was reluctant to share with me.


----------



## Buddy400

Following the "doing for your SO what you've done for other men" portion of this thread...

The discussion seems to get muddled by discussing things that the woman has tried with others but found unpleasant. 

Let me try to clear things up by using a very typical example; swallowing.

Lets say that your wife has swallowed for other men but doesn't want to do it for you. She has never "liked" it but did it anyway to make the other men happy because they were a$$holes that didn't care about her feelings. However she thinks that, since you are a better person than the other men and you love her, you shouldn't ask her to do something that she really doesn't enjoy. 

I can see how this might make sense to her. After all, if she doesn't enjoy it, why would you want her to do it? But, this is exactly the problem. One doesn't make sacrifices, for people they don't care about, they make them for people they DO care about. So, she would do something unpleasant for someone less deserving but wouldn't do it for you, the love of her life?

So, what's the reward for being the "good guy" that cares about her? In this case, there is no reward. In fact, you don't get something that "bad guys" would. This is going to drive 98% of men crazy and they just aren't going to be able to understand it.

I don't know how often such things happen IRL (it hasn't happened in my life), but just the thought that this could happen or that women might feel this way bugs the crap out of men.


----------



## Miss Taken

treyvion said:


> Since you gave other guys the opportunity to see that it hurt, you can perhaps let the loving loyal hubby have one chance to see that it hurts for himself, or it might not hurt.
> 
> However if you let him try one time, it kinda ends the argument and can take it off his mind.





treyvion said:


> She knows she allowed other less important men try it, possibly multiple times.
> 
> This time under her own she can let him try it so he can see for himself it hurts her, then he won't have to wonder any more.
> 
> I think she should to end the argument. But do it when she's ready and not under pressure.
> 
> She didn't die or get maimed the last time she did it and she will not this time either.



I imagine that's the kind of thinking that led us to trying it several times over despite my lack of enjoyment with it. "_If you don't like it that way, how about we try it like this? Still no good? Okay, let's try it this way now..."_ Lather, rinse and repeat until I finally had enough. 

I imagine that for the next guy who suggested this it would be the same. Then if that relationship ended...then the next one same thing. 

It makes me wonder how many times and with how many men should I be required or encouraged to try something until I am to be believed/it is finally accepted that it's not enjoyable?


----------



## norajane

Some of us grow up and mature and realize we don't have to do stuff we don't like during sex. Some of us try a lot of different things when we first start having sex in order to determine what we like and don't like and then develop our boundaries. Some of us start to like things we didn't, and start to hate things we used to like, because our bodies or minds have changed over the years. Some of us find that things used to be a turn on because they were new and taboo, but are no longer a turn on whatsoever.

Every person has personal autonomy over their brains and bodies. If you can't accept that, then you should NEVER get married because you will NEVER own another person's mind or body, period, and _you have no right _to expect a person to do what you want sexually just because you want it. I don't get why this concept is so freaking offensive to people. YOU DO NOT OWN ANYBODY.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Buddy400 said:


> Following the "doing for your SO what you've done for other men" portion of this thread...
> 
> The discussion seems to get muddled by discussing things that the woman has tried with others but found unpleasant.
> 
> Let me try to clear things up by using a very typical example; swallowing.
> 
> Lets say that your wife has swallowed for other men but doesn't want to do it for you. She has never "liked" it but did it anyway to make the other men happy because they were a$$holes that didn't care about her feelings. However she thinks that, since you are a better person than the other men and you love her, you shouldn't ask her to do something that she really doesn't enjoy.
> 
> I can see how this might make sense to her. After all, if she doesn't enjoy it, why would you want her to do it? But, this is exactly the problem. One doesn't make sacrifices, for people they don't care about, they make them for people they DO care about. So, she would do something unpleasant for someone less deserving but wouldn't do it for you, the love of her life?
> 
> So, what's the reward for being the "good guy" that cares about her? In this case, there is no reward. In fact, you don't get something that "bad guys" would. This is going to drive 98% of men crazy and they just aren't going to be able to understand it.
> 
> I don't know how often such things happen IRL (it hasn't happened in my life), but just the thought that this could happen or that women might feel this way bugs the crap out of men.


She didn't stay with her exs. She probably left them because they were jerks. The reward for being a good guy is that she wants to be with you. If you could pick, which would be more important? It's fine if swallowing, or whatever it is, to be important to you. Make sure it's known at the start, make sure you find someone who will do it for you. Don't say "it's ok that you don't" and then find out she did before and change your mind.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Buddy400 said:


> Following the "doing for your SO what you've done for other men" portion of this thread...
> 
> The discussion seems to get muddled by discussing things that the woman has tried with others but found unpleasant.
> 
> Let me try to clear things up by using a very typical example; swallowing.
> 
> Lets say that your wife has swallowed for other men but doesn't want to do it for you. She has never "liked" it but did it anyway to make the other men happy because they were a$$holes that didn't care about her feelings. However she thinks that, since you are a better person than the other men and you love her, you shouldn't ask her to do something that she really doesn't enjoy.
> 
> I can see how this might make sense to her. After all, if she doesn't enjoy it, why would you want her to do it? But, this is exactly the problem. One doesn't make sacrifices, for people they don't care about, they make them for people they DO care about. So, she would do something unpleasant for someone less deserving but wouldn't do it for you, the love of her life?
> 
> *So, what's the reward for being the "good guy" *that cares about her? In this case, there is no reward. In fact, you don't get something that "bad guys" would. This is going to drive 98% of men crazy and they just aren't going to be able to understand it.
> 
> I don't know how often such things happen IRL (it hasn't happened in my life), but just the thought that this could happen or that women might feel this way bugs the crap out of men.


I address the "reward"....having a wife who loves having sex with her husband.

So you'd rather get the thrill of having your wife swallow, even though you know she doesn't like it...than accepting she doesn't like it and "forcing" her to do it.

How long do you think she'll keep giving BJ's....because that's the easiest way to stop from swallowing....

I can actually relate to this....my wife used to swallow more, because it was a way to please her partner..and that's what she got out of it...but I'm a "shooter" we'll say (like if I'm laying down, it can sometimes go over my head and hit the wall) and she LOVES watching how I shoot (volume and distance)....well she doesn't swallow for me as much...because she's getting a thrill out of watching me shoot....Now I could get upset that she doesn't swallow as often....or I can relish the bj's I get (pretty much whenever I want) and that she gets a huge turn on from watching me shoot.....

Sorry that's a no brainer to me.


----------



## I Don't Know

I like that example, Buddy. 

I wouldn't want my wife to do anything she tried once or even a few times and hated or was painful. But, if it was something that was routine for her a-hole ex and she just would not do it with me... I would be hurt by that. She's told me over and over no one has ever loved her like I do and vice versa. If that's the case why would she do something for someone else that she wouldn't do for me? 

I guess it is more why did his happiness count for more than mine? And here's where it gets weird. She did things to make him happy BECAUSE he treated her bad. She felt if she did enough, he'd love her more and stop cheating. With me, I love her regardless. So she doesn't feel like she needs to do those things. And that's where most guys (inc. me) would get hung up. People who treat you bad or didn't matter at all to you, get their every desire met. But the most important guy in your life EVER, the one who's love and devotion doesn't have to be bought is denied. 

Again, I'd like to emphasize that I am NOT talking about things that were painful, humiliating, traumatizing, or anything like that. I'm only talking about acts that maybe weren't your favorite thing ever but were tolerable. Also, as far as I know there is only one thing my wife agreed to (but never actually did) with her ex that she won't do with me and that is a 3 way. Her reasons are that he cheated all the time anyway so why not, but with me it would hurt her too much. I understand that and wouldn't want to do it anyway.


----------



## pragmaster

So it seems we have concluded the following:

-Experience does not equal skill.
-Sexual experiences are subjective. 
-People change and so do their preferences. 


Two other cents of mine:

-Anal sex is not biologically logical.
-LD ppl suck. 
-Humans are strange.


----------



## Miss Taken

Buddy400 said:


> Following the "doing for your SO what you've done for other men" portion of this thread...
> 
> The discussion seems to get muddled by discussing things that the woman has tried with others but found unpleasant.
> 
> Let me try to clear things up by using a very typical example; swallowing.
> 
> Lets say that your wife has swallowed for other men but doesn't want to do it for you. She has never "liked" it but did it anyway to make the other men happy because they were a$$holes that didn't care about her feelings. However she thinks that, since you are a better person than the other men and you love her, you shouldn't ask her to do something that she really doesn't enjoy.
> 
> I can see how this might make sense to her. After all, if she doesn't enjoy it, why would you want her to do it? But, this is exactly the problem. One doesn't make sacrifices, for people they don't care about, they make them for people they DO care about. So, she would do something unpleasant for someone less deserving but wouldn't do it for you, the love of her life?
> 
> So, what's the reward for being the "good guy" that cares about her? In this case, there is no reward. In fact, you don't get something that "bad guys" would. This is going to drive 98% of men crazy and they just aren't going to be able to understand it.


Again, oral/swallowing examples are too vanilla for me. So long as he doesn't taste really funky and it's not a gag reflex issue, I think most women should and probably do swallow. Unlike anal, there is more of a good for the goose/gander element as men taste a woman's fluids when he performs cunnilingus on her. This assuming most people engaging in oral sex on women don't use dental dams and those engaging in anal it's generally the man penetrating the woman vs the other way around. 

So it would be easier to answer if instead of the past act being "swallowing", I imagine it was something more extreme. Something like, she used to wear a paper bag over her head, a dog collar and leash around her neck and wore red body paint with the words "Pig" painted all over her body for these jerks.

Now she meets good and caring hubby, tells him about it and he is peeved that he doesn't get the same treatment. 

I don't think it's good or caring to make someone re-enact/relive something they were doing purposely out of self-destruction probably during a period of self-loathing and low self-worth.


----------



## norajane

I Don't Know said:


> I like that example, Buddy.
> 
> I wouldn't want my wife to do anything she tried once or even a few times and hated or was painful. But, if it was something that was routine for her a-hole ex and she just would not do it with me... I would be hurt by that. She's told me over and over no one has ever loved her like I do and vice versa. If that's the case why would she do something for someone else that she wouldn't do for me?
> 
> I guess it is more why did his happiness count for more than mine? And here's where it gets weird. She did things to make him happy BECAUSE he treated her bad. She felt if she did enough, he'd love her more and stop cheating. With me, I love her regardless. So she doesn't feel like she needs to do those things. And that's where most guys (inc. me) would get hung up. People who treat you bad or didn't matter at all to you, get their every desire met. But the most important guy in your life EVER, the one who's love and devotion doesn't have to be bought is denied.
> 
> Again, I'd like to emphasize that I am NOT talking about things that were painful, humiliating, traumatizing, or anything like that. I'm only talking about acts that maybe weren't your favorite thing ever but were tolerable. Also, as far as I know there is only one thing my wife agreed to (but never actually did) with her ex that she won't do with me and that is a 3 way. Her reasons are that he cheated all the time anyway so why not, but with me it would hurt her too much. I understand that and wouldn't want to do it anyway.


I will repeat this:



> *Some of us grow up and mature and realize we don't have to do stuff we don't like during sex.* Some of us try a lot of different things when we first start having sex in order to determine what we like and don't like and then develop our boundaries. Some of us start to like things we didn't, and start to hate things we used to like, because our bodies or minds have changed over the years. Some of us find that things used to be a turn on because they were new and taboo, but are no longer a turn on whatsoever.


Young people get a lot of mixed messages about sex. Women, in particular, often do things when they are younger in order to get or keep a boyfriend. Stupid and wrong, yes. Common, yes. Once they mature and develop a sense of self and self-esteem, they don't do the stupid sh*t they might have done like performing sex acts they aren't into in order to get or keep a man.

Either you enjoy the sex life you have with your gf and marry her, or don't enjoy it and don't marry her. Getting all bent out of shape because your partner's sexuality has changed over time is futile, especially because it has nothing to do with you and everything to do with how she has developed over time as a person into who she is at the time you started seeing her.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> I will repeat this:
> 
> 
> 
> Young people get a lot of mixed messages about sex. Women, in particular, often do things when they are younger in order to get or keep a boyfriend. Stupid and wrong, yes. Common, yes. Once they mature and develop a sense of self and self-esteem, they don't do the stupid sh*t they might have done like performing sex acts they aren't into in order to get or keep a man.
> 
> Either you enjoy the sex life you have with your gf and marry her, or don't enjoy it and don't marry her. Getting all bent out of shape because your partner's sexuality has changed over time is futile, especially because it has nothing to do with you and everything to do with how she has developed over time as a person into who she is at the time you started seeing her.


I might be happy with some explanations that I understood. But, if there appears to be no other reason than she felt the need to make the previous guy(s) happy and doesn't feel the same need to make me happy. I'd have a problem with that. I'd probably have to leave. For THAT reason; not because I need the actual act performed.

Women are, of course, free to think whatever they want about this issue. But understand that most men aren't going to be happy about it.


----------



## Buddy400

Miss Taken said:


> Again, oral/swallowing examples are too vanilla for me.


I used the oral/swallowing example for precisely that reason. Because it is so vanilla. I think this allows discussion to focus more on the underlying issues instead of the nature of the act itself.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> _you have no right _to expect a person to do what you want sexually just because you want it. I don't get why this concept is so freaking offensive to people. YOU DO NOT OWN ANYBODY.


Does this apply in general? Or only regarding sex?

Is it also true that you have no right to expect a person to do what you want just because you want it?


----------



## firebelly1

I thought the swallowing example was good because it's close to vanilla but not quite. For me I can swallow on some guys and some not because of the differences in taste and smell. My next SO might pick the short straw on that one.


----------



## samyeagar

Here is a non sexual example of doing for a past partner, but not the current one...

With her ex husband, my wife would get home from work, make dinner and fix her ex husbands plate and bring it to him while he just sat on his ass. For me, in my life experiences, having my wife fix my plate and bring it to me would be a huge act of love and caring, one that her ex husband got. One I don't. For her, in her life experiences, it was an expectation, one less fight to be had if she did it, and did it right.

We have talked about this in the past, and yeah, it does bug me a bit. It does leave a small feeling of why him, and not me. She did kind of shut me down when she said that she knew me well enough to know that she didn't really think I would want her to be doing that for me, that I would be more likely to want it the other way around. She was absolutely right. It's not something I would be comfortable with her doing like that. But it still bugged me.

That said, on the few occasions where we aren't making dinner together, and she makes it by herself if I am too busy to do it, she has, a couple of times made my plate for me and brought it to me. Very memorable, and exceedingly special to me.


----------



## norajane

Buddy400 said:


> I might be happy with some explanations that I understood. But, if there appears to be no other reason than she felt the need to make the previous guy(s) happy and doesn't feel the same need to make me happy. I'd have a problem with that. I'd probably have to leave. For THAT reason; not because I need the actual act performed.
> 
> Women are, of course, free to think whatever they want about this issue. But understand that most men aren't going to be happy about it.


Are you the same person you were at 19? Do you do exactly the same things and think exactly the same way as you did then? If you had been a doormat in a previous relationship but have learned and developed a sense of self-esteem and are no longer a doormat, is it ok that your wife expect you to be a doormat for her now when she finds out you used to be a doormat in previous relationships?

Some people can grow up and away from being doormats.


----------



## Miss Taken

norajane said:


> Young people get a lot of mixed messages about sex. Women, in particular, often do things when they are younger in order to get or keep a boyfriend. Stupid and wrong, yes. Common, yes.


QFT

How often do we as women hear things like:

"Be a lady in the street, a freak in the sheets."

"Keep his belly full and his testicles empty!"

"A lamb in the kitchen, a tigress in the bedroom."

"If you don't do it, he'll find someone else that will." 

"The three things a man needs: a beer, a sandwich and some sex."

Etc.?

Foolish woman _that I was_, I took way too many of those things to heart for the wrong reasons. One of them was I believe admirable and out of a genuine desire to please my partner. However, the misguided ones were based in fear of what may happen if I did not do certain things. 

Well, what I was afraid of still happened (part of me is now glad in a way that they did). And when they did I kicked him to the curb but I also (and part of why I said I was glad), I woke up to exactly this:



norajane said:


> Once they mature and develop a sense of self and self-esteem, they don't do the stupid sh*t they might have done like performing sex acts they aren't into in order to get or keep a man.


Now we did end up back together - not at all an easy feat on either of our parts. On the other end of all of that drama, I still have genuine love for him. Moreover, I still have a genuine desire to please him but that's not now and will never again be at the expense of my own happiness, worth, feelings etc. 

If he's not happy with my boundaries...or a future man isn't happy with them there is always the door. Now I might not do everything on the old list anymore but the things that are still on the list or get added to it (eleven years in and we're still exploring each other) bring BOTH of us pleasure and are done for the right reasons.


----------



## norajane

Buddy400 said:


> Does this apply in general? Or only regarding sex?
> 
> Is it also true that you have no right to expect a person to do what you want just because you want it?


We never own anybody in any way. And no, you have no _right_ to expect anyone to do anything JUST BECAUSE you want it. If the things they do or don't want to do are not compatible with you, don't marry them.

I have no right to expect my SO to change jobs just because I want him to. I might be able to make a logical case for it, but I can't expect him to do it solely because I might want him to.

I have no right to expect my SO to give me flowers on my birthday. I might express that I'd like it, and if he were willing, he might do it. But if he gets me a set of LED light bulbs instead, I would thank him because it's hard to find regular light bulbs in the stores now that the law has taken effect and LED's are expensive. I might then buy my own flowers.

I have no right to expect my SO to give up friends that I consider toxic. If he disagrees and I don't like it, I do have a right to walk away or try to make my case or take it to MC, but I don't have a right to force him in any way to do it.

I have no right to expect my SO will clean up after himself. I don't have to do it for him, and I have the right to lose affection and respect for him, and I might not marry him if he is the type who doesn't clean up after himself, but I have no right to expect him to be somebody he isn't.


----------



## Thundarr

The last pages seem like extremes and not very common in relationships.

It would take this list of conditions for most guys to be frustrated.
1. something she previously enjoyed.
2. and told him she enjoyed.
3. and doesn't violate monogamy in general.
4. and something she won't do now.
5. and something she won't compromise on.
- Slim odds of all of that.

It would take this list of conditions for most women to be frustrated.
1. It has to be something he feels utterly entitled to with no concern of her feelings.
2. and something he won't compromise on.
- Slim odds of this as well even though I think it sounds that way sometimes.


----------



## Miss Taken

Buddy400 said:


> I used the oral/swallowing example for precisely that reason. Because it is so vanilla. I think this allows discussion to focus more on the underlying issues instead of the nature of the act itself.


Fair enough. My answer is still the same. Not loving to make your spouse repeat something they were doing out of self-loathing... I just used my own example (for me to answer your question) as I don't find swallowing degrading. Still, feelings between my example (not a real one) and yours would be the same. 



firebelly1 said:


> I thought the swallowing example was good because it's close to vanilla but not quite. For me I can swallow on some guys and some not because of the differences in taste and smell. My next SO might pick the short straw on that one.


I can see how this could be true. In answering, I think I take it for granted now as "vanilla" since it's been eleven years with the same man it's par for the course now. I've read men say some women taste different...some downright offensive so it must be true for men tasting different also.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

intheory said:


> Cleigh,
> 
> I find it interesting that he was a virgin and you were very experienced.
> 
> Do you think being with a virgin was in some way "refreshing" to you after being in many relationships? Like, special to you 'cause (so far at least), you're the only one. Did it give you new life emotionally? Realizing he was a "blank canvas", so to speak. I mean, it's really beautiful in a way.
> 
> I just wonder. 'Cause this is something that I will always miss having. I'll never be that significant to anyone.
> 
> If that's too personal, I understand you not answering. I don't mean to be overly intrusive.


One of my best friends growing up. her Parents had a similar story...My Mom was good friends with her MOM...& she shared with me about their beginnings...

I guess she had many partners, even gave a baby up for adoption at one point....she was Outgoing, feisty, kinda loud (I used to be afraid of her)... who did she marry... 

The shy town Virgin.. they had a love of horses.. and built a Horse farm together.. happily married till the end.. when he died , she collapsed.. When I heard this ( hadn't seen them in years , I got a tear).. 

I guess she told my Mother back then....she had enough of those other type guys -didn't want them!!!! * She wanted an inexperienced Man*.. and he was fine with her too ! I remember playing at their house, spent many nights... what opposite temperaments those 2 had.. WOW.. you wouldn't even know he was there.. and boy was she Over the TOP....

But I guess he could lay the law down if she got too out of hand.. there was respect there. 

It's not the normal Love story by far... but if it's meant to be.. if the chemistry is right.. it can work well.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> Are you the same person you were at 19? Do you do exactly the same things and think exactly the same way as you did then? If you had been a doormat in a previous relationship but have learned and developed a sense of self-esteem and are no longer a doormat, is it ok that your wife expect you to be a doormat for her now when she finds out you used to be a doormat in previous relationships?
> 
> Some people can grow up and away from being doormats.


Could you do me a favor and directly respond to the following?

"But, if there appears to be no other reason than she felt the need to make the previous guy(s) happy and doesn't feel the same need to make me happy. I'd have a problem with that."

If she told me that she used to like doing that but now doesn't because she finds it demeaning, or her taste buds have changed, etc that's one thing. But what about the situation where she just doesn't feel like going to the same effort to make me happy that she did for other guys?


----------



## norajane

Buddy400 said:


> Could you do me a favor and directly respond to the following?
> 
> "But, if there appears to be no other reason than she felt the need to make the previous guy(s) happy and doesn't feel the same need to make me happy. I'd have a problem with that."
> 
> If she told me that she used to like doing that but now doesn't because she finds it demeaning, or her taste buds have changed, etc that's one thing. But what about the situation where she just doesn't feel like going to the same effort to make me happy that she did for other guys?


I highly doubt that scenario is common. And I suspect there would be more guys who simply would not believe that her tastes changed or she matured and developed different tastes or that it's painful (no, you must do it anyway and prove to me how painful it is!). We've seen it on this thread - some men won't accept any reason and will assume that it's just that she doesn't care about him.

_Appearing _that she won't do something because she doesn't care to make her H happy, doesn't mean that's the reason. It just might _appear _that way if she won't talk (because she doesn't feel safe to) or he won't believe what she says.

But if the _only _reason she won't do something is she doesn't care about you, that's a problem and likely manifests in many other ways in the marriage, too.


----------



## devotion

I was curious so I asked my girlfriend (again to summarize, she's been with one guy before me, just like I've been with one girl before her) and she told me that a 'high' number would have bugged her too. She doesn't know what that number is (in no world is 1 a high number I guess ) but at least to her it would matter too. 

As per the recent discussion of her doing sexual things with previous boyfriends and not you, yeah, its a tough one if its something that new partner wants and you know your SO has done it before but doesn't want to do it again. That's why I actually don't think its good to discuss specifics since it will create envy.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> We never own anybody in any way. And no, you have no _right_ to expect anyone to do anything JUST BECAUSE you want it. If the things they do or don't want to do are not compatible with you, don't marry them.
> 
> I have no right to expect my SO to change jobs just because I want him to. I might be able to make a logical case for it, but I can't expect him to do it solely because I might want him to.
> 
> I have no right to expect my SO to give me flowers on my birthday. I might express that I'd like it, and if he were willing, he might do it. But if he gets me a set of LED light bulbs instead, I would thank him because it's hard to find regular light bulbs in the stores now that the law has taken effect and LED's are expensive. I might then buy my own flowers.
> 
> I have no right to expect my SO to give up friends that I consider toxic. If he disagrees and I don't like it, I do have a right to walk away or try to make my case or take it to MC, but I don't have a right to force him in any way to do it.
> 
> I have no right to expect my SO will clean up after himself. I don't have to do it for him, and I have the right to lose affection and respect for him, and I might not marry him if he is the type who doesn't clean up after himself, but I have no right to expect him to be somebody he isn't.


I think we might be getting too hung up on semantics here. Of course, in one sense, no one has a "right" to anything.

However, if substituting "expectation" instead of "right" yields the same list, then that would seem to be a recipe for unhappiness. The only good relationship would be where one's needs exactly match those of another. And then it would be just due to happenstance, not because of any virtue on anyone's part.

I have an expectation that my wife, assuming that she loves me and cares about my happiness, will some times place my desires above her own. I certainly do the same for her. I am in an extraordinarily happy marriage and I regularly do things for her that I would not do on my own. Of course, this can go too far. But I don't know how one could have a successful relationship without compromise from both partners.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Buddy400 said:


> Could you do me a favor and directly respond to the following?
> 
> "But, if there appears to be no other reason than she felt the need to make the previous guy(s) happy and doesn't feel the same need to make me happy. I'd have a problem with that."
> 
> If she told me that she used to like doing that but now doesn't because she finds it demeaning, or her taste buds have changed, etc that's one thing. But what about the situation where she just doesn't feel like going to the same effort to make me happy that she did for other guys?


But why the need to make him happy? So he wasn't a jerk to her? So she wouldn't have to listen to hours of complaining and yelling? So he woudn't become abusive? As someone who has 'made someone happy' so I could live comfortably, I wouldn't want it to come back to bite me. It wasn't done out of love and respect. 

When making someone happy makes the giver unhappy, where's the line? There are ways to compromise so you can both give and take a little. 

Now, if it's that she loved and respected him way more than you and doesn't have the same feelings for you, the problems are a lot bigger than just getting her to preform the same tasks she did for him. That's not going to change how she feels, except maybe more negativly to you.

For everything else - If you take her past out of the equation- is it still a deal breaker for you? If not then forget about what she _used _to do and focus on who she is now.


----------



## I Don't Know

norajane said:


> I will repeat this:
> 
> 
> 
> Young people get a lot of mixed messages about sex. *Women, in particular, often do things when they are younger in order to get or keep a boyfriend. Stupid and wrong, yes. Common, yes.* Once they mature and develop a sense of self and self-esteem, they don't do the stupid sh*t they might have done like performing sex acts they aren't into in order to get or keep a man.
> 
> Either you enjoy the sex life you have with your gf and marry her, or don't enjoy it and don't marry her. Getting all bent out of shape because your partner's sexuality has changed over time is futile, especially because it has nothing to do with you and everything to do with how she has developed over time as a person into who she is at the time you started seeing her.


I get that. Really, I do. And once more, I wouldn't want her to do anything that was below a 5 on her love it - hate it scale. But if performing an act that I am basically indifferent about is too much to ask, then I would question how much I want to please my partner.

My wife's ex used toys on her. Sometimes she liked it, sometimes she didn't (when he used big ones) but they did it pretty regularly. I wouldn't want to use large toys that hurt her, but IF I wanted to experiment with "regular" toys with her and she refused I wouldn't be happy. She did it with him and enjoyed it. I'm not asking to hurt her. I'm not asking her to do stupid sh!t. It's to most people a perfectly reasonable sex act. It would make me happy to do it. So why refuse?

I don't think most guys here are talking about any "extreme" acts. We are talking about common, pleasurable, loving acts. At very worst we're talking about acts to which she might feel, meh.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> I highly doubt that scenario is common.


I don't know that it's common either.

But, it is what guys fear. It's how they interpret such behavior. 

So, if you are a woman and there is a better explanation that this. It would be a good idea to spell it out.


----------



## samyeagar

I Don't Know said:


> I get that. Really, I do. And once more, I wouldn't want her to do anything that was below a 5 on her love it - hate it scale. But if performing an act that I am basically indifferent about is too much to ask, then I would question how much I want to please my partner.
> 
> My wife's ex used toys on her. Sometimes she liked it, sometimes she didn't (when he used big ones) but they did it pretty regularly. I wouldn't want to use large toys that hurt her, but IF I wanted to experiment with "regular" toys with her and she refused I wouldn't be happy. She did it with him and enjoyed it. I'm not asking to hurt her. I'm not asking her to do stupid sh!t. It's to most people a perfectly reasonable sex act. It would make me happy to do it. So why refuse?
> 
> I don't think most guys here are talking about any "extreme" acts. We are talking about common, pleasurable, loving acts. At very worst we're talking about acts to which she might feel, meh.


Funny you mention toys. My personal experience with this is the exact opposite. My ex wife and I used toys a lot, lots of experimentation with them. I didn't really enjoy it at all, but did it anyway because she did. 

When my current wife and I were getting to know each other, and were talking about sex, I told her I was not really into toys and preferred not to use them, and left it at that. Toys never really became part of our bedroom activities because she had never really been into them either, and respected my lack of desire to use them. 

Fast forward a couple of years, my wife started to become more curious about toys. I still had no interest and let her know I had no interest...then she learned that my ex wife and I used them a lot...and you could say the proverbial sh1t hit the fan.


----------



## firebelly1

Buddy400 said:


> Could you do me a favor and directly respond to the following?
> 
> "But, if there appears to be no other reason than she felt the need to make the previous guy(s) happy and doesn't feel the same need to make me happy. I'd have a problem with that."
> 
> If she told me that she used to like doing that but now doesn't because she finds it demeaning, or her taste buds have changed, etc that's one thing. But what about the situation where she just doesn't feel like going to the same effort to make me happy that she did for other guys?


Have you experienced that? 'Cause like Thundarr said, I just think that must be a rare occasion. Why would I not want to continue doing something I enjoyed?


----------



## I Don't Know

Could this be a case of the pendulum swinging too far the other way? 

"I did A with a-hole ex and hated it, but I know now that I don't have to do anything. Therefore, even though I don't hate B, it's not my favorite thing so I'm not doing that either."

If so that sounds like punishing the wrong guy.

Yes, every one has every right not to do anything at all. If I don't want to kiss my wife, that's my right. But, I'd be stupid to think she'd stay happy very long if I didn't.


----------



## I Don't Know

firebelly1 said:


> Have you experienced that? 'Cause like Thundarr said, I just think that must be a rare occasion. Why would I not want to continue doing something I enjoyed?


There was a thread here where this is what appeared to have happened. Could have been a troll or just the guy's perception, but the way he described it was pretty much, "No! Because I said so."

On another note, not directed at FB. I've only seen one person say "do it anyway and prove it hurts" everyone else has been more along the lines of, if there is a reason tell me and we're good.


----------



## Buddy400

firebelly1 said:


> Have you experienced that? 'Cause like Thundarr said, I just think that must be a rare occasion. Why would I not want to continue doing something I enjoyed?


Nope. Never have.

The thing is, even though it's only a theoretical point, just thinking about it makes me crazy!

What I don't think the women here understand is that we would react so strongly to this.

So, in the interest of fair play, why do so many women here get such a visceral reaction the other way?

Read Sam's post about making a plate. This is exactly the same issue. But, because it involves sex, women put it off as just another "weird sex guy thing". It's almost like when guys mention anything to do with sex, women just write it off. They don't realize that it's a "people" thing with a sub-category of "sex".

Why do guys get so crazy about it? We want to be good guys. But we have the sneaking suspicion (valid more often that we'd like to think) that the chicks dig the bad boys and treat them better than they do us. Again, hasn't happened to me. And I'm still pissed about it. Just imagine how the guys this HAS happened to feel!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

norajane said:


> Some of us grow up and mature and realize we don't have to do stuff we don't like during sex. Some of us try a lot of different things when we first start having sex in order to determine what we like and don't like and then develop our boundaries. Some of us start to like things we didn't, and start to hate things we used to like, because our bodies or minds have changed over the years. Some of us find that things used to be a turn on because they were new and taboo, but are no longer a turn on whatsoever.
> 
> *Every person has personal autonomy over their brains and bodies. If you can't accept that, then you should NEVER get married because you will NEVER own another person's mind or body, period, and you have no right to expect a person to do what you want sexually just because you want it. I don't get why this concept is so freaking offensive to people. YOU DO NOT OWN ANYBODY.*


 I have a different perspective on this.. I feel when we marry...we are to become "One" with our Lovers... now granted.. I can not stress enough for women to be very very very careful who you let into their lives.. . do they treat you with the utmost love & care, looking to fulfill your needs, wanting your happiness as much if not more so than his own?? 

If a man gives any sort of *demeaning behavior* to us while dating....would we even want to stay ?? 

I suppose many do.. and in this vein.. comes this need to protect ourselves -feeling he seeks to use us, or we start feeling emotionally violated if he speaks how he feels in this.. granted if other men were in a woman's past.. 

Personally ... I am inspired by these words..I find them beautiful.. this is how myself & husband look at it.... .... when our men Love us as they SHOULD... we would want to give back to him..and give our very best..to cater to his wants, desires , needs.. because he lives this unto us... 

I guess the disconnect here is ... many of the men who come to this forum have been hurt deeply by their wives, more of the nice guy variety..... where as many of the women may have been hurt by their husbands being MORE of the taker/ selfish ... so when a subject like THIS arises.. each is looking through their own personal experiences ...the woman simply can't TAKE anymore -she feels she has given enough..... and the men here may feel.. again.. very hurt ..(then some of those may even question if their wives are secretly still pining for a former lover)...

We can all read the same thing but see a different canvas , so to speak.. I think this is what is happening here on this thread with the back & forths.

When I read *wmn1's* posts.. they are all about #1 pleasing each other.. treating each other with the best of care..this could be his mantra ...(in his own words) (post #242).... "*because making my wife happy is often more important than my own desires. It's called marriage and it's called pleasing your spouse. I abide by her ground rules as well.*"..... would anyone disagree with this ???



> *Buddy400 said*: I have an expectation that my wife, assuming that she loves me and cares about my happiness, will some times place my desires above her own. I certainly do the same for her. I am in an extraordinarily happy marriage and I regularly do things for her that I would not do on my own. Of course, this can go too far. But I don't know how one could have a successful relationship without compromise from both partners.


 as it should be..:iagree: so much of this just comes down to "attitude".. when it goes astray... it ruins everything and causes much hurt in it's wake..


----------



## Buddy400

firebelly1 said:


> Why would I not want to continue doing something I enjoyed?


Communication is not as easy as it seems

It would be better stated as "I did something that I felt indifferent about to make a previous partner happy. I now refuse to do the same thing that I still feel indifferent about to make you happy".


----------



## norajane

Buddy400 said:


> Nope. Never has.
> 
> The thing is, even though it's only a theoretical point, just thinking about it makes me crazy!
> 
> What I don't think the women here understand is that we would react so strongly to this.
> 
> So, in the interest of fair play, why do so many women here get such a visceral reaction the other way?
> 
> Read Sam's post about making a plate. This is exactly the same issue. But, because it involves sex, women put it off as just another "weird sex guy thing". It's almost like when guys mention anything to do with sex, women just write it off. They don't realize that it's a "people" thing with a sub-category of "sex".
> 
> Why do guys get so crazy about it? We want to be good guys. But we have the sneaking suspicion (valid more often that we'd like to think) that the chicks dig the bad boys and treat them better than they do us. Again, hasn't happened to me. And I'm still pissed about it. Just imagine how the guys this HAS happened to feel!


It's visceral because it's about sex and many women have experienced being pushed into sex or certain sex acts or to dress up or do things sexually they don't want to do. Just spread your legs and think of England! Aw, come on babe, just suck it! It's the third date and you're supposed to have sex with me dammit or I'll move on!

So when someone wants us to do something sexually we don't want to do and keeps pressing for it, we think their view isn't about mutual pleasure and it doesn't matter to them if we don't get any pleasure - it's only about *what they want to do TO us *for their own pleasure, and not WITH us to seek mutual pleasure. We feel like blow up dolls at that point where our feelings don't matter and it's just about what someone wants to do TO us. We feel objectified.

Enthusiastic consent, yes. Pushing and prodding and pressing and whining (but you did it for somebody else!), no. There is no joy there.


----------



## norajane

Buddy400 said:


> Communication is not as easy as it seems
> 
> It would be better stated as "I did something that I felt indifferent about to make a previous partner happy. I now refuse to do the same thing that I still feel indifferent about to make you happy".


I can guarantee that if a woman feels like she HAS to do something to make her partner happy and she is not into it, she will eventually grow to resent him. Those exes are EXES for a reason.

Opening the door to resenting sex and resenting their partner during sex is only going to create sexual problems where there weren't any before. How much sex is she going to want if she's always feeling like she has to do things she isn't into? What about all the things she IS into? What's wrong with doing those?


----------



## I Don't Know

Sam, I have pretty much the same experience with the making of the plate. Ex's dinner was ready at 5 and kept warm until whatever time he decided to come home. Also, his bath was ran for him and his clothing laid out. I have no interest in her doing this for me. I actually feel like that is beyond ridiculous for a grown man to demand to be treated like a little boy, but if I think too hard on it, it will start to bother me.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Buddy400 said:


> So, in the interest of fair play, why do so many women here get such a visceral reaction the other way?


The reasons it bothers me are;
That it's directly related to her past. If she did it for one, it is OWED to the other. She has to have a [email protected] good reason why she won't do it because "I just don't want to" isn't going to be good enough. That is punishing a woman for having a sex life before you. Specifically bringing up a past as a reason for her to do something she doesn't want to is unfair. IMO. If you want certain sex acts, communicate about it without bringing her exs into the mix. 

Look at the wording on the thread. "Better", "best", etc for sexual relationships that involved women doing things for someone when they didn't really want to, just did it because for whatever reason she felt she should at the time. 
Shouldn't the _better _treatment be the man who's wife gives out of love and within her comfort zone? Shouldn't it be _best _if a woman no longer feels pressure to preform to someone else's expectations and can enjoy a varity of things she DOES like with you, making her sexual relationship with you full of good things and not bad experiances? 

Because it's still viewing sex as something a woman does _for _her husband and not something they do together. She should give him the kind of sex he wants. He'll in return... go shopping with her? Sex is about 2 people. Once it starts becoming more about 1 of them over the other, and at the expense of the other, it's an issue.


----------



## treyvion

Buddy400 said:


> Could you do me a favor and directly respond to the following?
> 
> "But, if there appears to be no other reason than she felt the need to make the previous guy(s) happy and doesn't feel the same need to make me happy. I'd have a problem with that."
> 
> If she told me that she used to like doing that but now doesn't because she finds it demeaning, or her taste buds have changed, etc that's one thing. But what about the situation where she just doesn't feel like going to the same effort to make me happy that she did for other guys?


She knows she doesn't have to "extend" herself to make you happy. So she doesn't. You are happy with the crumbs and nuggets you currently get.

No guarantee if she wasn't with you the loyal and loving hubby that she wouldn't want to give a one night stand way more than you get from her. It's her body and her choice.


----------



## Buddy400

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The reasons it bothers me are;
> That it's directly related to her past. If she did it for one, it is OWED to the other. She has to have a [email protected] good reason why she won't do it because "I just don't want to" isn't going to be good enough. That is punishing a woman for having a sex life before you. Specifically bringing up a past as a reason for her to do something she doesn't want to is unfair. IMO. If you want certain sex acts, communicate about it without bringing her exs into the mix.
> 
> Look at the wording on the thread. "Better", "best", etc for sexual relationships that involved women doing things for someone when they didn't really want to, just did it because for whatever reason she felt she should at the time.
> Shouldn't the _better _treatment be the man who's wife gives out of love and within her comfort zone? Shouldn't it be _best _if a woman no longer feels pressure to preform to someone else's expectations and can enjoy a varity of things she DOES like with you, making her sexual relationship with you full of good things and not bad experiances?
> 
> Because it's still viewing sex as something a woman does _for _her husband and not something they do together. She should give him the kind of sex he wants. He'll in return... go shopping with her? Sex is about 2 people. Once it starts becoming more about 1 of them over the other, and at the expense of the other, it's an issue.


I'm pretty sure that, out of the views exchanged on this topic, can be gotten complete understanding of all male / female relationship problems and the solutions thereof.

I just can't come up with it at the moment.


----------



## I Don't Know

And should the "better" treated woman be the one that never gets flowers or random hugs or I love you texts through out the day or quality time spent with her because the man felt pressured to do them for previous women? Maybe trying to win some girls heart when he was young he did all these things and was ditched anyway, so now he has no desire to do them for a woman who DOES love him. That's ok? Or should he treat the woman who LOVES him and ACCEPTS him better than the ones that didn't.


----------



## I Don't Know

I'd like to rephrase "should he treat her better" to "why the hell wouldn't he want to treat her better?"


----------



## wmn1

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There's a big difference between shopping and doing something during sex that you don't want to do, only because you've done it with an ex and therefore owe your spouse the same.
> 
> If you were a man who didn't like receiving anal sex yet your wife insisted, that would be comparable.
> 
> I was trying to think of something I've tried but didn't like. I'm not a woman who's 'done it all' with others and not my spouse. But the oral example made me realize one.
> Coming from an abuse background, I can not be tied up or otherwise unable to escape my situation, like held down too forcefully. I've tried. It gives me panic attacks, flashbacks. Won't ever do it again. Believe it or not most women don't just stop something they enjoy for no reason.
> 
> If it's important to a man he should move on, he shouldn't get all pissy about the fact that he can't and stay getting more and more resentful by the day even though we're not compatible...
> 
> This is why having sex as part of getting to know someone is so important IMO. A lot of people who don't want to have a lot of partners would also not have the issues they do if they went through a few, or many, more until they found the right one.
> 
> My number is not high but if I find myself single again it very well could get there. I could find my match on the first try or it could be try #49. Who knows? But don't try to change your partner to suit you, or me to suit him, just find one that already does.


shopping was a soft analogy but it was used to illustrate a point.

I don't disagree with some of what you say, but I made it clear that there are parameters or limits on the extreme edge of a sexual relationship. I have them in mine. However, I also made it clear that compassion and flexibility in satisfying your partner's needs are paramount and if someone is hellbent on staying in a relationship despite denying those needs or desires, they themselves may be causing further relationship issues down the road.

I do agree that things should be discussed, parameters be set and most importantly, and something which I feel many miss here, give and take should be part of the deal, mentally, physically and sexually. If it's not, then don't be shocked when someone goes packing and walking away. i.e. don't have such a past and then hook up with someone who wants to still be adventurous and reel them in and be a prude. It takes sometimes one to recognize it's not going to work. Sometimes, it takes two.

And there's nothing wrong with those who don't go through partners like toilet paper. They may be saving themselves for the special person and in many cases, I am sure that's appreciated.


----------



## wmn1

Miss Taken said:


> THANK YOU!
> 
> So that's one vote for yes... some men are saying do it regardless of how you feel/think about it. One vote (JCD?) for saying it's okay to have this boundary.


No I feel you are misrepresenting people here.

People are saying that they don't feel it's right for one to do it with a bunch of exs and maybe even like it, then turn around, meet some guy who likes it and deprive him of it because you 'changed'. Yes, many men will respect your feelings but on the other hand many will be saying "what's wrong with me ?" It's human nature and won't be changed.

Some of it comes down to meeting the right person with the same values and desires. Some of it is people on the other hand wanting to become as someone here put it 'vanilla' when others aren't ready to do that.

I think everyone agrees that you have to make the right match. But on the other side, marital partners need to compromise as well. Where do some draw the line ? Some may draw the line in what acts they perform, some may draw the line in how many times they do it, or what times and under what conditions, some have changing lines which causes confusion. And finally some have what they term as deal breakers where it may not be a deal breaker with others. 

The one thing I resent in this thread is the "don't treat a woman this way" mantra because abuse, or games, or violated parameters goes both ways and I find it objectionable (not saying you said this or singling you or anybody out here) that men are being characterized in this thread as thoughtless sex machines who are out to take advantage of people. That is a bunch of garbage. You have players on both sides.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I Don't Know said:


> And should the "better" treated woman be the one that never gets flowers or random hugs or I love you texts through out the day or quality time spent with her because the man felt pressured to do them for previous women? Maybe trying to win some girls heart when he was young he did all these things and was ditched anyway, so now he has no desire to do them for a woman who DOES love him. That's ok? *Or should he treat the woman who LOVES him and ACCEPTS him better than the ones that didn't*.


He should realize, hopefully , what is in front of him.. and separate the 2 ... she deserves to have the same consideration, if not more ...but he has grown COLD.... why it is that so often we can't see what is right in front of us.. (hurt builds walls)

Really.. what this boils down to is...a form of Baggage.. in the sexual sense.... our former experiences shape so much of who we are, how we look at our world , at the opposite sex even... it has a way of blackening something that could have been beautiful with another -had it been expressed in love, mutual respect and honoring of each other..... 

Not as described here..



> *norajane said:* So when someone wants us to do something sexually we don't want to do and keeps pressing for it, we think their view isn't about mutual pleasure and it doesn't matter to them if we don't get any pleasure -* it's only about what they want to do TO us for their own pleasure, and not WITH us to seek mutual pleasure. We feel like blow up dolls at that point where our feelings don't matter and it's just about what someone wants to do TO us. We feel objectified*.


 this is very ugly.. hurtful behavior...


----------



## I Don't Know

It's funny, this discussion always goes to anal, threesomes, or bondage. Most of us arguing the side of "do it" aren't talking about anything that hurt or scared or degraded or humiliated or anything like that. We are talking about relatively tame sexual acts that are very common. It's mostly hypothetical and I'm sure it is rare that a wife would refuse these things. But it does happen. Look at the threads in SIM about no oral or even no sex at all. 

I did have a girlfriend once that was pretty promiscuous when not in a relationship. But even basic sex was pretty infrequent when we were together. She even told me once she didn't want to have sex anymore. It made me feel like, wtf? You'll jump in bed with practically anybody but you don't want sex with me? The guy who ACTUALLY wants more than sex. It does happen that for some reason vanilla acts go of the table even though they were previously frequent and presumably enjoyed with prior partners.


----------



## wmn1

Dad&Hubby said:


> the word "duty" should never be involved with sex....in anyway.
> 
> 
> Now that aside, on the issue of what you've done with past lovers that you don't do now.
> 
> I would take offense if my wife loved giving hummers to numerous men and then got married and suddenly "found it humiliating". It's one thing to try something once or twice in your past and realize it's not for you, or because of your partner's anatomy something is painful where it wasn't before.
> 
> It's an entirely different thing to be into something, multiple times with multiple people and then take it off the table.
> 
> Something is up with that and it's not a healthy situation. Unless some trauma happened to my wife in between the other lovers and me that impacted her, I'd have an issue with that. But she wouldn't have made it to being my wife in that case either, so I guess it's somewhat moot.


you just said in small paragraphs what I've been trying to say in long ones. Well put


----------



## wmn1

Buddy400 said:


> Following the "doing for your SO what you've done for other men" portion of this thread...
> 
> The discussion seems to get muddled by discussing things that the woman has tried with others but found unpleasant.
> 
> Let me try to clear things up by using a very typical example; swallowing.
> 
> Lets say that your wife has swallowed for other men but doesn't want to do it for you. She has never "liked" it but did it anyway to make the other men happy because they were a$$holes that didn't care about her feelings. However she thinks that, since you are a better person than the other men and you love her, you shouldn't ask her to do something that she really doesn't enjoy.
> 
> I can see how this might make sense to her. After all, if she doesn't enjoy it, why would you want her to do it? But, this is exactly the problem. One doesn't make sacrifices, for people they don't care about, they make them for people they DO care about. So, she would do something unpleasant for someone less deserving but wouldn't do it for you, the love of her life?
> 
> So, what's the reward for being the "good guy" that cares about her? In this case, there is no reward. In fact, you don't get something that "bad guys" would. This is going to drive 98% of men crazy and they just aren't going to be able to understand it.
> 
> I don't know how often such things happen IRL (it hasn't happened in my life), but just the thought that this could happen or that women might feel this way bugs the crap out of men.



Amen to that


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I Don't Know said:


> And should the "better" treated woman be the one that never gets flowers or random hugs or I love you texts through out the day or quality time spent with her because the man felt pressured to do them for previous women? Maybe trying to win some girls heart when he was young he did all these things and was ditched anyway, so now he has no desire to do them for a woman who DOES love him. That's ok? Or should he treat the woman who LOVES him and ACCEPTS him better than the ones that didn't.


Pick 1 thing man. Bjs/swallowing/whatever fairly mild sex act we are talking about here doesn't = flowers, random hugs, ily text, and quality time. 
Let's stick sex with sex (since it's a little presumptuous to assume women care about flowers vs men care about blow jobs) 
Man has tried giving oral to women before, he did it even though he didn't really like it. Decides he doesn't want to do it again. Makes it clear to potential partners it is not on the table. Partner says 'ok, no problem' and they get married. Several years down the road she hears randomly that he gave oral to another woman. How dare he! Now if he won't do it for her he is selfish and doesn't love her as much. It won't be the best relationship anymore. 

Same situation.

Partner entered relationship knowing the limits and agreed to them
Partner only wants it to change since she found out you did it before
Partner is now guilting the man who was very clear and honest about what he would and would not do and feels he shouldn't have to do it to prove his love. 

They can talk about it and maybe work something out but ultimately this new mess is the fault of the person who accepted the limits and then changed their minds.


----------



## I Don't Know

norajane said:


> It's visceral because it's about sex and many women have experienced being pushed into sex or certain sex acts or to dress up or do things sexually they don't want to do. Just spread your legs and think of England! Aw, come on babe, just suck it! It's the third date and you're supposed to have sex with me dammit or I'll move on!
> 
> *So when someone wants us to do something sexually we don't want to do and keeps pressing for it, we think their view isn't about mutual pleasure and it doesn't matter to them if we don't get any pleasure - it's only about what they want to do TO us for their own pleasure, and not WITH us to seek mutual pleasure. We feel like blow up dolls at that point where our feelings don't matter and it's just about what someone wants to do TO us. We feel objectified.*
> 
> Enthusiastic consent, yes. Pushing and prodding and pressing and whining (but you did it for somebody else!), no. There is no joy there.


What if every other act is one of mutual pleasure? If sex is 99% of the time a loving mutually satisfying experience? If the man has a habit of giving you oral and expecting nothing in return? Does him asking for one sex act that isn't satisfying to you still bring about these feelings?


----------



## wmn1

norajane said:


> Some of us grow up and mature and realize we don't have to do stuff we don't like during sex. Some of us try a lot of different things when we first start having sex in order to determine what we like and don't like and then develop our boundaries. Some of us start to like things we didn't, and start to hate things we used to like, because our bodies or minds have changed over the years. Some of us find that things used to be a turn on because they were new and taboo, but are no longer a turn on whatsoever.
> 
> Every person has personal autonomy over their brains and bodies. If you can't accept that, then you should NEVER get married because you will NEVER own another person's mind or body, period, and _you have no right _to expect a person to do what you want sexually just because you want it. I don't get why this concept is so freaking offensive to people. YOU DO NOT OWN ANYBODY.


throwing a bs flag against you here. This has to be like the 5th time or even more on this thread about someone talking about 'owning' the other person when I haven't heard a single person claim ownership over anybody nor insinuate it. 

I have heard about 100 times the mantra "don't keep doing things over and over again with less important people" then take it off the table for the most important person in your life. That is a valid argument and it has nothing to do with 'owning' anybody. 

I think people who aren't willing to compromise on some things they don't like to do, as long as it doesn't violate their moral standards, shouldn't be married because they obviously aren't interested in making their relationship a two way, satisfying one, they are being hedonistic. 

BTW, if you would notice, I didn't specify what things people should compromise on, including sexually, because to each couple, it's different. I can tell you that 'my way or the highway' will probably lead to bad things .... just saying.....


----------



## I Don't Know

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Pick 1 thing man. Bjs/swallowing/whatever fairly mild sex act we are talking about here doesn't = flowers, random hugs, ily text, and quality time.
> Let's stick sex with sex (since it's a little presumptuous to assume women care about flowers vs men care about blow jobs)
> Man has tried giving oral to women before, he did it even though he didn't really like it. Decides he doesn't want to do it again. Makes it clear to potential partners it is not on the table. Partner says 'ok, no problem' and they get married. Several years down the road she hears randomly that he gave oral to another woman. How dare he! Now if he won't do it for her he is selfish and doesn't love her as much. It won't be the best relationship anymore.
> 
> Same situation.
> 
> Partner entered relationship knowing the limits and agreed to them
> Partner only wants it to change since she found out you did it before
> Partner is now guilting the man who was very clear and honest about what he would and would not do and feels he shouldn't have to do it to prove his love.
> 
> They can talk about it and maybe work something out but ultimately this new mess is the fault of the person who accepted the limits and then changed their minds.


Ok, let's keep it apples to apples then. The man doesn't not like it, he is indifferent to it. He doesn't mind doing it but it doesn't do much for him. Why wouldn't he do it if it's something his partner wants?


----------



## I Don't Know

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Pick 1 thing man. *Bjs/swallowing/whatever fairly mild sex act we are talking about here doesn't = flowers, random hugs, ily text, and quality time. *
> Let's stick sex with sex (since it's a little presumptuous to assume women care about flowers vs men care about blow jobs)
> Man has tried giving oral to women before, he did it even though he didn't really like it. Decides he doesn't want to do it again. Makes it clear to potential partners it is not on the table. Partner says 'ok, no problem' and they get married. Several years down the road she hears randomly that he gave oral to another woman. How dare he! Now if he won't do it for her he is selfish and doesn't love her as much. It won't be the best relationship anymore.
> 
> Same situation.
> 
> Partner entered relationship knowing the limits and agreed to them
> Partner only wants it to change since she found out you did it before
> Partner is now guilting the man who was very clear and honest about what he would and would not do and feels he shouldn't have to do it to prove his love.
> 
> They can talk about it and maybe work something out but ultimately this new mess is the fault of the person who accepted the limits and then changed their minds.


I don't know about that, BJ's are pretty damn amazing. Just sayin.


----------



## wmn1

norajane said:


> I will repeat this:
> 
> 
> 
> Young people get a lot of mixed messages about sex. Women, in particular, often do things when they are younger in order to get or keep a boyfriend. Stupid and wrong, yes. Common, yes. Once they mature and develop a sense of self and self-esteem, they don't do the stupid sh*t they might have done like performing sex acts they aren't into in order to get or keep a man.
> 
> Either you enjoy the sex life you have with your gf and marry her, or don't enjoy it and don't marry her. Getting all bent out of shape because your partner's sexuality has changed over time is futile, especially because it has nothing to do with you and everything to do with how she has developed over time as a person into who she is at the time you started seeing her.



so in other words, to hell with what your SO wants, it's all about you. Fine and cool. But then when you want something that he doesn't like..........

Just saying ........

I've been emphasizing compromise this entire thread. Within reason of course. You are emphasizing preference and likes/dislikes, convenience. Sorry, both sides give or no sides give or someone is being taken to the cleaners.

If I had $10 for each time I did something that my wife liked that I resented, I would buy a new F250. It is a vice versa situation. We have perfectly maintained our values and morals and made each other completely happy through compromise. I believe you miss this point.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I Don't Know said:


> Ok, let's keep it apples to apples then. The man doesn't not like it, he is indifferent to it. He doesn't mind doing it but it doesn't do much for him. Why wouldn't he do it if it's something his partner wants?


Because for whatever reason he decided before his relationship that he didn't want to. You'd have to ask him the reason. I don't know. 

Just like I don't know why this rare woman would be doing something she doesn't really mind over and over again with past partners and suddenly decide to stop and not do it with her current one. 
Never heard of it before. 

Regardless, their partners chose to marry someone who doesn't give them oral. 
No bait and switch. Fully informed choice.


----------



## Buddy400

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Because for whatever reason he decided before his relationship that he didn't want to. You'd have to ask him the reason. I don't know.
> 
> Just like I don't know why this rare woman would be doing something she doesn't really mind over and over again with past partners and suddenly decide to stop and not do it with her current one.
> Never heard of it before.
> 
> Regardless, their partners chose to marry someone who doesn't give them oral.
> No bait and switch. Fully informed choice.


If this man was in a relationship with you, you loved oral, you knew ahead of time that he wouldn't do it for you, you decided to be with him anyway and then you found out that he'd done it plenty of times in the past with other women would you *really* not have a problem with it? Wouldn't bother you in the least?


----------



## norajane

wmn1 said:


> so in other words, to hell with what your SO wants, it's all about you. Fine and cool. But then when you want something that he doesn't like..........
> 
> Just saying ........
> 
> I've been emphasizing compromise this entire thread. Within reason of course. You are emphasizing preference and likes/dislikes, convenience. Sorry, both sides give or no sides give or someone is being taken to the cleaners.
> 
> If I had $10 for each time I did something that my wife liked that I resented, I would buy a new F250. It is a vice versa situation. We have perfectly maintained our values and morals and made each other completely happy through compromise. I believe you miss this point.


I wouldn't BE with someone who didn't like the things I liked sexually if those things were important to me. I wouldn't AGREE to marry someone if that were the case. I would NEVER in a million years date or marry someone who didn't like to give oral because I don't come from PIV. 

If it didn't matter to me one way or another if they didn't like something I wanted, and if I accepted our sex life as-is, but then found out later they did it with someone else, I wouldn't care because it obviously didn't matter to me in the first place.

THAT is my point. Marry if you are sexually compatible AS-IS. If not, don't marry the person and then get all pissed off that she isn't the same person she was when she started having sex.

There are things that I can compromise on, but performance of sexual acts that I dislike or that I need in order to orgasm is not one of them.


----------



## I Don't Know

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Because for whatever reason he decided before his relationship that he didn't want to. You'd have to ask him the reason. I don't know.
> 
> Just like I don't know why this rare woman would be doing something she doesn't really mind over and over again with past partners and suddenly decide to stop and not do it with her current one.
> Never heard of it before.
> 
> Regardless, their partners chose to marry someone who doesn't give them oral.
> No bait and switch. Fully informed choice.


Yep this is mostly hypothetical. I pretty much agree with that last part. But..... you knew there was a but.

The decision to marry someone is hopefully not based solely on whether or not they give oral. 

Let's say my wife told me she doesn't swallow. That's fine not a deal breaker at all. She was so great in so many other ways it wouldn't matter. It's a nice to have but not a requirement. Still would have married her. 

If she said I used to swallow for my ex, but I don't do it anymore. I hated it, but he insisted that I do it. I gagged every time. That's probably ok too.

If she said I've swallowed for nearly every previous partner, but I'm not going to do it anymore. Then I probably wouldn't have married her. It would scream at me that she valued me less than these other guys, and I wasn't as important as random hookups OR other LTR guys.


----------



## JCD

Buddy400 said:


> I might be happy with some explanations that I understood. But, if there appears to be no other reason than she felt the need to make the previous guy(s) happy and doesn't feel the same need to make me happy. I'd have a problem with that. I'd probably have to leave. For THAT reason; not because I need the actual act performed.
> 
> Women are, of course, free to think whatever they want about this issue. But understand that most men aren't going to be happy about it.


I agree with you in principle and I certainly would not be as happy with her as I was before.

However...I have kids. I have a history (just thinking of my current situation). Leaving because of this is a bit...extreme. Now a new woman I am DATING or don't have kids with? Far lower in investment value. Depending on how shrill she was over this, I'd think about it.

Regardless, the adult thing is to drop this matter and get on with couple life. However, two things would be the result:

1) The 'exploration' phase of our sexual relationship is pretty much over.

2) My 'personal autonomy' quotient in the relationship has just gotten a huge boost. Visiting your mother's house? Nope, sorry. It was something I did out of love and caring for you. I really don't like the old battle ax. *I have grown and I realize what I do and do not like in life. Life is too short to continue to do things I do not want and my unhappiness is not trumped by your happiness.* If one person's 'personal preferences' suddenly trumps understanding and compromise in a relationship, well, it is not a one way street...

Not to be a **** about it, but this is a reassessment of the relationship. But relationships are always in reassessment.


----------



## treyvion

Buddy400 said:


> Following the "doing for your SO what you've done for other men" portion of this thread...
> 
> The discussion seems to get muddled by discussing things that the woman has tried with others but found unpleasant.
> 
> Let me try to clear things up by using a very typical example; swallowing.
> 
> Lets say that your wife has swallowed for other men but doesn't want to do it for you. She has never "liked" it but did it anyway to make the other men happy because they were a$$holes that didn't care about her feelings. However she thinks that, since you are a better person than the other men and you love her, you shouldn't ask her to do something that she really doesn't enjoy.
> 
> I can see how this might make sense to her. After all, if she doesn't enjoy it, why would you want her to do it? But, this is exactly the problem. One doesn't make sacrifices, for people they don't care about, they make them for people they DO care about. So, she would do something unpleasant for someone less deserving but wouldn't do it for you, the love of her life?
> 
> So, what's the reward for being the "good guy" that cares about her? In this case, there is no reward. In fact, you don't get something that "bad guys" would. This is going to drive 98% of men crazy and they just aren't going to be able to understand it.
> 
> I don't know how often such things happen IRL (it hasn't happened in my life), but just the thought that this could happen or that women might feel this way bugs the crap out of men.


This is how it really IS! The "bad" men who use them and pass them around like a lit joint, are going to maintain that attraction and demand for them, by treating someone badly and the other going along with it.

The "good" men who take care of them, do anything, no matter if they have a high output of reciprocation or not, are going to get little.


----------



## JCD

samyeagar said:


> Funny you mention toys. My personal experience with this is the exact opposite. My ex wife and I used toys a lot, lots of experimentation with them. I didn't really enjoy it at all, but did it anyway because she did.
> 
> When my current wife and I were getting to know each other, and were talking about sex, I told her I was not really into toys and preferred not to use them, and left it at that. Toys never really became part of our bedroom activities because she had never really been into them either, and respected my lack of desire to use them.
> 
> Fast forward a couple of years, my wife started to become more curious about toys. I still had no interest and let her know I had no interest*...then she learned that my ex wife and I used them a lot...and you could say the proverbial sh1t hit the fan*.


How ODD that she did not respect your personal sense of like and unlike...Ladies, how can this be?!?


----------



## treyvion

JCD said:


> How ODD that she did not respect your personal sense of like and unlike...Ladies, how can this be?!?


They are like an "activist" against double standards they get the short end of the stick on, however if they get the long end of the stick on a double standard, they blush quietly, complaining probably doesn't help.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I am trying to get past actually WANTING your WIFE to perform some act on you that she only did with that guy because she was too young and stupid to have the balls to say no, and while you are at it, go screw yourself. Simply because some guy got some ass you did not get. Sick.


----------



## JCD

treyvion said:


> They are like an "activist" against double standards they get the short end of the stick on, however if they get the long end of the stick on a double standard, they blush quietly, complaining probably doesn't help.


Not to push against you too hard, and I don't like activists either, who are into principles over people.

These women are being honest and they are voicing a common complaint and concern. They are not blow up dolls and our culture has changed RECENTLY to outlaw little things like marital rape. Let's not raise the price of honesty too high.

So this is a sticky point with them. The 'bad old days' weren't that long ago.

But part of the 'bad old days' for men was in some cases women ruling the roost sexually and having 'culture' telling men that 'good people don't do oral whatever'. And pretty much every man who was in a sexually dissatisfying relationship has seen an ex disappear and do 'bad girl things' that she never would have dreamed of within the marriage bedroom. Somehow, that sense of exploration just BLOSSOMED. 

Now, maybe it was the man. Maybe it was the woman But resentment over these facts is normal...on both sides.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Buddy400 said:


> If this man was in a relationship with you, you loved oral, you knew ahead of time that he wouldn't do it for you, you decided to be with him anyway and then you found out that he'd done it plenty of times in the past with other women would you *really* not have a problem with it? Wouldn't bother you in the least?


This is where my handy list of deal breakers and needs comes in. If I suddenly have a new item on the list, I'll re-evaluate the relationship and the item's importance and go from there. 

Maybe a compromise could be made, maybe you'll say how you feel and they will _want _to do it with you. Maybe you'll have to leave and find someone new or just deal with it not being a part of your lives. 

What's not Ok is guilt tripping someone into a sex act because they did it with a past partner therefore they should have to do it with you, even if they don't want to.


----------



## Thundarr

Buddy400 said:


> I don't know that it's common either.
> 
> But, it is what guys fear. It's how they interpret such behavior.


Most men and women are hypersensitive to feeling disrespected, unimportant, or minimized by their partner. That's what drives both sides of the 'do with me what you did with him' arguments in my opinion. Guys feel disrespected to think their girl did more or loved more with someone else. Maybe they rocked her world but she gave up attraction for safety. That's the insecurity I think anyway. On the flip side, Gals feel disrespected that their guy expects them to prove her love by doing anything and everything with them that they've ever done before.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I am trying to get past actually WANTING your WIFE to perform some act on you that she only did with that guy because she was too young and stupid to have the balls to say no, and while you are at it, go screw yourself. Simply because some guy got some ass you did not get. Sick.


This is unbelievable. Most every man on this topic has bent over backwards to explain that they have no wish to cause their SO pain or distress. We've made thoughtful arguments explaining why we feel the way we do.

You ignore all of this and replace it with what you *think* we're saying and get all appalled. Let me guess, do you have a hard time getting along with other people?


----------



## wmn1

norajane said:


> I wouldn't BE with someone who didn't like the things I liked sexually if those things were important to me. I wouldn't AGREE to marry someone if that were the case. I would NEVER in a million years date or marry someone who didn't like to give oral because I don't come from PIV.
> 
> If it didn't matter to me one way or another if they didn't like something I wanted, and if I accepted our sex life as-is, but then found out later they did it with someone else, I wouldn't care because it obviously didn't matter to me in the first place.
> 
> THAT is my point. Marry if you are sexually compatible AS-IS. If not, don't marry the person and then get all pissed off that she isn't the same person she was when she started having sex.
> 
> There are things that I can compromise on, but performance of sexual acts that I dislike or that I need in order to orgasm is not one of them.


what is the problem with making your soulmate happy by compromising ? Still don't have an answer ....


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Buddy400 said:


> This is unbelievable. Most every man on this topic has bent over backwards to explain that they have no wish to cause their SO pain or distress. We've made thoughtful arguments explaining why we feel the way we do.
> 
> You ignore all of this and replace it with what you *think* we're saying and get all appalled. Let me guess, do you have a hard time getting along with other people?


Husband & myself often talk about the thread topics here.. I wish he posted more but all I can do is relay his thoughts.. I give him the low down on each side.. the perspectives given... he completely understands the men's point of view on this....if he was to find himself in those shoes... he is not a cruel hurtful man in any way but very very giving of himself & has always put me first.. 

It seems nothing I have contributed even gets acknowledged here ...it's been a talking to the wind.. so anyway.. have at it... I'm outta here...


----------



## Miss Taken

samyeagar said:


> Fast forward a couple of years...then she learned that my ex wife and I used them a lot...and you could say the proverbial sh1t hit the fan.


I think that was messed up on her part. Perhaps I'm too sensitive in general when it comes to what I feel is respect/disrespect. Still, I think since you made your lack of interest clear from the beginning, and she presumably was okay with it she should have respected that. 



I Don't Know said:


> "I did A with a-hole ex and hated it, but I know now that I don't have to do anything. Therefore, even though I don't hate B, it's not my favorite thing so I'm not doing that either."


I don't think that's what women here are saying. Of course, I only speak for me but the only thing I've taken off my list are the "A" things I hated. 



wmn1 said:


> No I feel you are misrepresenting people here.


Did you read the question I asked about just that one set of circumstances? Or read JCD's post and Treyvion's responses to that post? Because that quote was my reply based on those responses... No misrepresentation there in that post.



wmn1 said:


> what is the problem with making your soulmate happy by compromising ? Still don't have an answer ....


Nothing is wrong with compromising when comprises are fair and balanced for both parties. Although they do tend to work better in theory. Sometimes all you end up with is enough $10.00 points of resentment to buy a new F250. 

Also, some things can't be compromised on. Some things are truly "deal-breakers". 



Personal said:


> One important thing here is that she knows that she can withdrawal that offer at anytime for a short time and or forever. Since I have made it clear on many occasions including this morning, that I am completely fine with that.
> 
> Especially since we change all of the time, sure I still have some of the same interests I had as a child. Yet I have taken up many things I once had no interest in and have likewise abandoned things that no longer interest me.
> 
> One other important thing here is, it is her choice to offer it or otherwise while not being coerced or forced to perform. My wife shares what she wants to within her boundaries not mine or what I think her boundaries ought to be.
> 
> As I get older I've noticed along the way that some of the things I once enjoyed sexually now no longer appeal to me so I let them go. While I now enjoy somethings that I once wouldn't go near. My wife is the same with respect to that as well. We would be doing each other no favours if we had fixed expectations and weren't flexible in our thinking.


I am happy that this works for you and your wife and that she is happy to do that for you. I also admire that you check in with her to make sure she's still okay with doing it. That shows a lot of caring as a husband. Because it doesn't hurt her, but also because she doesn't feel pressured and you show concern for her in doing it is also probably why she is happy to do it. I don't know you but I sense there is a great deal of respect in your marriage. 

I could imagine a woman would feel better, dare I say "safer" about giving more to someone who goes a long way in making her feel respected, safe etc. as it seems you do for your wife.

I also agree with what you said about preferences changing and that it's important to remain flexible/not hold onto fixed expectations. Tastes can/do change. I am open to the idea that mine may change again one day, maybe when I'm older as bodies change and that opens us up to new experiences as we relearn or re-adapt what works for us.


----------



## treyvion

Personal said:


> The hypothetical she is sharing herself the way she wants to, the way she is comfortable with. I honestly don't understand why their is a pervasive sense of entitlement regarding what someone will share sexually.
> 
> It's pretty clear reading this discussion and plenty of others that my perspective is probably not shared by many males here. Yet at the end of the day, I seriously believe that many males here would benefit immensely through taking a new look at how they relate to women.
> 
> I read here so often how men complain that they're women partners won't perform oral on them, won't swallow, won't do anal, won't have sex with them even after they clean the house, mow the lawn fix the car etc.
> 
> At the same time and before I go on I'll insert the caveat not all which is applicable in all instances whatever I may say. They often express a sense of entitlement, talk of scraps, say all women (insert your stereotype here), say women are passed around and all the rest. That still smacks of women in the Western world at least sexually still appear to be considered second class citizens by many.
> 
> For those who this applies to perhaps you would be better served through genuinely rethinking the way you see women and sex.
> 
> For example I receive oral sex 4-6 times a week since it's very normal for us. My wife will readily swallow the results, and or dribble it, lick it, blow bubbles, have it in her hair, take it on her face, play with it and even pose for photographs with it on her face before wiping it off.
> 
> Likewise I also enjoy a considerable smorgasbord of other sexual activities some of which are far from vanilla with my wife that many people don't even get to try.
> 
> Yet for me, all of the above has been very normal throughout my sexual life. Likewise although I have had one night stands and have been with plenty of women. I have always been faithful and tremendously loyal in all of my relationships.
> 
> There are lots of us out there in the world who are really enjoying a an immense amount of great sex with like minded sexy people. I know some of these people and so do you because we can be found anywhere. That doesn't mean we will let you know who we are in person unless we bed you.
> 
> The sooner some men stop thinking chores or gifts equal sex and let go of s**t shaming. Plus comparing themselves with former beau's, stereotyping women, thinking women are property, thinking women should only enjoy sex with them and all the rest that we can read here. The sooner some men will start to have more fulfilling relationships with women both emotionally and sexually.
> 
> Although I learnt those lessons by 21, as far as I'm concerned it's never to late to learn those lessons and apply them well.
> 
> Why don't some of you try thinking differently? You never know you might enjoy where it takes you!


How should we think differently? What get used to letting someone else support them and we just slide in for some good sex?:scratchhead:


----------



## treyvion

Personal said:


> "Them" aren't property or possessions to pass around! A woman's sexuality and body belongs to the woman, just like a man's sexuality and body belongs to the man. Believe it or not women like men don't enjoy being hurt or abused.
> 
> One will enjoy far better sex with another once they realise sex isn't an entitlement or a commodity to be used.
> 
> 
> 
> The "good" men who take care of them (not that women can't take care of themselves, since being a woman is not a disability), do anything, because they still think despite evidence to the contrary in the modern era. That putting the kill on the table means a woman owes them sex, are going to get little.


Why in holey h3ll should a man put those kills on the table, pay those bills, keep the roof over their heads and keep them fed if she would rather lay with other men. Those same other men, wouldn't bring her a roll of toilet paper!

Explain that to me?u


----------



## JCD

Personal said:


> Does that mean, even if you weren't interested in some sexual act you have an expectation that it be performed for you if your partner couldn't provide a subjectively satisfactory explanation of why she doesn't want to do it when she has done it before.


You really need to catch up here. Any other man who disagrees with me is free to, but pretty much all of us agree that if we aren't interested in it, it's not going to be demanded.

This is distortion to try to pick a fight.




> Does that mean, women are free to think what they like but if they don't do the right thing there will be consequences?


Generally, if one person thinks the other person is taking advantage of them, there will be consequences. Now, the rub is 'are they right, and if right, are they reasonable'. 

The consensus among the ladies feels like 'we don't even want to discuss the matter'. As if 'No thanks' is the beginning and end of the conversation.

Allow me to observe, if your wife turned around and started to say 'no thanks' to every sexual overture you made, I am betting a) you would certainly NOT be okay with just a 'no thanks' and b) that there would be consequences in your relationship.

This was a stupid statement.



Personal said:


> "Them" aren't property or possessions to pass around! A woman's sexuality and body belongs to the woman, just like a man's sexuality and body belongs to the man. Believe it or not women like men don't enjoy being hurt or abused.
> 
> One will enjoy far better sex with another once they realise sex isn't an entitlement or a commodity to be used.
> 
> 
> The "good" men who take care of them (not that women can't take care of themselves, since being a woman is not a disability), do anything, because they still think despite evidence to the contrary in the modern era. That putting the kill on the table means a woman owes them sex, are going to get little.


This is essentially crap as an argument. There are dribbles of truth, but we are talking about relationships here.

So guess what? I feel entitled to sex from my wife. What the hell are we together for if not that? I can get a room mate to joke around with and split chores!

And guess what? She feels entitled to sex with me. You are working very hard to make any expectation of a man's to be a bad thing.

The 'holier than thou' tone really is just the cherry on top, too.

Tell you what? Say I took my 'male autonomy' and decided to indulge in acts my wife will not give to me with the girl down the street. Should there be 'consequences'? Does my wife feel 'entitled' to something from me? You're damned skippy she feels entitled to something! Sex and fidelity!

So...why is it suddenly bad when a man feels that he is entitled to the best from his wife?

The rub is 'what is the best' followed closely by 'what is reasonable' and 'where is the balance between autonomy and coupledom'.

Pretty much every guy, no matter how you are trying to twist words, *does not feel* that her pain is my pleasure or that I am owed pain from my partner (though both spouses tend to inflict discomfort on the other in many many ways). So drop that little rah rah point.

There are a lot of guys who 'don't feel entitled' to any kind of sex from their wives. You seem to say they are all super studs who get all they want. I've also read a lot of guys with this philosophy in Sex in Marriage. They weren't getting any at all and because they 'didn't feel entitled', didn't want to ask.

As an added note...I really don't need to know about what you do with your sperm, plsthnx


----------



## samyeagar

Miss Taken said:


> I think that was messed up on her part. Perhaps I'm too sensitive in general when it comes to what I feel is respect/disrespect. Still, I think since you made your lack of interest clear from the beginning, and she presumably was okay with it she should have respected that.


In a way it was, and after we talked about, and worked through it, all is well. Her initial reflex response however, was the same one many men have expressed here, and I suspect the resolution would be the same...a relatively short period of 'why them, and not me' followed by discussion and acceptance of their reasons. I think her initial reaction is a very normal human one that many of us would feel in similar circumstances.

Now that said, me knowing this is something she would like to explore more thoroughly, and me saying I don't care to, and her accepting that...I think it would be hurtful, disrespectful in the extreme, and in a way, dishonest, if I were to then turn around and ever reflect openly and fondly on those things I did with my ex-wife, but won't with my wife.


----------



## I Don't Know

intheory said:


> I love your posts, SA


Agreed. Your posts make too much sense for anyone to argue with. That's why you don't get a lot of responses. :smthumbup:

Your posts always come from a perspective of love and I feel that's always welcome. It kinda brings us out of the hypothetical and into the practical, as much as that is possible.


----------



## wmn1

Personal 
Member



Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: 300-500km away from any decent dining and coffee
Posts: 559 Re: Number of past sexual partners 
________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy400 
Could you do me a favor and directly respond to the following?

"But, if there appears to be no other reason than she felt the need to make the previous guy(s) happy and doesn't feel the same need to make me happy. I'd have a problem with that."

If she told me that she used to like doing that but now doesn't because she finds it demeaning, or her taste buds have changed, etc that's one thing. But what about the situation where she just doesn't feel like going to the same effort to make me happy that she did for other guys?
The hypothetical she is sharing herself the way she wants to, the way she is comfortable with. I honestly don't understand why their is a pervasive sense of entitlement regarding what someone will share sexually.



It's pretty clear reading this discussion and plenty of others that my perspective is probably not shared by many males here. Yet at the end of the day, I seriously believe that many males here would benefit immensely through taking a new look at how they relate to women.



I read here so often how men complain that they're women partners won't perform oral on them, won't swallow, won't do anal, won't have sex with them even after they clean the house, mow the lawn fix the car etc.


At the same time and before I go on I'll insert the caveat not all which is applicable in all instances whatever I may say. They often express a sense of entitlement, talk of scraps, say all women (insert your stereotype here), say women are passed around and all the rest. That still smacks of women in the Western world at least sexually still appear to be considered second class citizens by many.



For those who this applies to perhaps you would be better served through genuinely rethinking the way you see women and sex.

For example I receive oral sex 4-6 times a week since it's very normal for us. My wife will readily swallow the results, and or dribble it, lick it, blow bubbles, have it in her hair, take it on her face, play with it and even pose for photographs with it on her face before wiping it off.

Likewise I also enjoy a considerable smorgasbord of other sexual activities some of which are far from vanilla with my wife that many people don't even get to try.

Yet for me, all of the above has been very normal throughout my sexual life. Likewise although I have had one night stands and have been with plenty of women. I have always been faithful and tremendously loyal in all of my relationships.

There are lots of us out there in the world who are really enjoying a an immense amount of great sex with like minded sexy people. I know some of these people and so do you because we can be found anywhere. That doesn't mean we will let you know who we are in person unless we bed you.

The sooner some men stop thinking chores or gifts equal sex and let go of s**t shaming. Plus comparing themselves with former beau's, stereotyping women, thinking women are property, thinking women should only enjoy sex with them and all the rest that we can read here. The sooner some men will start to have more fulfilling relationships with women both emotionally and sexually.


Although I learnt those lessons by 21, as far as I'm concerned it's never to late to learn those lessons and apply them well.

Why don't some of you try thinking differently? You never know you might enjoy where it takes you!






My responses:


1) I think the word ‘entitlement’ is too strong here. What you consider ‘entitlement’ some consider fairness and compromise

2) It is too general to say guys need to take a new look at how they relate to women. For all you know, many here may have very successful relationships with women. They are simply sharing opinions which they may or may not apply in their personal lives and just because something may work for you in your relationship doesn’t mean it works for all

3) Women in the western world are treated a whole lot better than they are in much of Asia and the Middle East. Further, there have been more arguments on here about women and men being largely in the same boat regarding many of these situations

4) I didn’t hear a single person mention a quid pro quo situation

5) Again I haven’t seen anyone here mention women as ‘property’ although some who keep emphasizing that I believe devalue the importance of compromise, or the unique bond that married people share in how it is a partnership. Further, there is nothing wrong with a man or woman for that matter trying to be seen as the ‘best’ in their SO’s eyes in any facet of the relationship including sexually. I personally think it’s healthy to want to achieve more in a sexual relationship if the SO is willing to try. As (I think Buddy) said here, noone is advocating forcing someone to do something they don’t want. However, it is reasonable to understand that both people need to be satisfied in a relationship and just because you have it great ( I do too) doesn’t mean that everyone here does and while it’s easy to say to someone “don’t like it than leave’, in many cases the pain of leaving and the legalities involved can be more damaging than being in a ‘vanilla’ type relationship sexually.


----------



## wmn1

Personal
Member

Personal's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: 300-500km away from any decent dining and coffee
Posts: 559

Default Re: Number of past sexual partners
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy400 View Post
I might be happy with some explanations that I understood. But, if there appears to be no other reason than she felt the need to make the previous guy(s) happy and doesn't feel the same need to make me happy. I'd have a problem with that. I'd probably have to leave. For THAT reason; not because I need the actual act performed.
Does that mean, even if you weren't interested in some sexual act you have an expectation that it be performed for you if your partner couldn't provide a subjectively satisfactory explanation of why she doesn't want to do it when she has done it before.

That asked, and not suggesting you do this. I can't help but wonder if some men interrogate their sexual partners when talking about sex?

Seriously, "no thanks" is enough for me!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy400 View Post
Women are, of course, free to think whatever they want about this issue. But understand that most men aren't going to be happy about it.
Does that mean, women are free to think what they like but if they don't do the right thing there will be consequences?


again you are stereotyping men, even though you are one which doesn't matter for purposes of this board. 

next, you say you can't help but wonder if some men 'interrogate' their Sos. I have no idea where you come up with this stuff. Really. I haven't seen a single instance on this board where a guy whips out a 20 question memo to have their wives or SO fill out before performing a sexual act. 

Regarding your 'consequences' statement, there are consequences for everything we do or don't do in life. This includes the topic here. And it can be applied so many different ways. So again, I think your characterization is too general and inherently unfair. You tried to take Buddy's point and twist it and mutilate it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

wmn1 said:


> However, it is reasonable to understand that both people need to be satisfied in a relationship and just because you have it great ( I do too) doesn’t mean that everyone here does and while it’s easy to say to someone “don’t like it than leave’, in many cases the pain of leaving and the legalities involved can be more damaging than being in a ‘vanilla’ type relationship sexually.


This is why I think this potion of the thread is interesting. It ties directly with the first. 

Many of these issues _could _be solved by sleeping with people before you meet the one you want to marry 

Not only does it give you a good sense of what is and isn't important to you in a sexual relationship, you can veto the ones who don't suit you and keep going.

When you marry someone without knowing your own sexual needs, when you don't consider sex in the getting to know someone stage, you could end up in this situation. 

So for those who are against many partners before marriage, which situation is better?
Ending up in a sexually frustrating relationship where you either have to deal with it or pressure your partner into doing things they are not comfortable with
or
Ending up in a compatible sexual relationship BUT either or both partners has a high number?


----------



## Miss Taken

samyeagar said:


> In a way it was, and after we talked about, and worked through it, all is well.


I'm glad you moved past it. :smthumbup:



samyeagar said:


> Her initial reflex response however, was the same one many men have expressed here,


Most knee-jerk reactions are not something I am offended by. Emotions aren't logical or well thought out so even if they are acrimonious I don't tend to apply malice to them. So while "messed up", I don't hold that against anyone who's initial thought is like your wife's was. However once a little dust has settled, I do expect reason. 



samyeagar said:


> and I suspect the resolution would be the same...a relatively short period of 'why them, and not me' followed by discussion and acceptance of their reasons.


Some yes, some no. I think it depends on the level of deception by the _offended party_ present at the beginning/before they found out it had been done before. 

Some men and women alike lie/pretend that they are okay with doing/not doing something for or with their mate to try to manufacture compatibility with that partner. That is deceptive.

Had your wife hidden a secret toy fetish and merely pretended to be okay with your lack of interest in toys with plans to persuade you into it later; the blow up likely would have been worse and resolution may have been impossible at worst at best take a lot longer than it did. 

But I don't think that was the case here. It was just something she developed a bit of curiosity about later on but wasn't that important to her. 

Although, I do wonder why you waited until after she asked to try to use toys to reveal that it's something you did for your ex wife, didn't enjoy doing. Those on this thread who at the beginning were demanding total transparency may argue that it was deceptive to omit that you tried it from your history. 



samyeagar said:


> I think her initial reaction is a very normal human one that many of us would feel in similar circumstances.


Yes, so do I but there are many who wouldn't care. Especially when you explained you did it but did not enjoy doing it. So far I have yet to experience feelings of retroactive jealousy about anything done in/out of the bedroom BEFORE me.



samyeagar said:


> I think it would be hurtful, disrespectful in the extreme, and in a way, dishonest, if I were to then turn around and ever reflect openly and fondly on those things I did with my ex-wife, but won't with my wife.


Yes it would be hurtful and dishonest. Still, this unlikely, hypothetical situation has been discussed ad nausea in this thread and determined already by most that no woman here is talking about stopping doing something they enjoyed or holding a certain act sacred for a past lover. 

Can we drop that now? Seriously, what man/woman does that? Has this happened to you or any man here? If not, why do people keep arguing this? Nobody is saying this.


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> This is why I think this potion of the thread is interesting. It ties directly with the first.
> 
> Many of these issues _could _be solved by sleeping with people before you meet the one you want to marry
> 
> Not only does it give you a good sense of what is and isn't important to you in a sexual relationship, you can veto the ones who don't suit you and keep going.
> 
> When you marry someone without knowing your own sexual needs, when you don't consider sex in the getting to know someone stage, you could end up in this situation.
> 
> So for those who are against many partners before marriage, which situation is better?
> Ending up in a sexually frustrating relationship where you either have to deal with it or pressure your partner into doing things they are not comfortable with
> or
> Ending up in a compatible sexual relationship BUT either or both partners has a high number?



You raise a couple of good points and I want to expand on the subject a bit.

While I hold that it is natural and human for a man to feel a bit gypped by a wife who really stretched her wings before she (to mix a metaphor) trimmed her sails, the principle of personal autonomy _in general_ is to be respected, even if the position of (in this case) the wife is kind of owed. (Personal is wrong on this) 

I would not go so far as to say she owes him an opportunity to change her mind (though if, in her explanation, she really can't justify herself mentally, maybe she needs to rethink things. none of us are perfect), as much as to sooth ruffled feathers ("I don't do anal because I've tried it before and it hurts. And Brad had a much thinner penis than you did.") I mean, right there! That chapter is CLOSED with a few words.

Instead, by standing on the principle of 'no thanks' being the last word, you are setting up a situation of smoldering resentment.

And of course, there is the indefensible 'meh' factor. Not to pick on sam, but if something doesn't work for me, but it REALLY works for my wife, I'll probably do it, perhaps with a few restrictions. Why not? Probably not often, and with the FIRM understanding that this is a gift and not a requirement, but why not? 

But to get to the core of your post. Sorry SGC. 

If you, as a couple, are inexperienced, you really avoid all these resentments totally!

Because after vanilla sex starts to lose it's thrill, the couple will go out *together* and try a few other things.

"Let's try oral today." "Yay! Total upvote though warn me before you shoot."

"Okay, anal." "Well...let's never do THAT again!"

etc.

No mental movies. Everything shared together. And everything discussed before hand.

And since you both don't know what the hell is going on, you can explore...and screw things up. "Maybe we try anal again next month. I read a book..."

So no, I am not dismissing your point. Frankly, once you get to partner 2 or 3, comparisons may very likely start up. In that case, dive in!

I am submitting benefits of another way.


----------



## NobodySpecial

treyvion said:


> Why in holey h3ll should a man put those kills on the table, pay those bills, keep the roof over their heads and keep them fed if she would rather lay with other men. Those same other men, wouldn't bring her a roll of toilet paper!
> 
> Explain that to me?u


So marriage is a purchase agreement? You own her sexually because you pay bills? Not a marriage I would choose. I make the money, so I guess I don't owe DH sex. Thankfully I love sex with him. Because he is wonderful, caring, masculine and hot. And does not give a rats behind about my past, only about our present and future. And that "buys" him a whole lot of trust, love and enthusiastic, no holds barred bootie.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> If you, as a couple, are inexperienced, you really avoid all these resentments totally!
> 
> Because after vanilla sex starts to lose it's thrill, the couple will go out *together* and try a few other things.
> 
> "Let's try oral today." "Yay! Total upvote though warn me before you shoot."
> 
> "Okay, anal." "Well...let's never do THAT again!"
> 
> etc.
> 
> No mental movies. Everything shared together. And everything discussed before hand.
> 
> And since you both don't know what the hell is going on, you can explore...and screw things up. "Maybe we try anal again next month. I read a book..."


But how often does a couple get together, many times it's the wife that's vanilla, no big interest in sex. Husband has this idea of trying new things together and 10 years down the road... she's still vanilla. No big interest in sex or new things. Now he's frustrated because oral, anal, different positions, etc are things he wants to try. How often has that story been on SIM?
Is it worth the risk? 

And FTR- even though H had many partners and I'm above average but not too high, we still have memories of trying, failing, and succeeding with new things together. Had our relationship been better in other ways we could still be having fun sharing and learning new things together. If I'm ever in another relationship there will still be sharing and trying and learning. Everyone is different. But I'll know to make sure I find someone who meets the items on my checklist.

Maybe the fear of mind movies makes this option too risky too.

So it ends up being about priorities. What bothers me is when someone's priority was to find an inexperienced, "pure" woman and then complain if she's too vanilla in bed. Or when someone has a priority to find a sexual match but then complains that she's had partners before. Or a mix of any of the above really. Basically, don't get into a relationship with something you know will be a deal breaker down the road and then b*tch about it. 

I think it's a common mistake, I did it too. I've learned that it's my fault, not the fault of the person who showed you who they are and then was still that person years later.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> So marriage is a purchase agreement? You own her sexually because you pay bills? Not a marriage I would choose. I make the money, so I guess I don't owe DH sex. Thankfully I love sex with him. Because he is wonderful, caring, masculine and hot. And does not give a rats behind about my past, only about our present and future. And that "buys" him a whole lot of trust, love and enthusiastic, no holds barred bootie.


This is picking a fight.

Both partners have expectations from a marriage and it is not wrong to say so. If, as is too frequently the case, a man just suddenly stopped working and sat around the house all day, don't try to tell me that the woman would feel gypped and cheated by her spouse. Did she buy him as a work slave? How dare she feel this way?!?

So yes, a sex life is pretty much assumed. Now, that doesn't suppose 'steak' every day. Life isn't like that. Which is where the friction and joy of compromise gets started.

Now, to answer the statement of Miss Taken: why are we fighting about this at all? I mean...no one ACTUALLY denies sex acts they enjoy from their spouses, right? So this is a snipe hunt!

Well, no.

As I referenced earlier, this is less about 'anal at eleven' and more about the meta point of 'who wears the pants in the family' about sex.

1) The 'meh' factor. Take a look at Coping with Infidelity, and you will see a bunch of people discussing how they had a 'eh' sex life of tee shirts and weekly lifeless romps and then wifey (or whomever) takes off to vacation in Sodom with the finest from Victoria's Secret...with someone else. What happened to the 'a woman won't deny someone something they enjoy?' So, are they or aren't they enjoying it with the new dude? Why didn't they enjoy it before? Now, I will easily grant in some cases, the man didn't inspire the woman...but in some cases, it's just the woman being selfish! It goes both ways.

and then there is this by Slowly Going Crazy



> But how often does a couple get together, many times it's the wife that's vanilla, no big interest in sex. Husband has this idea of trying new things together and 10 years down the road... she's still vanilla


SHE decides what the sex life is...and that is that!

It's so common it's a cliché...and this is essentially telling a partner to 'suck it' without any discussion, input or compromise.

Which frankly, if you are in the shoes of the shorted partner, just plain sucks!


Edited to add: There is a rational fear by women that they will be relegated to 'sex toy' if they do not assert their sexual autonomy.

However, men are also sensitive that this assertion means the wife is co-opting the right to total control of their sex life. Some pushback against this idea is to be expected. This is also a rational concern.

Now, Personal seems to think that a magic conversation is going to just fix all this. Certainly communication will help...but not always.

Which is why these boots were made for walking....


----------



## wmn1

JCD
Member

JCD's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,990

Default Re: Number of past sexual partners
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowlyGoingCrazy View Post
This is why I think this potion of the thread is interesting. It ties directly with the first.

Many of these issues could be solved by sleeping with people before you meet the one you want to marry

Not only does it give you a good sense of what is and isn't important to you in a sexual relationship, you can veto the ones who don't suit you and keep going.

When you marry someone without knowing your own sexual needs, when you don't consider sex in the getting to know someone stage, you could end up in this situation.

So for those who are against many partners before marriage, which situation is better?
Ending up in a sexually frustrating relationship where you either have to deal with it or pressure your partner into doing things they are not comfortable with
or
Ending up in a compatible sexual relationship BUT either or both partners has a high number?










You raise a couple of good points and I want to expand on the subject a bit.

While I hold that it is natural and human for a man to feel a bit gypped by a wife who really stretched her wings before she (to mix a metaphor) trimmed her sails, the principle of personal autonomy in general is to be respected, even if the position of (in this case) the wife is kind of owed. (Personal is wrong on this)

I would not go so far as to say she owes him an opportunity to change her mind (though if, in her explanation, she really can't justify herself mentally, maybe she needs to rethink things. none of us are perfect), as much as to sooth ruffled feathers ("I don't do anal because I've tried it before and it hurts. And Brad had a much thinner penis than you did.") I mean, right there! That chapter is CLOSED with a few words.

Instead, by standing on the principle of 'no thanks' being the last word, you are setting up a situation of smoldering resentment.

And of course, there is the indefensible 'meh' factor. Not to pick on sam, but if something doesn't work for me, but it REALLY works for my wife, I'll probably do it, perhaps with a few restrictions. Why not? Probably not often, and with the FIRM understanding that this is a gift and not a requirement, but why not?

But to get to the core of your post. Sorry SGC.

If you, as a couple, are inexperienced, you really avoid all these resentments totally!

Because after vanilla sex starts to lose it's thrill, the couple will go out together and try a few other things.

"Let's try oral today." "Yay! Total upvote though warn me before you shoot."

"Okay, anal." "Well...let's never do THAT again!"

etc.

No mental movies. Everything shared together. And everything discussed before hand.

And since you both don't know what the hell is going on, you can explore...and screw things up. "Maybe we try anal again next month. I read a book..."

So no, I am not dismissing your point. Frankly, once you get to partner 2 or 3, comparisons may very likely start up. In that case, dive in!

I am submitting benefits of another way.




:iagree:


----------



## treyvion

NobodySpecial said:


> So marriage is a purchase agreement? You own her sexually because you pay bills? Not a marriage I would choose. I make the money, so I guess I don't owe DH sex. Thankfully I love sex with him. Because he is wonderful, caring, masculine and hot. And does not give a rats behind about my past, only about our present and future. And that "buys" him a whole lot of trust, love and enthusiastic, no holds barred bootie.


Well your new man should live off you then.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wmn1

JCD
Member

JCD's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,990

Default Re: Number of past sexual partners
Quote:
Originally Posted by NobodySpecial View Post
So marriage is a purchase agreement? You own her sexually because you pay bills? Not a marriage I would choose. I make the money, so I guess I don't owe DH sex. Thankfully I love sex with him. Because he is wonderful, caring, masculine and hot. And does not give a rats behind about my past, only about our present and future. And that "buys" him a whole lot of trust, love and enthusiastic, no holds barred bootie.







This is picking a fight.

Both partners have expectations from a marriage and it is not wrong to say so. If, as is too frequently the case, a man just suddenly stopped working and sat around the house all day, don't try to tell me that the woman would feel gypped and cheated by her spouse. Did she buy him as a work slave? How dare she feel this way?!?

So yes, a sex life is pretty much assumed. Now, that doesn't suppose 'steak' every day. Life isn't like that. Which is where the friction and joy of compromise gets started.

Now, to answer the statement of Miss Taken: why are we fighting about this at all? I mean...no one ACTUALLY denies sex acts they enjoy from their spouses, right? So this is a snipe hunt!

Well, no.

As I referenced earlier, this is less about 'anal at eleven' and more about the meta point of 'who wears the pants in the family' about sex.

1) The 'meh' factor. Take a look at Coping with Infidelity, and you will see a bunch of people discussing how they had a 'eh' sex life of tee shirts and weekly lifeless romps and then wifey (or whomever) takes off to vacation in Sodom with the finest from Victoria's Secret...with someone else. What happened to the 'a woman won't deny someone something they enjoy?' So, are they or aren't they enjoying it with the new dude? Why didn't they enjoy it before? Now, I will easily grant in some cases, the man didn't inspire the woman...but in some cases, it's just the woman being selfish! It goes both ways.

and then there is this by Slowly Going Crazy

Quote:
But how often does a couple get together, many times it's the wife that's vanilla, no big interest in sex. Husband has this idea of trying new things together and 10 years down the road... she's still vanilla
SHE decides what the sex life is...and that is that!

It's so common it's a cliché...and this is essentially telling a partner to 'suck it' without any discussion, input or compromise.

Which frankly, if you are in the shoes of the shorted partner, just plain sucks!


Edited to add: There is a rational fear by women that they will be relegated to 'sex toy' if they do not assert their sexual autonomy.

However, men are also sensitive that this assertion means the wife is co-opting the right to total control of their sex life. Some pushback against this idea is to be expected. This is also a rational concern.

Now, Personal seems to think that a magic conversation is going to just fix all this. Certainly communication will help...but not always.

Which is why these boots were made for walking.... 



:iagree:


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> This is picking a fight.


Why is that? Because I think his attitude is unattractive? He said it, not me.



> Both partners have expectations from a marriage and it is not wrong to say so.


WHAT you expect can be either attractive or unattractive. You see a lot of expectations around quid pro quo type arrangements. 

I don't expect my husband to provide, work and earn. I expect him to communicate about his life dreams. I expect him to love me. Trust me. He does not expect me to put out. He expects me to communicate with him about my life. To trust him. To love him.

It has nothing to do with anyone else in the world. It has to do with he and I. He has too much confidence to get bummed out about some other person. And that is hot. And by demonstrating he loves ME and cares for ME, over the first 5 to 8 years of our marriage, he has helped me develop the trust and love to help develop and grow my sexual super freak. If he had said you did it with him, why not with me, waaaahh, I would have felt pressured and used. And super freak would never have surfaced.


----------



## NobodySpecial

treyvion said:


> Well your new man should live off you then.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have one husband, and have only ever had one husband. He currently does live off me as he develops his business. He is a truly wonderful man who married a sexually damaged, scared person and helped her grow into a super freak. There is literally nothing that is not regularly on the table.

I may know what I am talking about.


----------



## treyvion

NobodySpecial said:


> I have one husband, and have only ever had one husband. He currently does live off me as he develops his business. He is a truly wonderful man who married a sexually damaged, scared person and helped her grow into a super freak. There is literally nothing that is not regularly on the table.
> 
> I may know what I am talking about.


Sounds good.

I thought you were against men who work hard to provide for their families while their spouses will use other men for sex.


----------



## Miss Taken

JCD said:


> So yes, a sex life is pretty much assumed. Now, that doesn't suppose 'steak' every day. Life isn't like that. Which is where the friction and joy of compromise gets started.


Can't speak for others but I am not here to argue that it's unreasonable to expect that a marriage/committed long term adult relationship includes sex. I'm a woman, I expect to have a regular sex life with a boyfriend or husband otherwise he'd be my friend or roommate and not my "lover". If I wanted only a life-partner or companion, I'd go to the shelter and adopt a dog. 

Expecting to have sex is okay, feeling entitled to sex in a marriage/common-law relationship is okay. Insisting everything is negotiable when everyone has their own personal limits is what I disagree with. It is unrealistic to assume everything is up for negotiation.

If tomorrow my spouse told me that it would make him incredibly happy and sexually fulfilled for him to wear a pair of my lace panties and model them for me. That not to do so would make him miserable and unhappy etc... I am sorry but that's beyond my comfort zone or what I could compromise on. If he felt absolutely unfulfilled not doing that, then he'd either have to leave or stifle that desire and let resentments fester or if I did give in, I would lose respect (right or wrong, that's how I'd feel) and in turn attraction for him. It wouldn't physically hurt me, degrade me, maim me etc. but it'd still be off the table. What more can be said to that in than a simple, "No thanks?" What would be left to discuss with such diametrically opposing feelings/opinions about that? What would discussion solve?

People keep arguing that anal, BDSM, (probably the example I just gave) are red herrings... that why discuss those things when there are vanilla sex acts that are being denied. However, the bar is not set the same for everyone. One man's/woman's view on anal, BDSM, cross-dressing etc. might be that it's taboo, for others, it's something they've done regularly for years and it's vanilla. For me, swallowing during oral is par for the course. Before this thread, I took it for granted that everyone does it. For others, that would be kinky, disgusting or degrading. So I do think bringing up other sex acts is relevant as one man's vanilla is another's rocky road. 



JCD said:


> Now, to answer the statement of Miss Taken: why are we fighting about this at all? I mean...no one ACTUALLY denies sex acts they enjoy from their spouses, right? So this is a snipe hunt!
> 
> 
> 1) The 'meh' factor. Take a look at Coping with Infidelity, and you will see a bunch of people discussing how they had a 'eh' sex life of tee shirts and weekly lifeless romps and then wifey (or whomever) takes off to vacation in Sodom with the finest from Victoria's Secret...with someone else. What happened to the 'a woman won't deny someone something they enjoy?' So, are they or aren't they enjoying it with the new dude? Why didn't they enjoy it before? Now, I will easily grant in some cases, the man didn't inspire the woman...but in some cases, it's just the woman being selfish! It goes both ways.


We've been talking about what was once enjoyed in the past, with an old lover and then taken off the table. Your example is about something that wasn't enjoyed so far as we know and then done in the future/present with some new dude. Not the same things...and when infidelity is involved, that's a totally different animal altogether. I still feel like it is a snipe hunt as expressed in this thread. 



JCD said:


> and then there is this by Slowly Going Crazy
> 
> 
> 
> SHE decides what the sex life is...and that is that!
> 
> It's so common it's a cliché...and this is essentially telling a partner to 'suck it' without any discussion, input or compromise.
> 
> Which frankly, if you are in the shoes of the shorted partner, just plain sucks!



It is cliche but it is also cliche for the man who wants to marry the "Madonna" (chaste and inexperienced woman) with the expectation that she will later morph into his private (not intended negatively), "wh0re" (adventurous, generous and open lover) once married. Of course there are times when this works out I remember CM talking about how well it worked out for he and his wife in a waiting till marriage thread. SA and her husband also have a fulfilling sex life. However there are also many examples in SiM where it does not. Many times the chastity lends itself to frigidity and not the romanticism of being each other's firsts.


----------



## Miss Taken

The multi-quote function on this site is everybody's friend.

Not intended to boss around, provoke or offend. Just finding some posts hard to sift through. 

Just sayin' lol.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> Why is that? Because I think his attitude is unattractive? He said it, not me.
> 
> 
> WHAT you expect can be either attractive or unattractive. You see a lot of expectations around quid pro quo type arrangements.
> 
> I don't expect my husband to provide, work and earn. I expect him to communicate about his life dreams. I expect him to love me. Trust me. He does not expect me to put out. He expects me to communicate with him about my life. To trust him. To love him.
> 
> It has nothing to do with anyone else in the world. It has to do with he and I. He has too much confidence to get bummed out about some other person. And that is hot. And by demonstrating he loves ME and cares for ME, over the first 5 to 8 years of our marriage, he has helped me develop the trust and love to help develop and grow my sexual super freak. If he had said you did it with him, why not with me, waaaahh, I would have felt pressured and used. And super freak would never have surfaced.


First things first:

You twisted his arguments to make it seem that any expectation from a partner re sex is sexual slavery. This is nonsense on stilts.

So...if you cut off big bad confident hubby, he would not have a word to say? Feh!

You know that's not true. And if hubby started to reject you, you know damned well you'd have a few things to say about it too.

That you have not run into these problems has nothing to do with the fact you have these expectations; it has everything to do with already *knowing* you have these expectations...and meeting your obligations like mature people!

So you want to 'do your duty' so to speak but pretend that you are doing no such thing. That the 'duty' is a win win has no bearing on the case at hand.

And if 'nothing is ever off the table'...exactly what does he have to demand and complain about? NOTHING! You have already removed the entire problem discussed. 

No one is controlling the sex life and everyone is putting 100% effort into it. He gets everything he wants!

So...the difference between you and the hypothetical wife in this example is *you are doing what she refuses to do*...and then wonder why her husband has a different response than yours.

Or to put it succinctly: "I viciously reserve the right to deny my husband anything sexual I want....I just never ever actually USE that right. Shockingly, he seems happy with my having a right I never ever use."

 Whatever.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> and then there is this by Slowly Going Crazy
> 
> 
> 
> SHE decides what the sex life is...and that is that!
> 
> It's so common it's a cliché...and this is essentially telling a partner to 'suck it' without any discussion, input or compromise.
> 
> Which frankly, if you are in the shoes of the shorted partner, just plain sucks!



So if it could have been avoided by having a spouse who is more open to sex and is more a match to your own sexually BUT she has quite a few previous partners, would it be worth it? 

Or is a partner with sexual purity worth the _risk _of a frustrating sex life?


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> First things first:
> 
> You twisted his arguments to make it seem that any expectation from a partner re sex is sexual slavery. This is nonsense on stilts.
> 
> So...if you cut off big bad confident hubby, he would not have a word to say? Feh!
> 
> You know that's not true. And if hubby started to reject you, you know damned well you'd have a few things to say about it too.
> 
> That you have not run into these problems has nothing to do with the fact you have these expectations; it has everything to do with already *knowing* you have these expectations...and meeting your obligations like mature people!
> 
> So you want to 'do your duty' so to speak but pretend that you are doing no such thing. That the 'duty' is a win win has no bearing on the case at hand.
> 
> And if 'nothing is ever off the table'...exactly what does he have to demand and complain about? NOTHING! You have already removed the entire problem discussed.
> 
> No one is controlling the sex life and everyone is putting 100% effort into it. He gets everything he wants!
> 
> So...the difference between you and the hypothetical wife in this example is *you are doing what she refuses to do*...and then wonder why her husband has a different response than yours.
> 
> Or to put it succinctly: "I viciously reserve the right to deny my husband anything sexual I want....I just never ever actually USE that right. Shockingly, he seems happy with my having a right I never ever use."
> 
> Whatever.


I think you are missing the point. His attitude is WHY I became comfortable doing the things I previously was not willing to do.


----------



## JCD

Miss Taken said:


> Can't speak for others but I am not here to argue that it's unreasonable to expect that a marriage/committed long term adult relationship includes sex. I'm a woman, I expect to have a regular sex life with a boyfriend or husband otherwise he'd be my friend or roommate and not my "lover". If I wanted only a life-partner or companion, I'd go to the shelter and adopt a dog.
> 
> Expecting to have sex is okay, feeling entitled to sex in a marriage/common-law relationship is okay. Insisting everything is negotiable when everyone has their own personal limits is what I disagree with. It is unrealistic to assume everything is up for negotiation.
> 
> If tomorrow my spouse told me that it would make him incredibly happy and sexually fulfilled for him to wear a pair of my lace panties and model them for me. That not to do so would make him miserable and unhappy etc... I am sorry but that's beyond my comfort zone or what I could compromise on. If he felt absolutely unfulfilled not doing that, then he'd either have to leave or stifle that desire and let resentments fester or if I did give in, I would lose respect (right or wrong, that's how I'd feel) and in turn attraction for him. It wouldn't physically hurt me, degrade me, maim me etc. but it'd still be off the table. What more can be said to that in than a simple, "No thanks?" What would be left to discuss with such diametrically opposing feelings/opinions about that? What would discussion solve?
> 
> People keep arguing that anal, BDSM, (probably the example I just gave) are red herrings... that why discuss those things when there are vanilla sex acts that are being denied. However, the bar is not set the same for everyone. One man's/woman's view on anal, BDSM, cross-dressing etc. might be that it's taboo, for others, it's something they've done regularly for years and it's vanilla. For me, swallowing during oral is par for the course. Before this thread, I took it for granted that everyone does it. For others, that would be kinky, disgusting or degrading. So I do think bringing up other sex acts is relevant as one man's vanilla is another's rocky road.
> 
> 
> 
> *We've been talking about what was once enjoyed in the past, with an old lover and then taken off the table. Your example is about something that wasn't enjoyed so far as we know and then done in the future/present with some new dude. Not the same things...and when infidelity is involved, that's a totally different animal altogether. I still feel like it is a snipe hunt as expressed in this thread. *
> 
> 
> 
> It is cliche but it is also cliche for the man who wants to marry the "Madonna" (chaste and inexperienced woman) with the expectation that she will later morph into his private (not intended negatively), "wh0re" (adventurous, generous and open lover) once married. Of course there are times when this works out I remember CM talking about how well it worked out for he and his wife in a waiting till marriage thread. SA and her husband also have a fulfilling sex life. However there are also many examples in SiM where it does not. Many times the chastity lends itself to frigidity and not the romanticism of being each other's firsts.


I can see that, but honestly, 'no thanks' is really not a sufficient conversation. "That sort of play will cause damage to our relationship." Now, as an informed spouse, I can think if me wearing panties is REALLY that important compared to our relationship.

(little consequence: some of the open discussion about sexuality would be damaged...but still...)

The bolded portion is still relevant, I think. That is the whole point of this exercise: changing minds on sex and how fair it is or isn't to the other spouse. Whether it is before or after, whether it was denied before or after, really doesn't change the principle, at least to me. "I wanted to do X. You said no. Now you ran off and did X. How am I supposed to think of this?"

Now, the only difference between before and after in the denial is that the woman does not need to live with the consequences of the hurt feelings if she does X later and not before.

It is something we may have to disagree on.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> I think you are missing the point. His attitude is WHY I became comfortable doing the things I previously was not willing to do.


No. The point is that you twisted someone's words to make them seem like a sexual slaver.

Your description of what the husband did was vague.


----------



## Miss Taken

JCD said:


> I can see that, but honestly, 'no thanks' is really not a sufficient conversation. "That sort of play will cause damage to our relationship." Now, as an informed spouse, I can think if me wearing panties is REALLY that important compared to our relationship.
> 
> (little consequence: some of the open discussion about sexuality would be damaged...but still...)


Okay, agree with this. 



JCD said:


> The bolded portion is still relevant, I think. That is the whole point of this exercise: changing minds on sex and how fair it is or isn't to the other spouse. Whether it is before or after, whether it was denied before or after, really doesn't change the principle, at least to me. "I wanted to do X. You said no. Now you ran off and did X. How am I supposed to think of this?"
> 
> Now, the only difference between before and after in the denial is that the woman does not need to live with the consequences of the hurt feelings if she does X later and not before.
> 
> *It is something we may have to disagree on.*


Agreed.


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> No. The point is that you twisted someone's words to make them seem like a sexual slaver.


That is how I would feel if I were his wife.


----------



## Buddy400

Miss Taken said:


> Still, this unlikely, hypothetical situation has been discussed ad nausea in this thread and determined already by most that no woman here is talking about stopping doing something they enjoyed or holding a certain act sacred for a past lover.
> 
> Can we drop that now? Seriously, what man/woman does that? Has this happened to you or any man here? If not, why do people keep arguing this? Nobody is saying this.


Okay, I'll take one more whack at this dead horse.

I don't think anyone here is claiming that a woman enjoyed something with a prior lover, would enjoy doing it with their current lover and refuses to do it out of sheer spite.

I think a better example, which has been clearly proposed here several times is a situation where a woman felt indifferent about a certain act, did it with a past lover, still feels indifferent about the act and refuses to do it with their current lover. When asked to do it for her current lover, she responds only with "no thanks".

Could you explain how you feel about this hypothetical?


----------



## firebelly1

Buddy400 said:


> Okay, I'll take one more whack at this dead horse.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is claiming that a woman enjoyed something with a prior lover, would enjoy doing it with their current lover and refuses to do it out of sheer spite.
> 
> I think a better example, which has been clearly proposed here several times is a situation where a woman felt indifferent about a certain act, did it with a past lover, still feels indifferent about the act and refuses to do it with their current lover. When asked to do it for her current lover, she responds only with "no thanks".
> 
> Could you explain how you feel about this hypothetical?


On it's face I think that can be selfish. But maybe it's not so much about the thing they are doing; it may be the frequency. Like, okay honey, you want me to lick your toes. I did that with my past lovers. I'm willing to do that but just not every time.


----------



## JCD

Buddy400 said:


> Okay, I'll take one more whack at this dead horse.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is claiming that a woman enjoyed something with a prior lover, would enjoy doing it with their current lover and refuses to do it out of sheer spite.
> 
> I think a better example, which has been clearly proposed here several times is a situation where a woman felt indifferent about a certain act, did it with a past lover, still feels indifferent about the act and refuses to do it with their current lover. When asked to do it for her current lover, she responds only with "no thanks".
> 
> Could you explain how you feel about this hypothetical?


Agreed. It isn't the 'I hate this' factor. It is the 'my mild distaste in engaging in this action far overrides the affection I feel for you, my husband.'

Though to be fair, my wife can't normally get me to eat peas. But she doesn't get off on peas  And if she pressed, I'd eat peas. My love for her far outweighs my hatred of peas, though I reserve the right to b!tch about it.


----------



## I Don't Know

Also, remember to pick you battles. Not that I think anyone posting here needs reminded, but maybe someone who reads this at some later point. 

Don't just want to be wanting. My wife agreed to a threesome with her ex. I have no desire to share her with anyone else male or female, so why in the world would I fight to get the same agreement? Other than "he got it so I want it" or "I just want to see if she will" there would be no reason too and those are horrible reasons to want it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

The one thing I will note about this past lover business. That person is an EX. What does that tell anyone?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> The one thing I will note about this past lover business. That person is an EX. What does that tell anyone?


Maybe that he dumped her so she settled for you.

Maybe that he wouldn't commit to her, so she dumped him and settled for you.


----------



## Miss Taken

Buddy400 said:


> is a situation where a woman felt indifferent about a certain act, did it with a past lover, still feels indifferent about the act and refuses to do it with their current lover. When asked to do it for her current lover, she responds only with "no thanks".
> 
> Could you explain how you feel about this hypothetical?


If she was truly indifferent to it and it was something he really needed/desired to be satisfied then I don't see why she wouldn't do it at least some of the time. Doesn't seem to detract/add to her feelings towards him but may add to his positive feelings about her.

But if it's something he didn't really care about, just wanted it because some other man got it... well even then I suppose that's okay but do think him silly for it.


----------



## Thundarr

Buddy400 said:


> Maybe that he dumped her so she settled for you.
> 
> Maybe that he wouldn't commit to her, so she dumped him and settled for you.


This sounds insecure and not confident at all. Maybe that's why women find it frustrating. When their guy thinks like this they don't see confidence.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> The one thing I will note about this past lover business. That person is an EX. What does that tell anyone?


She once thought quite highly of him? But she changed her mind.

And she might change it again.

Which is why we come up with the unsettling nature of ' high numbers'.

Was it 'deal breakers' or is she naturally fickle?

It is statistically troubling that a person (let's not be gender specific) can run through a hundred people and not find a single decent one among them.

BUT...to think of it another way, if she is so choosy, finally choosing ME is certainly complimentary...as long as I'm not just the latest in line.


----------



## Buddy400

Miss Taken said:


> If she was truly indifferent to it and it was something he really needed/desired to be satisfied then I don't see why she wouldn't do it at least some of the time. Doesn't seem to detract/add to her feelings towards him but may add to his positive feelings about her.
> 
> But if it's something he didn't really care about, just wanted it because some other man got it... well even then I suppose that's okay but do think him silly for it.



Now we're getting somewhere. 

After all the pages and pages of back and forth, I think this is the point most of us were trying to make.

Most guys aren't d!cks. Really.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Buddy400 said:


> Now we're getting somewhere.
> 
> After all the pages and pages of back and forth, I think this is the point most of us were trying to make.
> 
> Most guys aren't d!cks. Really.


I think the confusion is that the conversation started around and about this response. 



EleGirl said:


> You bring up a good point: the things we want to know about someone when in a relationship with them.
> 
> The level of info that some people have talked about here on TAM is what gets me. Wanting to know some general info makes sense. But some have talked about wanting to know what sexual positions, what experimentation, which partners she did what with, etc. And then if the woman has done anything with a previous partner she has to do it with him. She has to do it even if it's something that she does not like, that hurts, that she found humiliating, etc. It's like the guy needs the details so that he can even some score he's keeping.
> 
> This gets back to the point of making it safe. If a man starts using the info a woman shares with him to basically emotionally blackmail her into doing things that she is not comfortable with then I hope the woman is smart and strong enough to just walk away from the relationship. All too often she's not.



and has turned into some hypothetical situation where a woman has done something over and over again, either likes or doesn't mind it, and has no good reasons for not wanting to do it with their spouse.


----------



## I Don't Know

Just because someone is an ex doesn't mean you W or H wouldn't rather be with them. An example from this very thread was that person moved away. Just because the married you doesn't mean you are their #1.

It does happen that people settle.

Someone said earlier that we couldn't know what someone else is thinking and shouldn't try to control what they are thinking. And that's 100% true. So, IF we have doubts that we ARE our partners #1, what can we do about it? Some of us look at their past relationships and how they treated those people vs. how they treat us. It can be anything from how often they declared their undying love on social media to what sex acts were willingly performed. 

Like it or not people do look at past behavior as an indication of future behavior and to try to get a picture of who you are. Why wouldn't we expect that if Brad got a full body massage once a week, and our SO loves us so much more than they ever loved Brad, we could expect the same? Does that not logical? I love my wife way more than I ever remember loving anyone else, I also try to show that by doing more nice things for her than I ever did for anyone else. IDK that just makes sense to me.


----------



## I Don't Know

I'm sure I'm completely F'd up in the head to be like this but....

My wife recently colored her hair for me. She told me that's something I've never done for anyone else. That meant more to me than if she had agreed to perform every sexual act and act of service she had ever performed with any other man. It didn't have to be sex act A. Just something that set me apart.

When I can actually SEE that I'm getting better than the other a-holes I feel like King A-hole.


----------



## treyvion

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I think the confusion is that the conversation started around and about this response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and has turned into some hypothetical situation where a woman has done something over and over again, either likes or doesn't mind it, and has no good reasons for not wanting to do it with their spouse.


This raises my blood temps hearing this.


----------



## Thundarr

I Don't Know said:


> I'm sure I'm completely F'd up in the head to be like this but....
> 
> My wife recently colored her hair for me. She told me that's something I've never done for anyone else. That meant more to me than if she had agreed to perform every sexual act and act of service she had ever performed with any other man. It didn't have to be sex act A. Just something that set me apart.
> 
> When I can actually SEE that I'm getting better than the other a-holes I feel like King A-hole.


Then we (99% of men) are all that way. I don't think a lot of women get how much stuff like this inflates us. It's the equivalent of a diamond for us.


----------



## I Don't Know

treyvion said:


> This raises my blood temps hearing this.


She has a point though. It is very hypothetical at this point. I've not seen anyone here point to a concrete example from their own life, though I'm sure it happens from time to time.

My only example of it is a 3 way that was only agreed to and never happened, which I don't want anyway so it doesn't count. I guess if I asked and she wouldn't agree to it I would have a case.

Or sex in general. I think it's more common that sex is cut out than specific acts are cut out. There are threads on this site that indicate that wife (or husband) had wild sex life when single, finds the safe stable partner and settles down, and the sex life dies because he doesn't do it for her like the bar guys did. I guess that is at it's root the same thing but on a much broader scale.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> Then we all are (99% of men). I don't think a lot of women get how much stuff like this inflates us. It's the equivalent of a diamond for us.


Kinda like a lot of men don't get that women too often want to be treated like Queen a-hole?


----------



## Thundarr

I Don't Know said:


> There are threads on this site that indicate that wife (or husband) had wild sex life when single, finds the safe stable partner and settles down, and the sex life dies because he doesn't do it for her like the bar guys did. I guess that is at it's root the same thing but on a much broader scale.


There's a lot on the table for the asking when the relationship is new. For men and women that is. Not so much after years or decades of marriage and kids and life and building habits.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Kinda like a lot of men don't get that women too often want to be treated like Queen a-hole?


I'm sorry AA. I don't understand what you meant by that. Which means I probably am one of the ones who don't get it. Elaborate please


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> Kinda like a lot of men don't get that women too often want to be treated like Queen a-hole?


Right!uppy:uppy:uppy:

Like they are king c0ck of the house, the most dominant and masculine male, and your are cucked in their presense.:smthumbup:

Some of them do want this, and a endless string of sexual partners who don't mean anything to them. A handful of ones who are always more than you.

You should be thankful to be her stepstool and a$$wiper.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Kinda like a lot of men don't get that women too often want to be treated like Queen a-hole?


Is it at all possible that men and women are not exactly alike?


----------



## I Don't Know

Thundarr said:


> I'm sorry AA. I don't understand what you meant by that. Which means I probably am one of the ones who don't get it. Elaborate please


I'm lost too. Which probably proves her point.


----------



## JCD

sigh


----------



## murphy5

Cleigh said:


> Just curious as to what people think on this site about the number of past sexual relationships a girl has.
> Would you not be with someone if they have had many partners?
> How many to you is too many?
> Why would/wouldn't you be with someone who has had a lot?


past sexual partners would be ok with me, but gangbangs with a room full of clowns would definately be a deal breaker.

BUT if the ratio of furies to clowns was greater than 1 in the room, i might let it slide


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I Don't Know said:


> Just because someone is an ex doesn't mean you W or H wouldn't rather be with them. An example from this very thread was that person moved away. Just because the married you doesn't mean you are their #1.
> 
> It does happen that people settle.
> 
> Someone said earlier that we couldn't know what someone else is thinking and shouldn't try to control what they are thinking. And that's 100% true. So, IF we have doubts that we ARE our partners #1, what can we do about it? Some of us look at their past relationships and how they treated those people vs. how they treat us. It can be anything from how often they declared their undying love on social media to what sex acts were willingly performed.
> 
> Like it or not people do look at past behavior as an indication of future behavior and to try to get a picture of who you are. Why wouldn't we expect that if Brad got a full body massage once a week, and our SO loves us so much more than they ever loved Brad, we could expect the same? Does that not logical? I love my wife way more than I ever remember loving anyone else, I also try to show that by doing more nice things for her than I ever did for anyone else. IDK that just makes sense to me.


Sorry.. had to jump in, pretty much blows my mind anyone could argue with this.. whole lotta *settling* going on in marriages today....oh people are not going to outright say this .. it would be so rude to speak it out of your mouth.. but let's get real.. How many people truly GET the love of their lives?? 

Ya know.. I am one who actually enjoys hearing of old Flames meeting up again after many yrs (1st Loves & all that) like on a talk show.. many of those will go on how they always wanted THAT person but life happened, they made mistakes. then here they are, reunited again... There is one poster here, his story is heartbreaking... his wife & Ex , out of pure stubborness had a horrible fight /broke up .. but NEVER seemed to get over each other .. or I should say *SHE NEVER GOT OVER HIM.*.. even on their wedding day, this so called friend (of his too) who slept with her (unknowing to him at the time) joked in the line some comment he should have gotten his a$$ kicked for.. 

For the life of me, how in the hell he stayed with her, I don't know. But he's fully aware he was never #1...it's not some imagined insecurity... He's one of those good men who probably stay for his family..

Even the tangled web of my parents involved "*settling*".. My Mom's 1st love died in a motorcycle accident, she settled for my dad one might say.. she's always told me she was never in love with him... but oh her BEST FRIEND [email protected]#$.. but what could she do.. so she settled for her husband.. (mind you, all 4 of them hung out in high school, then lived in a trailer court my Grandparents owned in their early marriages).... so when my Mom didn't want to have sex with my dad (what destroyed their marriage & rightly so!)... my step Mom MOVED IN for the kill - after all she always held a flame for him... her husband was purely "settled for" & it's a wonder he didn't kill my father!

It was inevitable... Step Mom ended up with my dad.... Funny thing was, step Mom's ex was then trying to get MY MOM [email protected]#$ 

After all the sh** my Mom put my dad through, he learned a valuable lesson on "compatibility" (it was never there with her)... 

Step Mom & him ~ great marriage.. last 37 yrs strong...she treats him like a King & he adores her ... it seemed something "meant to be" from the start.. but at least I was born out of that mess ..


----------



## JCD

Settling.

Sometimes the flower withers

Sometimes the flower stays stunted.

Sometimes the flower GROWS.


----------



## I Don't Know

JCD said:


> Settling.
> 
> Sometimes the flower withers
> 
> Sometimes the flower stays stunted.
> 
> Sometimes the flower GROWS.


I can agree with that. The problem is the person that is *settled for* has no control over which outcome they get.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I Don't Know said:


> I can agree with that. The problem is the person that is *settled for* has no control over which outcome they get.


Sure they do but the chances of getting a good one are a lot less when someone acts like a helpless victim in the situation and not someone who has choices.


----------



## ConanHub

SimplyAmorous said:


> Sorry.. had to jump in, pretty much blows my mind anyone could argue with this.. whole lotta *settling* going on in marriages today....oh people are not going to outright say this .. it would be so rude to speak it out of your mouth.. but let's get real.. How many people truly GET the love of their lives??


Well my first love got married on me and broke my heart. Love, to me, never really goes away. With her, my love stopped growing shortly after it started.

I never thought to look for another. I did not care to.

Then one day, I was struck by a 5' tall bolt of lightning.

Mrs. Conan is the greatest, sexual, emotional, spiritual and mental lover that I have ever had.

Nothing but the best would do for me. I turned away oodles of attractive, very sexual and, I am sure, very good women.

None of them equaled the first love I felt.

Mrs. Conan shattered that first love bench mark with so much overwhelming power, that I almost totally forgot the first even existed.

I am a very masculine man, not prone to tears, but just thinking about her gets the water works trickling. (I do believe it is masculine to cry just not all the time.)

Our love has grown over the years. There is no one from my past and no one that I could meet in the future that can compare to my little stick of dynamite. :smthumbup:

It never occurred to me to settle. Maybe that is why I didn't have to?


----------



## I Don't Know

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Sure they do but the chances of getting a good one are a lot less when someone acts like a helpless victim in the situation and not someone who has choices.


Assuming the person that settled is willing to let go of that old flame. Some are not. If they WON'T what can someone do to get a good outcome?


----------



## samyeagar

I Don't Know said:


> Assuming the person that settled is willing to let go of that old flame. Some are not. If they WON'T *what can someone do to get a good outcome*?


Do more laundry, vacuum the floor...


----------



## I Don't Know

SimplyAmorous said:


> Sorry.. had to jump in, pretty much blows my mind anyone could argue with this.. whole lotta *settling* going on in marriages today....oh people are not going to outright say this .. it would be so rude to speak it out of your mouth.. but let's get real.. How many people truly GET the love of their lives??
> 
> Ya know..


In some ways I settlesettled for my exw. I didn't realize it at the time though. Not because of an old love, but just because we were comfortable and easy, we got along. And EVERYBODY said friendship was more important than attraction and passion. That all goes away and all you have left is your friendship. I believed it. Hell they were married... they should know, right? BULL! I feel sorry for those people if that's what they have. A friend who they can tolerate sex with. The friendship part is important, but not more important than the other aspects.


----------



## I Don't Know

samyeagar said:


> Do more laundry, vacuum the floor...


I hear that sh!t works wonders!


----------



## Thundarr

I Don't Know said:


> Just because someone is an ex doesn't mean you W or H wouldn't rather be with them. An example from this very thread was that person moved away. Just because the married you doesn't mean you are their #1.
> 
> It does happen that people settle.


Settling is when you build a relationship with someone and you don't know if they're really into you or not. That's messed up. I think we can tell when someone is head over heals into us with a little time. For starters, they tell us and they do it eye to eye and sincere. Now if time passes and history is rewritten then so be it but at the very least, no one should build a relationship on uncertainty.


----------



## I Don't Know

Thundarr said:


> Settling is when you build a relationship with someone and you don't know if they're really into you or not. That's messed up. I think we can tell when someone is head over heals into us with a little time. For starters, they tell us and they do it eye to eye and sincere. Now if time passes and history is rewritten then so be it but at the very least, no one should build a relationship on uncertainty.


The person who isn't into the other is also settling. Although, staying with someone who you don't really think is into you is also settling. Yeah IDK why anyone would do that.


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> Settling is when you build a relationship with someone and you don't know if they're really into you or not. That's messed up. I think we can tell when someone is head over heals into us with a little time. For starters, they tell us and they do it eye to eye and sincere. Now if time passes and history is rewritten then so be it but at the very least, no one should build a relationship on uncertainty.


Slight disagreement. I think settling is when you *don't care* how much the other person is into you...or the other person is far more enamored of you than you are of them.

I have had several women who were far more into me than I was into them. I could easily have taken everything they had to offer cynically and selfishly. In some cases, my 'interest' was, at best conflicted.

So I think that is too limited of a definition.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ConanHub said:


> Well my first love got married on me and broke my heart. Love, to me, never really goes away. With her, my love stopped growing shortly after it started.
> 
> I never thought to look for another. *I did not care to*.


 Knowing your story.. because THIS love was so deep & intense.....isn't this WHY you fell to not caring about ANYONE in it's wake, when it was lost, ripping your heart out... using women- throwing them away , you didn't care about anything..... what a shame it was... This happens far too often too.

Not sure what to even say .... I think one of the reasons myself & H are so tender and never lost the romance is because these things DIDN't happen to us...but it happens to so many...and they become HARD to protect themselves.. 

I love the idea of "young love".. but I am seeing through my own children how hurtful IT CAN BE....it's a bit of a wake up call even ... 3rd son.. when his cheerleader GF dumped him, it was back & forth thing for over a year messing with his emotions... I come to find out months later he was "so low" about it he even thought about killing himself.. the fact he opened up to me about this.. was pretty damn significant.. how that happened was very nonchalant & at that time, he was doing better....we talked for 2 hrs one night, very vulnerable... but it was good... 

Music got him through that and at that time, girls in general could all go to hell... Thankfully it didn't turn him into a scoundrel but it did give him a bit of a "I don't give a sh** attitude" which ironically women seem to be attracted to.. so now he has another GF who adores him. and I think she's a great match for him...I guess he handled his "1st cut is the deepest" pretty well, because this girl still thinks he's the sweetest guy she ever met ..... but in this case, there was no sex involved with his 1st love...and I am one to believe that makes it easier over those who engaged.. there is just MORE of a bond there.. I think our young people should wait. .

Meanwhile our 2nd son who is only 17 , him & his GF just celebrated 3 yrs together weeks ago.... .. I have looked them in the face telling them... "if they EVER break up , do NOT LOOK each other up on FB in the future!!".... this is one very strong 1st love.. we'll see what happens. 



ConanHub said:


> Then one day, I was struck by a 5' tall bolt of lightning.
> 
> Mrs. Conan is the greatest, sexual, emotional, spiritual and mental lover that I have ever had.
> 
> Nothing but the best would do for me. I turned away oodles of attractive, very sexual and, I am sure, very good women.
> 
> None of them equaled the first love I felt.
> 
> Mrs. Conan shattered that first love bench mark with so much overwhelming power, that I almost totally forgot the first even existed.
> 
> I am a very masculine man, not prone to tears, but just thinking about her gets the water works trickling. (I do believe it is masculine to cry just not all the time.)
> 
> Our love has grown over the years. There is no one from my past and no one that I could meet in the future that can compare to my little stick of dynamite. :smthumbup:
> 
> It never occurred to me to settle. Maybe that is why I didn't have to?


 Well it sounds to me like Mr ConanHub you must be a very hot Guy since you could have had your pick & then some....so lets be honest ..you are going to have a lot more women at your feet than Mr Joe average.... so it's easier to believe you finally found another who was better than your 1st.. but is this the common story of others? This is my point.. and it's very unfortunate....and it doesn't mean those men deserve any less..(some of them might be awfully good giving men) yet they wouldn't have your odds..with this sort of outcome. 

I sat in the living room of my neighbor months ago telling me how she settled for her 2nd husband -how after having enough of non committal men (bad boys) , she went looking for security, a more family type guy..... they had 3 kids, and she got bored with him.. so it happens.. I have another GF who settled...all of her friends were getting married.. seems she just grabbed one willing...it didn't last.. she was itching for something more so many yrs down the road.. and she left him too...

Don't know the answer to these things.. I really don't .. I mean who wants to be alone.. I understand people have to settle.. if you aren't hot enough, rich enough, or whatever enough.. you probably had to settle to some degree....I think more would understand that ... than how your story played out..


----------



## ConanHub

SimplyAmorous said:


> Knowing your story.. because THIS love was so deep & intense.....isn't this WHY you fell to not caring about ANYONE in it's wake, when it was lost, ripping your heart out... using women- throwing them away , you didn't care about anything..... what a shame it was... This happens far too often too.
> 
> Not sure what to even say .... I think one of the reasons myself & H are so tender and never lost the romance is because these things DIDN't happen to us...but it happens to so many...and they become HARD to protect themselves..
> 
> I love the idea of "young love".. but I am seeing through my own children how hurtful IT CAN BE....it's a bit of a wake up call even ... 3rd son.. when his cheerleader GF dumped him, it was back & forth thing for over a year messing with his emotions... I come to find out months later he was "so low" about it he even thought about killing himself.. the fact he opened up to me about this.. was pretty damn significant.. how that happened was very nonchalant & at that time, he was doing better....we talked for 2 hrs one night, very vulnerable... but it was good...
> 
> Music got him through that and at that time, girls in general could all go to hell... Thankfully it didn't turn him into a scoundrel but it did give him a bit of a "I don't give a sh** attitude" which ironically women seem to be attracted to.. so now he has another GF who adores him. and I think she's a great match for him...I guess he handled his "1st cut is the deepest" pretty well, because this girl still thinks he's the sweetest guy she ever met ..... but in this case, there was no sex involved with his 1st love...and I am one to believe that makes it easier over those who engaged.. there is just MORE of a bond there.. I think our young people should wait. .
> 
> Meanwhile our 2nd son who is only 17 , him & his GF just celebrated 3 yrs together weeks ago.... .. I have looked them in the face telling them... "if they EVER break up , do NOT LOOK each other up on FB in the future!!".... this is one very strong 1st love.. we'll see what happens.
> 
> Well it sounds to me like Mr ConanHub you must be a very hot Guy since you could have had your pick & then some....so lets be honest ..you are going to have a lot more women at your feet than Mr Joe average.... so it's easier to believe you finally found another who was better than your 1st.. but is this the common story of others? This is my point.. and it's very unfortunate....and it doesn't mean those men deserve any less..(some of them might be awfully good giving men) yet they wouldn't have your odds..with this sort of outcome.
> 
> I sat in the living room of my neighbor months ago telling me how she settled for her 2nd husband -how after having enough of non committal men (bad boys) , she went looking for security, a more family type guy..... they had 3 kids, and she got bored with him.. so it happens.. I have another GF who settled...all of her friends were getting married.. seems she just grabbed one willing...it didn't last.. she was itching for something more so many yrs down the road.. and she left him too...
> 
> Don't know the answer to these things.. I really don't .. I mean who wants to be alone.. I understand people have to settle.. if you aren't hot enough, rich enough, or whatever enough.. you probably had to settle to some degree....I think more would understand that ... than how your story played out..


I never had sex with love #1. I wanted it to be right and she was the first woman that I had ever cared for in "that" way. She was from a troubled home and wanted to marry quickly to get out. I was 16 and smart enough to know that neither one of us was ready.

She grew impatient and despite my reasoning, caring and pleading, she eventually chose to marry a man, who she did not love. He was, however, 24 and employed with his own residence.

Yes, it shattered my heart and unfortunately, I did not believe that any woman would be worthy of the love I had in me to give.

As for being hot. I really have little idea why so many woman did and still do offer to start removing clothing for me within a short time of knowing me. I did not even really date, they would just come on to me in all situations, at parties, work, restaurants and bars. My nose is quite large and broken. I am only 5'10". I have always been muscular but there are always bigger guys around.

I asked one girl why she went home with me and she was very honest and said that my hips and shoulders were "right".

I was picked out of a line in high school gym by the P.E. teacher and used as an example of a "Golden Boy". He said my arm, shoulder, hip and leg ratio were very good so maybe there is some kind of math to my body that does "it" for people.

Anyway, whatever the reason, my view of love was shattered, not only by my first love but by every girl that I simply tried to be a gentleman with wanting to have a couple of beers and have me take their clothes off.

So, I figured "What the hell?" I figured that the world was just a crappy place that my idea of love did not exist in.

When you have a heart to treat females like ladies and they all behave like tramps, you start to become disillusioned.

Looking back, many if not most were nice women that just thought that giving me their bodies was the quickest way to show me that they were really into me.

The heartbreak of my first love combined with years of a painful childhood and my worldview of love being broken, caused me to go through many women sexually. I never slept with anyone I might care about, screwed up I know, and I never stayed long.

That lifestyle, eventually, started really hurting me inside. It really was not what I wanted

I slowed down but there was always the occasional woman that I would cave to and have a one or two off.

I had fully given up on relationships when I met my wife.

I just think she was from God. She turned my world on its' ear and the love that I thought could never exist was suddenly in my arms.

She was it. No one else fit the bill. Despite me being as screwed up as I was and all the garbage that no one else was able to get through, she swept it all aside like air.

When I am talking about not settling, I am not referring to looks but real and deep love.

Mrs. Conan is cute in a Sally Field/Betty Boop kind of way. She does have a rock hard, killer body but I could have had models, one of them was a Budweiser girl who was 6' tall and you could bounce a quarter off her tummy, a very tall blonde bombshell with measurements Marilyn Monroe would have envied, belly dancers, hottest chick in town types, etc.....

My wife had the right characteristics inside.

That long winded account being said....

I think it is a crime of the heart to "settle". Honestly, love can and does grow especially with two motivated people.

It turns my stomach when someone settles for someone that they don't really, deeply love or at least enough to work on it, to strengthen and deepen the love.

My first love did that. She realized that she made a huge mistake and after a couple of years, she came on to me very hot and heavy.

I almost went for it but turned her down and took her home, her husband was gone.

She had hurt me so bad I wanted to die. I was not over the hurt and she was still married.

She has regretted her decision her whole life. She eventually divorced and I don't think she ever remarried.

Tragic.


----------



## I Don't Know

Awesome story CH! You sound like my wife. Especially this: 

"I just think she was from God. She turned my world on its' ear and the love that I thought could never exist was suddenly in my arms."

She tells me all the time "Love like this is in movies not real life."

Couldn't be happier for you!


----------



## ConanHub

I Don't Know said:


> Awesome story CH! You sound like my wife. Especially this:
> 
> "I just think she was from God. She turned my world on its' ear and the love that I thought could never exist was suddenly in my arms."
> 
> She tells me all the time "Love like this is in movies not real life."
> 
> Couldn't be happier for you!


Thank you!&#55357;&#56842; I'm on mobile so couldn't like. I am very happy for you two as well!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland

I Don't Know said:


> I hear that sh!t works wonders!


Sure does in this house but nah it isn't going to work in a dysfunctional house.


----------



## oldnotbald

The question arises just because of the fact that there exists a practical quest to find the ultimate soul mate! In societies like that of ours, (you know we do not have the tradition or culture of what is called 'dating', but nonetheless girls and boys are able to mingle in a comparatively conservative way!) too many botched up affairs before marriage is almost a taboo. Without going into the arguments on pros and cons of this, I had a practical approach as far as counselling my children was concerned. Instead of defining what is real love (which is almost impossible), *I was able to furnish specifics on what is not love!*

That gave them the fruits. They ended up with almost their respective first loves! And feel very happy about their marriage!

I am rather curious to know whether this type of advice may work in the societies which are in the opposite side of the cultural spectrum!


----------



## Miss Taken

I think the "soul-mate" thing is part of it. I also think a big part of it has less to do with the saying, than the seeing. What you see in childhood - or don't see as the case may be, impacts your future romantic decisions as an adult. Usually it's your parents - though not always, but children tend to emulate their adult role models as they become adults. 

If one's parents didn't settle - even if it took them two marriages not to settle (the first was piss pot poor and the second was flourishing) that makes a huge difference.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

First I want to say... Thank you ConanHub for sharing so deeply here on this thread.. I have been busy the last few days and haven't been on TAM....

I think your story illustrates just how strong Love can be (at least FEEL) and how much it can almost destroy us.. It almost sounds you was meant to be with that 1st love though..(she sounds like she RUINED HER LIFE).. 

Reading what you wrote, I think I could had a fate like that - had I not stayed with my Husband ( I think too much!)...

Just seems like so much pain could have been avoided by the 2 of you ....but life opens a new door... when you met your Mrs today.. but still you were a GUY women went for..which I think made that "easier". 

I also don't think Looks are the end all.. without character, they are worthless to me.. you sound like you had Good character but it sure got side tracked in a bad bad way.. I know you wouldn't condone this in any way.. I guess this is WHY I like you so much ! 

Sure sounds your 1st love Settled BIG TIME.. cause she couldn't wait to marry.. I do wonder why she felt she needed out SO BADLY ?? 

My Step Mom had my bedroom out on the porch when I was 18 -coming home from a date... I had to get out.. and I lived in a camper in someone's back yard for a summer - till my H's dad told him that was not Ok.. that I was coming to live with THEM.... I can somewhat identify with your 1st loves feelings.. but I doubt my situation was as bad...



ConanHub said:


> I never had sex with love #1. I wanted it to be right and she was the first woman that I had ever cared for in "that" way. She was from a troubled home and wanted to marry quickly to get out. I was 16 and smart enough to know that neither one of us was ready.


 My H would have married me on my 18th birthday, it was me who wasn't ready... and wanted everything to be 'right".



> She grew impatient and despite my reasoning, caring and pleading, she eventually chose to marry a man, who she did not love. He was, however, 24 and employed with his own residence.
> 
> Yes, it shattered my heart and unfortunately, I did not believe that any woman would be worthy of the love I had in me to give.


 At 16.. what could you do.. Yeah.. that's a shame if being there for her was not enough.. if her life was not in danger, it should have been something she could hold on to.. I am thinking...




> As for being hot. I really have little idea why so many woman did and still do offer to start removing clothing for me within a short time of knowing me. I did not even really date, they would just come on to me in all situations, at parties, work, restaurants and bars. My nose is quite large and broken. I am only 5'10". I have always been muscular but there are always bigger guys around.
> 
> I asked one girl why she went home with me and she was very honest and said that my hips and shoulders were "right".
> 
> I was picked out of a line in high school gym by the P.E. teacher and used as an example of a "Golden Boy". He said my arm, shoulder, hip and leg ratio were very good so maybe there is some kind of math to my body that does "it" for people.


 well you must have had that Alpha allure that seems to draw 95% of women in.. you got lucky there. 



> Anyway, whatever the reason, my view of love was shattered, not only by my first love but by every girl that I simply tried to be a gentleman with wanting to have a couple of beers and have me take their clothes off.
> 
> So, I figured "What the hell?" I figured that the world was just a crappy place that my idea of love did not exist in.
> 
> When you have a heart to treat females like ladies and they all behave like tramps, you start to become disillusioned.


 I have a feeling this comment is not going to go over well.. (Having not read any more posts yet).. I DO wonder how many men EVER felt LIKE THIS.. the ones who originally had the BEST OF INTENTIONS, got BURNED BADLY.... then just gave into whatever cause life didn't matter anymore.. 



> The heartbreak of my first love combined with years of a painful childhood and my worldview of love being broken, caused me to go through many women sexually. *I never slept with anyone I might care about, screwed up I know, and I never stayed long.
> *
> That lifestyle, eventually, started really hurting me inside. It really was not what I wanted


 I've heard other men say this.. or if they knew that one over there would get hurt.. they would stay away from her, why intentionally hurt someone.. I guess there is always some conscience .. 



> I had fully given up on relationships when I met my wife.
> 
> I just think she was from God. She turned my world on its' ear and the love that I thought could never exist was suddenly in my arms.
> 
> She was it. No one else fit the bill. Despite me being as screwed up as I was and all the garbage that no one else was able to get through, she swept it all aside like air.
> 
> When I am talking about not settling, I am not referring to looks but real and deep love.


 I completely understand this.. but Looks are the initial attraction that gets people talking to each other.. 



> Mrs. Conan is cute in a Sally Field/Betty Boop kind of way. She does have a rock hard, killer body but I could have had models, one of them was a Budweiser girl who was 6' tall and you could bounce a quarter off her tummy, a very tall blonde bombshell with measurements Marilyn Monroe would have envied, belly dancers, hottest chick in town types, etc.....
> 
> *My wife had the right characteristics inside*.
> 
> That long winded account being said....


 should never be underestimated. 



> I think it is a crime of the heart to "settle". Honestly, love can and does grow especially with two motivated people.
> 
> It turns my stomach when someone settles for someone that they don't really, deeply love or at least enough to work on it, to strengthen and deepen the love.


 I think as you do here.. this is how I feel.. like this quote...





> My first love did that. She realized that she made a huge mistake and after a couple of years, she came on to me very hot and heavy.
> 
> I almost went for it but turned her down and took her home, her husband was gone.
> 
> She had hurt me so bad I wanted to die. I was not over the hurt and she was still married.
> 
> *She has regretted her decision her whole life. She eventually divorced and I don't think she ever remarried. Tragic.
> *.


 Sure points out just how important it IS to make wise decisions at every stage *and age* of our lives (this is something I always say) or one could take a nightmare detour that could have been avoided...Consequences can BITE...

But that's a great love story.. :smthumbup:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Miss Taken said:


> It is cliche but it is also cliche for the man who wants to marry the "Madonna" (chaste and inexperienced woman) with the expectation that she will later morph into his private (not intended negatively), "wh0re" (adventurous, generous and open lover) once married. Of course there are times when this works out I remember CM talking about how well it worked out for he and his wife in a waiting till marriage thread. SA and her husband also have a fulfilling sex life. However there are also many examples in SiM where it does not. Many times the chastity lends itself to frigidity and not the romanticism of being each other's firsts.


No, it doesn't always work out.. and I have my concerns for our own sons in this respect... I don't want to see any of them suffer in the bedroom...though I feel if a man is very tuned into the signs, how her body reacts...how receptive she is to his touch... wanting him (even if she still wants to wait for intercourse)...that one can be assured if a woman is geared higher drive or lower...Does she masturbate.. and have a need to "get off" ? If not... I would find it a huge risk for any man/ husband... I tell all my sons to make sure their GF's are naturally very affectionate and LOVE to touch...even if she is a good catholic girl (2nd son's gf is)...how important that she is not settling ...is she mad about the guy....is she is giver in MANY WAYS...or on the selfish side?

As anything else, there is no black & white, so people need to use wisdom & carefully assess *ALL the compatibility's* that can come back to bite...

I saved this post by Cletus some time ago ..I felt what he spoke was very true....



Cletus said:


> To those advocating sex before marriage as a means of determining compatibility:
> 
> You're right, but for the wrong reason.
> 
> Sex before marriage does not ensure compatibility, and for my formal proof I offer the endless sad sack stories posted hereon of bait and switch, no sex after children, and countless other examples of the shine wearing off the sex life. Sex before marriage does not ensure compatibility.
> 
> *All it can do is discover current incompatibility.* Which is of course a very useful thing to know, but you may not be answering the question you believe you're answering when you bed your future mate.


----------



## carpenoctem

ConanHub said:


> Well my first love got married on me and broke my heart. Love, to me, never really goes away. With her, my love stopped growing shortly after it started.
> 
> I never thought to look for another. I did not care to.
> 
> Then one day, I was struck by a 5' tall bolt of lightning.
> 
> Mrs. Conan is the greatest, sexual, emotional, spiritual and mental lover that I have ever had.
> 
> Nothing but the best would do for me. I turned away oodles of attractive, very sexual and, I am sure, very good women.
> 
> None of them equaled the first love I felt.
> 
> Mrs. Conan shattered that first love bench mark with so much overwhelming power, that I almost totally forgot the first even existed.
> 
> I am a very masculine man, not prone to tears, but just thinking about her gets the water works trickling. (I do believe it is masculine to cry just not all the time.)
> 
> Our love has grown over the years. There is no one from my past and no one that I could meet in the future that can compare to my little stick of dynamite. :smthumbup:
> 
> It never occurred to me to settle. Maybe that is why I didn't have to?




This was heartwarming, Sir. Especially, in a forum such as this. Especially, coming from a male.

For a while there, I internalized your story, and vicariously enjoyed life. Thank you.

May beautiful things happen to you and the little stick of dynamite.


----------



## ConanHub

carpenoctem said:


> This was heartwarming, Sir. Especially, in a forum such as this. Especially, coming from a male.
> 
> For a while there, I internalized your story, and vicariously enjoyed life. Thank you.
> 
> May beautiful things happen to you and the little stick of dynamite.


Thank you! Your words are kind and I hope happiness for you as well.


----------



## IIJokerII

*Warning, the following is about to embark on extreme, but somewhat true sarcasm*

Lets suppose that we can all agree that certain stereotypes and double standards do apply and although unfair they are invariably true.

So one day, in an inebriated state, after some coitus we talked after word and the question came up, why is it ok for men to sleep around but not woman. Up to the challenge I described why I think the perception is wrong, dirty.

Lets say we have a room, and in this room lies 31 freshly baked pies, and a rather hungry gentleman enters and says "Wow, look at all these pies" Well he can only have so much and takes a very small slice, apple, strawberry, pumpkin, Cheese pie (Formerly known as Cheesecake, It's a Pie, I called it), what have yeah, 31 pies, each different, but the same. Well after the last pie is sampled the man is full yet very little is removed from each pie, it's as if they are undisturbed, almost whole. Someone had some, but it looks good to the next guy. Sure, the pies may one day be eaten completely, but for now, a minor piece is missing, and neatly cut away mind you.

So far, so good, 

Now,

Lets go back to the room, and lookey here, we have 31 guys, hungry and only one pie, oh dear................Does anyone really want to be number 32? That pie got demolished, there's not even a tin foil container anymore, the horror....

Anyway, there's you perceptual dynamic for you, or ask your self this, what get's worn out first, the shoe or the foot...

Hey, what do you want, I was hammered at the time.


----------



## norajane

The thing is, Joker, people don't get pieces taken away like pies, and aren't worn out like shoes just because they've had sex with other people in their lifetime.

Just like people don't get all used up when they've had sex a million times in a thousand different ways with one partner, either.


----------



## Married but Happy

IIJokerII said:


> Lets go back to the room, and lookey here, we have 31 guys, hungry and only one pie, oh dear................Does anyone really want to be number 32? That pie got demolished, there's not even a tin foil container anymore, the horror....


Perhaps you should have gone for 33 in your example. It's almost impossible to cut 31 slices, but easy to cut 32 slices (if the pie is firm and homogeneous). 

Alas for your metaphor, people are not pies. Pies are wasting resources - once gone, you have to bake another. Sex is a renewable resource, and may even increase the more it's enjoyed.


----------



## TiggyBlue

norajane said:


> The thing is, Joker, people don't get pieces taken away like pies, and aren't worn out like shoes just because they've had sex with other people in their lifetime.
> 
> Just like people don't get all used up when they've had sex a million times in a thousand different ways with one partner, either.


:iagree:
Plus that analogy can be applied for men as well (just use lollypops instead of pies).


----------



## ConanHub

IIJokerII said:


> *Warning, the following is about to embark on extreme, but somewhat true sarcasm*
> 
> Lets suppose that we can all agree that certain stereotypes and double standards do apply and although unfair they are invariably true.
> 
> So one day, in an inebriated state, after some coitus we talked after word and the question came up, why is it ok for men to sleep around but not woman. Up to the challenge I described why I think the perception is wrong, dirty.
> 
> Lets say we have a room, and in this room lies 31 freshly baked pies, and a rather hungry gentleman enters and says "Wow, look at all these pies" Well he can only have so much and takes a very small slice, apple, strawberry, pumpkin, Cheese pie (Formerly known as Cheesecake, It's a Pie, I called it), what have yeah, 31 pies, each different, but the same. Well after the last pie is sampled the man is full yet very little is removed from each pie, it's as if they are undisturbed, almost whole. Someone had some, but it looks good to the next guy. Sure, the pies may one day be eaten completely, but for now, a minor piece is missing, and neatly cut away mind you.
> 
> So far, so good,
> 
> Now,
> 
> Lets go back to the room, and lookey here, we have 31 guys, hungry and only one pie, oh dear................Does anyone really want to be number 32? That pie got demolished, there's not even a tin foil container anymore, the horror....
> 
> Anyway, there's you perceptual dynamic for you, or ask your self this, what get's worn out first, the shoe or the foot...
> 
> Hey, what do you want, I was hammered at the time.


LOL! I have been known to post while imbibing from time to time!

I appreciate your POV. There are many who hold that POV and I do not think it is wrong for them.

I like the example of the pie not being gone but has the saliva of 32 people soaked into it by the time it is ready to be eaten.

We all have residue from past lovers, men and women.

My POV is that the residue mostly just gets in the way a bit when getting intimate with our SOs, emotionally and mentally as well as physically. It can be worked through but it can be a pain.

At other times the residue can be quite destructive.

While sometimes it is hardly noticed at all. We are all wired differently to some extent. Nothing wrong with someones preferences.


----------



## thefam

Sorry if this has already been addressed on this thread, but there is one thing I would like to know from a man's and women's perspective. Since I have only been with my husband I can't answer this.

My husband, however had been with many partners before me. Yes, he even describes himself as having been promiscuous. He describes those encounters as having become very empty, even though he cared for the partners in some way. 

So, do any of you who have had several experiences feel like they became "empty?" Just curious as it seems as if the men and women who say they have had several partners usually say it was "fun." Hardly ever o they say it became meaningless and unfulfilling.


----------



## Married but Happy

thefam said:


> So, do any of you who have had several experiences feel like they became "empty?" Just curious as it seems as if the men and women who say they have had several partners usually say it was "fun." Hardly ever o they say it became meaningless and unfulfilling.


I've had a variety of partners. In general it was great fun, and in general it wasn't meaningless or unfulfilling. However, some individual instances weren't fun, and were unfulfilling - usually involving a poor or selfish partner. I also think that a long succession of short-term encounters or ONSs would become mundane for many people, as I think most people do want more of a connection and intimacy that typically comes with a relationship. I knew I wanted a relationship, but wasn't willing to settle for anything less than a great one. (But you do not have to mate for life to achieve that.)


----------



## I Don't Know

I'm not sure what you mean by "became empty." Do you mean they started off good and over time became empty? Or that since finding you those encounters feel empty? 

If it's the second, I can definitely relate to that to some extent. I guess you could say they became "empty". At least they don't mean as much as they might have before meeting my wife. I honestly don't think of them at all unless prompted by something outside myself. If you have a very intimate sexual relationship, I could see everything before feeling empty in hind sight.


----------



## IIJokerII

norajane said:


> The thing is, Joker, people don't get pieces taken away like pies, and aren't worn out like shoes just because they've had sex with other people in their lifetime.
> 
> Just like people don't get all used up when they've had sex a million times in a thousand different ways with one partner, either.


Although I will admit that my analogy is not really a staple to go per se, it is the mental aspect of the prior engagements that would have me turned off. Sex is fun, don't get me wrong, In fact All of life problems seem to evaporate while engaging in sex, and no, I am not the flag boy for marital missionary. I like change, I like kinky sh1t from time to time, positions that can dislodge a hip, why not, I'm getting laid so whats the problem?

Well, I suppose it boiled down to the whole penetration aspect, as I said, this argument is stereotypical, an I am not discouraging woman from enjoying sex as much as men, the very nature of our species is to procreate, like all life, ain't gonna fight nature.

There's just something about lots of men leaving their "Mark" in the particular woman I am being intimate with. People get all cringe worthy about using a public toilet, it is hard to accept a lot of previous partners in one's SO especially when it is going to be ME in there!!! Of course that's why most couples ask well after the initial novelty phase of the relationship is over and then the issue usually goes away anyway..........

All this talk of sex..........


----------



## ConanHub

thefam said:


> Sorry if this has already been addressed on this thread, but there is one thing I would like to know from a man's and women's perspective. Since I have only been with my husband I can't answer this.
> 
> My husband, however had been with many partners before me. Yes, he even describes himself as having been promiscuous. He describes those encounters as having become very empty, even though he cared for the partners in some way.
> 
> So, do any of you who have had several experiences feel like they became "empty?" Just curious as it seems as if the men and women who say they have had several partners usually say it was "fun." Hardly ever o they say it became meaningless and unfulfilling.


I am more like your husband. I had more partners than I care to count and mostly regret them. There were a couple that were really sweet experiences and I don't feel empty about them, just wish I had treated them with more respect.

There was a belly dancer that I absolutely hated but still remember the explosive sex in a appreciative light.

Some people enjoyed their promiscuity while others did not. Unless you have reason to doubt your husband, take him at his word.

Hopefully, he makes you feel treasured and loved.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Married but Happy

IIJokerII said:


> There's just something about lots of men leaving their "Mark" in the particular woman I am being intimate with. People get all cringe worthy about using a public toilet, it is hard to accept a lot of previous partners in one's SO especially when it is going to be ME in there!!! Of course that's why most couples ask well after the initial novelty phase of the relationship is over and then the issue usually goes away anyway..........


If you weren't told how many prior partners she'd had, almost certainly you'd never experience any difference between her and someone with only 2 or 3 partners. It's mostly about your mental attitude and little or nothing to do with her, IMO.


----------



## always_alone

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> Plus that analogy can be applied for men as well (just use lollypops instead of pies).


Yeah, exactly. A lollipop with too many licks is nothing but a chewed up flavourless stick. 

Blech.


----------



## IIJokerII

Married but Happy said:


> If you weren't told how many prior partners she'd had, almost certainly you'd never experience any difference between her and someone with only 2 or 3 partners. It's mostly about your mental attitude and little or nothing to do with her, IMO.


I know, and I agree with you. But again, the public toilet seat image.....


----------



## norajane

IIJokerII said:


> I know, and I agree with you. But again, the public toilet seat image.....


If you yourself have had multiple partners, do you feel that way about your own d*ck? Eww, it's been in so many places and it's "marked" or "soiled"?

How about your lips, if you've kissed more than just your wife? Your hands?


----------



## firebelly1

Trying to let go of the fact that I've now been compared to a pie and a toilet....

Something somebody said in this thread kind of makes sense to me. From an animal perspective, female primates accept that the males are sleeping around. It's a biological imperative to keep the species going. The alpha male scares the other males off from the females to make sure his seed wins. So caring or not caring seems biologically based. 

However, we aren't apes, right? Don't we have a higher standard for ourselves? If we accept that in humans, sex isn't just for procreation and it's okay to do it for pure pleasure, then both genders should be able to fully enjoy sex. And for some people that means wracking up several partners. 

To the question about loveless sexual experiences feeling "empty" I really think it has to do with your views and values. If you think a ONS is "bad" but loving sex is "good," then your emotions are going to reflect that. I think the "emptiness" feeling is a form of feeling ashamed.


----------



## always_alone

firebelly1 said:


> Something somebody said in this thread kind of makes sense to me. From an animal perspective, female primates accept that the males are sleeping around. It's a biological imperative to keep the species going. The alpha male scares the other males off from the females to make sure his seed wins. So caring or not caring seems biologically based.


And male primates accept that females are sleeping around. Because ... well ... they are.

The male alpha does try to scare others off, but his success is temporary at best. And number of past sexual partners matters not a whit.


----------



## thefam

> To the question about loveless sexual experiences feeling "empty" I really think it has to do with your views and values. If you think a ONS is "bad" but loving sex is "good," then your emotions are going to reflect that. *I think the "emptiness" feeling is a form of feeling ashamed. *


Oh I was the one who posted that, and there is no question about the shame of his past life. He admits to it. I was just wondering if anyone else who had several partners had ever had those feelings of emptiness because I never see it mentioned.


----------



## IIJokerII

firebelly1 said:


> Trying to let go of the fact that I've now been compared to a pie and a toilet.....


I sincerely hope my comments aren't offending anyone as they are more or less satire in nature. Like Norajane said, and it is a valid point, do I frown upon the fact that I have some women I'd be glad to remove off of my sexual resume, yes. In hindsight I just went with it for my own personal pleasure. 

But this thread is based on one thing, hind sight, and if we could say ask this very question "So, how many men/women have you been with" without the fear of being rejected or viewed as a wierdo, but we don't because we don't want to and at the time really don't need to. Later on when we learn this truth about who we are with we often dismiss it since it is in the past, and like Conanhub said, they are with me now, so really it doesn't matter.

I am not a germ freak but when you get older certain things do come into perspective. For instance I will not eat bar food like open peanuts or pretzels, as I am sure they started the night unsalted............Think about that one. With my feelings towards the number of partners a woman has had to me, IMO, it does in a way matter to me. But Ms/Mrs Jane phrases it I now have a possible perspective of what a women feels like, "Whats that been dipped in". And honestly Ladies, would you prefer a man who you knew was sexually active on a consistent basis with one Woman or several dozen of a couple of years? Regardless of the amount of times being equal, it does pop into ones mind from time to time.

And my Toilet reference was in regards to the seat, not the bowl, gotta clarify here.


----------



## Ikaika

thefam said:


> Sorry if this has already been addressed on this thread, but there is one thing I would like to know from a man's and women's perspective. Since I have only been with my husband I can't answer this.
> 
> 
> 
> My husband, however had been with many partners before me. Yes, he even describes himself as having been promiscuous. He describes those encounters as having become very empty, even though he cared for the partners in some way.
> 
> 
> 
> So, do any of you who have had several experiences feel like they became "empty?" Just curious as it seems as if the men and women who say they have had several partners usually say it was "fun." Hardly ever o they say it became meaningless and unfulfilling.



I experimented a lot with sex throughout my youth (in many ways), most of which I would prefer not to share. I could make up all kinds of reasons from poor parental guidance (which is true) to hanging with the wrong crowd (which also would be true) to just being young. But, I don't know if I would characterize it as meaningless, unfulfilling or empty. It was my past and part of my youth, I won't run from it but I also don't look at it with yearning nostalgia. 

I'm soooo sooo very different now and just often think who was that person? So, meaningless, unfulfilling and empty never come to mind, only a third person mind movie is all it is to me. But, then again it also how I try to approach the sh!tty upbringing I survived.


----------



## firebelly1

Personal said:


> As someone who has had several partners, I've simply never felt any feelings of emptiness or sense of shame over any of my sexual experiences.


I have, definitely. I have had a sinking feeling of being "used" if a guy seems to have just gotten his rocks off and then wants nothing to do with me. 

But that feeling has changed with time as I've talked myself through it. I felt bad about it because I thought it meant something about my worth. But my worth doesn't come from what someone else thinks, let alone a guy I hardly know. PLUS...the truth is, if I'm saying he is "using" me for sex, I am guilty of the same thing, right? I am using him for sex. But I don't need to see it as "using." I can see it as two people enjoying each other's bodies for a little bit. And when I adopt that perspective, I don't get the empty feeling anymore. It's all in your perspective and your perspective can change.

And Joker...it doesn't make it better to clarify that women are more like toilet seats than toilet bowls.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> I have, definitely. *I have had a sinking feeling of being "used" if a guy seems to have just gotten his rocks off and then wants nothing to do with me*.
> 
> But that feeling has changed with time as I've talked myself through it. I felt bad about it because I thought it meant something about my worth. But my worth doesn't come from what someone else thinks, let alone a guy I hardly know. PLUS...the truth is, if I'm saying he is "using" me for sex, I am guilty of the same thing, right? I am using him for sex. But I don't need to see it as "using." I can see it as two people enjoying each other's bodies for a little bit. And when I adopt that perspective, I don't get the empty feeling anymore. It's all in your perspective and your perspective can change.
> 
> And Joker...it doesn't make it better to clarify that women are more like toilet seats than toilet bowls.


I've never understood how people can end up feeling that way because going into the casual encounter, ONS, that's ultimately what it's all about, for both people. Getting your rocks off. It's not a secret.


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> I've never understood how people can end up feeling that way because going into the casual encounter, ONS, that's ultimately what it's all about, for both people. Getting your rocks off. It's not a secret.


No - but as a young woman, I equated sex with love. It wasn't a conscious thought but an assumption that if a guy was having sex with me, he loved me. Where I got that notion, I have no idea. But when it turned out to not be true, as I now know it inevitably wasn't, it was like a punch to the gut.


----------



## larry.gray

norajane said:


> If you yourself have had multiple partners, do you feel that way about your own d*ck? Eww, it's been in so many places and it's "marked" or "soiled"?


Not that it makes it right or that I agree, but the thinking goes like this: men leave a deposit, not take one. So that leaves her "soiled" and not him.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> No - but as a young woman, I equated sex with love. It wasn't a conscious thought but an assumption that if a guy was having sex with me, he loved me. Where I got that notion, I have no idea. But when it turned out to not be true, as I now know it inevitably wasn't, it was like a punch to the gut.


I have always found this interesting too. My wife felt the exact same way that sex equaled love, which is in large part why she slept with so many men when she was younger. It does make me wonder a couple of things though...how many times does one have to try the same thing, with the same outcome before they learn the lesson? And once the lesson is learned, what effects does that have on their views of sex in relationships, having that compartimentalization?

My past is kind of a double edged sword for my wife. I've never had the disconnected sex that she has. Yes, I have had sex for the pure physical enjoyment of it, but there was always an underlying connection, and the vast majority of it was full blown love.

Even in my previous marriage, once the emotional detachment was in full gear for me, my ex wife and I stopped having sex. I never went back to her even though she was more than willing, and wanting. The double edged sword is that she knows because of my track record that it's never about just getting my rocks off, that she's not ever being used, but at the same time, if she thinks about my past, she can't rationalize it away as just meaningless sex.


----------



## I Don't Know

If you view(ed) sex as love does that mean the sex wasn't meaningless to you? Or was it that the guy "loved" you but not necessarily that you loved the guy?


----------



## samyeagar

I Don't Know said:


> If you view(ed) sex as love does that mean the sex wasn't meaningless to you? Or was it that the guy "loved" you but not necessarily that you loved the guy?


I think what firebelly is saying is that she believed that if the guy had sex with her, it meant he loved her. She had a desire to feel loved, and so had sex with the guy believing that if he had sex with her, it was because he loved her.


----------



## thefam

What's wrong with equating sex with love? Or is that not what you're saying here?

Or maybe the question is what's wrong with only having sex with someone you love?


----------



## always_alone

firebelly1 said:


> No - but as a young woman, I equated sex with love. It wasn't a conscious thought but an assumption that if a guy was having sex with me, he loved me. Where I got that notion, I have no idea. But when it turned out to not be true, as I now know it inevitably wasn't, it was like a punch to the gut.


I never thought sex equalled love, and still don't. But I did have the crazy idea that it meant the person liked me.

When I found out that wasn't even true, that's when I had the feelings of being used or the emptiness and meaninglessness of sex.

It was utterly soul-crushing to me to find out I was nothing more than a collection of holes for someone else's gratification.


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> I have always found this interesting too. My wife felt the exact same way that sex equaled love, which is in large part why she slept with so many men when she was younger. It does make me wonder a couple of things though...how many times does one have to try the same thing, with the same outcome before they learn the lesson? And once the lesson is learned, what effects does that have on their views of sex in relationships, having that compartimentalization?


You keep sleeping with guys looking for love thinking you just had the wrong GUY. Truthfully, I still don't know that I've fully learned this lesson. I mean YES, I know it's not LOVE when you have a ONS. But if I understand the threads on this forum, including this one, there is a magical formula of some sort that I haven't fully understood. 

If I am looking for love, I shouldn't have sex with anyone until I find it because then I'm like a used toilet seat and no man will want me as a partner. And when I do find someone I would consider for a long-term partner, I shouldn't have sex with him too soon or, once again, he will think I'm unworthy of love. BUT... if I don't have sex with him after a few dates, he will lose interest in me as a potential partner. 

Most men can have meaningless sex but insist that the way they express love in their relationships is through sex. 

Which brings me full circle. I've started a thread here asking men how they express emotional intimacy and most say sex, exclusively. Love is expressed through sex. So maybe it isn't so weird for my young self to think somebody may have loved me when they had sex with me. 

:scratchhead:


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> *You keep sleeping with guys looking for love thinking you just had the wrong GUY.* Truthfully, I still don't know that I've fully learned this lesson. I mean YES, I know it's not LOVE when you have a ONS. But if I understand the threads on this forum, including this one, there is a magical formula of some sort that I haven't fully understood.
> 
> If I am looking for love, I shouldn't have sex with anyone until I find it because then I'm like a used toilet seat and no man will want me as a partner. And when I do find someone I would consider for a long-term partner, I shouldn't have sex with him too soon or, once again, he will think I'm unworthy of love. BUT... if I don't have sex with him after a few dates, he will lose interest in me as a potential partner.
> 
> Most men can have meaningless sex but insist that the way they express love in their relationships is through sex.
> 
> Which brings me full circle. I've started a thread here asking men how they express emotional intimacy and most say sex, exclusively. Love is expressed through sex. So maybe it isn't so weird for my young self to think somebody may have loved me when they had sex with me.
> 
> :scratchhead:


This is the biggest mistake right here. Sleeping with a person in the hopes that it will make them fall in love with you.

My mindset was always one of having sex as an expression of my feelings, NOT as an attempt to elicit feelings in another person.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> This is the biggest mistake right here. Sleeping with a person in the hopes that it will make them fall in love with you.
> 
> My mindset was always one of having sex as an expression of my feelings, NOT as an attempt to elicit feelings in another person.


I can't speak for firebelly, as no doubt her experiences and take are different. But I don't think the mistake is expecting to elicit love; it is presuming that there is some sort of connection already there.

In fact, lots of guys told me they loved me, that I was special, unique, amazing, never met anyone like me before, blah de blah blah, and my mistake was believing they meant what they said. I dated one guy for *weeks*, and only found out what he really thought after he dumped me and the gossip finally got back to me.


----------



## firebelly1

Yes AA - that is it. I didn't sleep with guys in order to make them love me. I thought that when they slept with me it meant more to them than just sex. 

With a few rare occasions, I've only slept with people I thought could be potential long-term partners. And I have assumed because I approached things that way that the men I've slept with did too. 

So I will rephrase - I never thought a guy I just met and slept with LOVED me when he slept with me, but I did think he might call again. And when he didn't, I felt empty and used.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> Yes AA - that is it. I didn't sleep with guys in order to make them love me. I thought that when they slept with me it meant more to them than just sex.
> 
> With a few rare occasions, I've only slept with people I thought could be potential long-term partners. And I have assumed because I approached things that way that the men I've slept with did too.
> 
> So I will rephrase - I never thought a guy I just met and slept with LOVED me when he slept with me, but I did think he might call again. And when he didn't, I felt empty and used.


Aside from him using words to tell you things to make you feel a certain way, what else, what other signs did you see that led you to believe that they did care, that they would call again?

I can understand feeling disappointed if they didn't return the feelings, or call again, but you had to know going in that it was a very real, even likely possibility that it meant nothing beyond having sex to them.


----------



## samyeagar

Personal said:


> As a man I felt and have behaved exactly the same way, and I'm sure I'm not a unicorn.


I as a man never put myself in a position to feel that way, or anyone else to make them feel that way.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

firebelly1 said:


> *No - but as a young woman, I equated sex with love. It wasn't a conscious thought but an assumption that if a guy was having sex with me, he loved me. Where I got that notion, I have no idea. But when it turned out to not be true, as I now know it inevitably wasn't, it was like a punch to the gut.*


This notion is very explainable.. we are ALL WIRED for connection in the deepest ways with another...when 2 people touch each other in a warm, meaningful & intimate way, oxytocin is released into the woman's brain...the ocytocin then does 2 things: Increases a woman's desire for more touch & causes bonding of the woman to the man she has been spending time in physical contact with. Bonding is REAL & almost like the adhesive effect of glue -a powerful connection that cannot be undone without great emotional pain.. (which you described as being punched in the gut)...

After one has been hurt like this one too many times.. they adapt...to protect themselves , they learn to disconnect, to shield the emotional.. so they won't feel that pain anymore & can still enjoy ..as some have put it "getting their rocks off"...

On another note ... Brene Brown in her very popular book The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are: ...She says ...


> "After collecting thousands of stories , I'm willing to call this a FACT: *A deep sense of love and belonging is an irreducible need of all women, men and children*. We are biologically, cognitively, physically, and spiritually wired to love , to be loved, and to belong.
> 
> When these needs are not met, we don't function as we were meant to. We break. We fall apart. We NUMB...We ache...We hurt others. We get sick.
> 
> There are certainly other causes of illness, numbing and hurt, but the absence of love and belonging will always lead to suffering.


....it's just something we all want.. some may have given up on it or found other ways to numb.. and some continue to hurt others ... but ultimately this is what we all seek.... would anyone disagree ??


----------



## Wolf1974

samyeagar said:


> I as a man never put myself in a position to feel that way, or anyone else to make them feel that way.


Really? You have never been used by a woman for sex or company? You are a wiser man than I for sure then. I struggled to find my way as a single guy. Took me awhile.


----------



## I Don't Know

firebelly1 said:


> Yes AA - that is it. I didn't sleep with guys in order to make them love me. I thought that when they slept with me it meant more to them than just sex.
> 
> With a few rare occasions, I've only slept with people I thought could be potential long-term partners. And I have assumed because I approached things that way that the men I've slept with did too.
> 
> So I will rephrase - I never thought a guy I just met and slept with LOVED me when he slept with me, but I did think he might call again. And when he didn't, I felt empty and used.


Ok, that makes sense to me. I wasn't quite clear what you were saying before. And yeah, the sex is an expression of love....but not always, is a complicated, confusing mess. But it's true for me, and I can't imagine I'm the only one. The best way I can explain it is to compare it to the all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares thing. Love is sex, but sex is not always love.


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> Aside from him using words to tell you things to make you feel a certain way, what else, what other signs did you see that led you to believe that they did care, that they would call again?
> 
> I can understand feeling disappointed if they didn't return the feelings, or call again, but you had to know going in that it was a very real, even likely possibility that it meant nothing beyond having sex to them.


As a young woman, I really didn't. I mean, maybe you can blame Hollywood, but from my perspective why WOULDN'T I think he would call again? If I were the one expected to do the calling, I would. For me it's natural to want to continue seeing someone I've had sex with. So it's not intuitive to me that someone wouldn't want to do that.


----------



## samyeagar

Wolf1974 said:


> Really? You have never been used by a woman for sex or company? You are a wiser man than I for sure then. I struggled to find my way as a single guy. Took me awhile.


No, I have not. I suppose one could look at my previous marriage and say it was the biggest "use" of all, but my ex-wife has NPD, so that is a whole different bag of apples.

I suppose part of it has to do with my situation around my sexually formative years. Sex was and still is readily available to me, so I never learned through personal experience that women are sexual gatekeepers. I was never desperate for sex, never had to hunt for it. It always found me. I've always been the chooser, and I've chosen three women in my life.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> As a young woman, I really didn't. I mean, maybe you can blame Hollywood, but from my perspective why WOULDN'T I think he would call again? If I were the one expected to do the calling, I would. For me it's natural to want to continue seeing someone I've had sex with. So it's not intuitive to me that someone wouldn't want to do that.


How many times did it have to happen before you realized that Hollywood was wrong, and that your way of thinking was not the same as many of the men you attracted?


----------



## Wolf1974

samyeagar said:


> No, I have not. I suppose one could look at my previous marriage and say it was the biggest "use" of all, but my ex-wife has NPD, so that is a whole different bag of apples.
> 
> I suppose part of it has to do with my situation around my sexually formative years. Sex was and still is readily available to me, so I never learned through personal experience that women are sexual gatekeepers. I was never desperate for sex, never had to hunt for it. It always found me. I've always been the chooser, and I've chosen three women in my life.


I envy you and others who seem to click in the single and dating world. It was a serious struggle for me. All became better once I established boundarys for myself which helped me regain control but still it was never a natural thing for me. I am much better inside a relationship than attempting to find one.


----------



## thefam

SimplyAmorous said:


> This notion is very explainable.. we are ALL WIRED for connection in the deepest ways with another...when 2 people touch each other in a warm, meaningful & intimate way, oxytocin is released into the woman's brain...the ocytocin then does 2 things: Increases a woman's desire for more touch & causes bonding of the woman to the man she has been spending time in physical contact with. Bonding is REAL & almost like the adhesive effect of glue -a powerful connection that cannot be undone without great emotional pain.. (which you described as being punched in the gut)...
> 
> After one has been hurt like this one too many times.. they adapt...to protect themselves , they learn to disconnect, to shield the emotional.. so they won't feel that pain anymore & can still enjoy ..as some have put it "getting their rocks off"...
> 
> On another note ... Brene Brown in her very popular book The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are: ...She says .......it's just something we all want.. some may have given up on it or found other ways to numb.. and some continue to hurt others ... but ultimately this is what we all seek.... would anyone disagree ??


I think its true but most either won't admit it or subsconciously don't realize it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

firebelly1 said:


> You keep sleeping with guys looking for love thinking you just had the wrong GUY. Truthfully, I still don't know that I've fully learned this lesson. I mean YES, I know it's not LOVE when you have a ONS. But if I understand the threads on this forum, including this one, there is a magical formula of some sort that I haven't fully understood.
> 
> *If I am looking for love,* I shouldn't have sex with anyone until I find it because then I'm like a used toilet seat and no man will want me as a partner. And when I do find someone I would consider for a long-term partner, I shouldn't have sex with him too soon or, once again, he will think I'm unworthy of love. BUT... if I don't have sex with him after a few dates, he will lose interest in me as a potential partner.
> 
> Most men can have meaningless sex but insist that the way they express love in their relationships is through sex.
> 
> Which brings me full circle. *I've started a thread here asking men how they express emotional intimacy and most say sex, exclusively. Love is expressed through sex.* So maybe it isn't so weird for my young self to think somebody may have loved me when they had sex with me.
> 
> :scratchhead:


I realize many people here do not appreciate my views.. but this is how I would explain a healthy approach - *IF you are seeking Love/ attachment strings* ...leading to making love...not just SEX. ....

Also this article *>>>*For the BEST SEX EVER Emotional Intimacy is key..here's why!



> The Five Levels of Intimacy
> 
> Psychologists have identified 5 levels of emotional intimacy we all move through as we get to know someone. They’ve been given several names, but for our purposes, let’s call them Level 1 -5 .. with 5 being the highest, or most intimate level.
> 
> *Level 1*: *Safe Communication*
> 
> Level one is the lowest level of communication. We call it safe because it involves the exchange of facts and information. There are no feelings, opinions or personal vulnerability involved, and therefore no risk of rejection. This is the kind of interaction we have with people we don’t know well. It’s the chitchat we share with the clerk at the grocery store or a stranger at a party. People communicating at this level share minimal intimacy. An example of this level would be, “Lousy weather we’re having,” This is great pizza,” My team won last night.”
> 
> *Level 2*: *Others’ Opinions and Beliefs*
> 
> At level two we start sharing other people’s thoughts, beliefs and opinions. We are beginning to reveal more of ourselves through our associations. We say things like, “My mother always says…” or “One of my favorite authors said…” Such statements test the other person’s reaction to what we’re sharing without offering our own opinions. This is slightly more vulnerable than level one, but because we’re not sharing our own opinions we can distance ourselves from the opinion if we feel threatened by criticism or rejection.
> 
> *Level 3*: *Personal Opinions and Beliefs*
> 
> We start taking small risks at this level because we begin to share our own thoughts, opinions and beliefs. But like the previous level, if we begin feeling too vulnerable, we can say we’ve switched our opinions or changed our mind in order to avoid conflict or pain.
> 
> *Level 4*: *My Feelings and Experiences*
> 
> Sharing feelings and experiences is the next level of vulnerability and intimacy. At this level we talk about our joys, pain, and failures; our mistakes in the past, our dreams, and our goals. What we like or don’t like. What makes us who we are. This level is more vulnerable because we can’t change how we feel about something, the details of our past or current experiences. If we sense we may be rejected or criticized all we can do is try to convince others that we’re no longer impacted by our past. We’re no longer that person. We’re different now.
> 
> *Level 5*: *My Needs, Emotions and Desires*
> 
> Level five is the highest level of intimacy. It is the level where we are known at the deepest core of who we are. Because of that, it is the level that requires the greatest amount of trust. If I can’t trust that you won’t reject me, I’ll never be able to share my deepest self with you. Unlike the other levels, there is no escape at this level. Once I let someone see who I really am, I can no longer convince them otherwise. Communicating at this level means we offer someone the most vulnerable part of ourselves. And the greatest fear is that they could use it against us later.
> 
> When we share things like, “I’m hurt when you don’t call,” I need to feel respected by you,” or “I want to spend my life with you,” we’re sharing not only our hurts but our desires and needs as well. It’s also the level where we let others see our emotional reaction to things, which if you’re like me, isn’t always a pretty sight. Maybe that’s why we save those for the ones closest to us, like our families.
> 
> True Intimacy
> 
> It’s important to understand that true intimacy in a relationship happens over time…not in a day, week or even a month. Think of your best friend…how long did it take before you felt at the highest level of intimacy with them, where you were able to trust them completely, or share your deepest self? It’s the same in romantic relationships…true intimacy develops over time. But another important element is needed for true intimacy…both people in the relationship need to move through the levels together.
> 
> If I’m sharing at level four with someone (feelings and experiences) but my partner is sharing at level three (opinions and beliefs) we’re not experiencing true intimacy. I may feel closer because I’m sharing at a higher level, but in reality what we have is a false sense of intimacy. In truth, intimacy is measured by the person with the lower level of vulnerability.
> 
> *Sex…A False Sense of Intimacy*
> 
> When you look at the five levels, I’m sure you’d agree that the fifth or highest level is the healthiest, safest and most intimate place to have sex. When we feel loved unconditionally, and have the highest level of trust, we’ll be able to give ourselves completely to each other, increasing intimacy and the enjoyment of sex. We can have sex at the other levels, but without that same level of trust the vulnerability of sex may be associated with anxiety, fear and distrust. As I’ve led women through healing, I’ve discovered that they have the hardest time with sex if they’re not at this highest level with their partner, and if they’ve been wounded by sex with others in lower levels of intimacy, whether through abuse or their own choices.


----------



## I Don't Know

Interesting SA. Do you think a relationship can skip a level, or part of one? I would say my wife has a hard time sharing her experiences, and rightly so. I fight RJ so I don't do well when previous husbands, boyfriends, or sex partners come up.


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> How many times did it have to happen before you realized that Hollywood was wrong, and that your way of thinking was not the same as many of the men you attracted?


Oh you do ask the questions that make me have to ponder. 

If truth be told, I'm not sure I have entirely learned this lesson. I'm realizing I still don't really know how to tell if a man really loves me. Even marrying me and buying a house with me didn't end up meaning anything. So, maybe I can't recognize when a man loves me because no man really ever has. 

But let me break this down into parts of the lesson that I have learned and when I learned them:

Sex acts like oral and PIV don't equal love: when I was 19. 

Affectionate touching, compliments, lots of texts, or hours of talking on the phone prior to having sex don't mean he likes you as a person. These are tactics to have sex with you: last month

Says at the beginning of your relationship that he just wants to be FWB and after sex he touches you affectionately, texts you a lot, compliments you, tells you he thinks about you in and out of the bedroom. None of these things means he has changed his mind and wants to be more than FWB: last week.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> Oh you do ask the questions that make me have to ponder.
> 
> If truth be told, I'm not sure I have entirely learned this lesson. I'm realizing I still don't really know how to tell if a man really loves me. Even marrying me and buying a house with me didn't end up meaning anything. So, maybe I can't recognize when a man loves me because no man really ever has.
> 
> But let me break this down into parts of the lesson that I have learned and when I learned them:
> 
> Sex acts like oral and PIV don't equal love: when I was 19.
> 
> Affectionate touching, compliments, lots of texts prior to having sex don't mean he likes you as a person. These are tactics to have sex with you: last month
> 
> Says at the beginning of your relationship that he just wants to be FWB and after sex he touches you affectionately, texts you a lot, compliments you, tells you he thinks about you in and out of the bedroom. None of these things means he has changed his mind and wants to be more than FWB: last week.


What about how you feel for yourself? I know you are not really one to have completely unattached sex, that there has to be SOME connection, some positive thread for you, but a lot of what you say seems like you are still very dependent on the mans feelings for you, and almost side step your own. Do you feel as if you are still seeking validation through sex?


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> What about how you feel for yourself? I know you are not really one to have completely unattached sex, that there has to be SOME connection, some positive thread for you, but a lot of what you say seems like you are still very dependent on the mans feelings for you, and almost side step your own. Do you feel as if you are still seeking validation through sex?


Oh geez. Ok, let me break this down...

Just because I'm not mentioning my own feelings doesn't mean I'm not having or valuing them. Of course I consider my own feelings in whether or not I want to keep seeing someone or what I want the nature of our relationship to be. 

The validation I seek through sex is mostly about me wanting to continue feeling attractive and sexual. It's validation that I'm attractive. 

Validation of my worth as a human being isn't something I've sought through sex. But, admittedly, there is still part of me (that I'm aware of and trying to minimize if not eliminate) that equates being loved by a man as evidence that I am worthy of love in general.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> Oh geez. Ok, let me break this down...
> 
> *Just because I'm not mentioning my own feelings doesn't mean I'm not having or valuing them. Of course I consider my own feelings in whether or not I want to keep seeing someone or what I want the nature of our relationship to be.*
> 
> The validation I seek through sex is mostly about me wanting to continue feeling attractive and sexual. It's validation that I'm attractive.
> 
> Validation of my worth as a human being isn't something I've sought through sex. But, admittedly, there is still part of me (that I'm aware of and trying to minimize if not eliminate) that equates being loved by a man as evidence that I am worthy of love in general.


Of course you have your own feelings, no doubt. I am just wondering how much you feel that your own feelings are dependent on their feelings.

Are you able to feel self validated through sex? Feel attractive, sexual and desired? You still feel the need to be externally validated, even in the face of a mountain of evidence and personal experience that a man having sex with you does not necessarily mean that he finds you attractive or desirable?


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> Of course you have your own feelings, no doubt. I am just wondering how much you feel that your own feelings are dependent on their feelings.
> 
> Are you able to feel self validated through sex? Feel attractive, sexual and desired? You still feel the need to be externally validated, even in the face of a mountain of evidence and personal experience that a man having sex with you does not necessarily mean that he finds you attractive or desirable?


I'm feeling an identity crisis coming on. 

A man having sex with me does mean he finds me attractive, otherwise he wouldn't be having sex with me. Right? Or are you saying it doesn't even mean that? Is that lesson number 4?

You're right. I do seek external validation. And I have even argued for it in the past. Because don't we all seek external validation to some extent? We are social creatures. We need to know other people like us in order to survive. Maybe not. 

I am going to spend the rest of the day in a metaphorical fetal position.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> I'm feeling an identity crisis coming on.
> 
> A man having sex with me does mean he finds me attractive, otherwise he wouldn't be having sex with me. Right? *Or are you saying it doesn't even mean that?* Is that lesson number 4?
> 
> You're right. I do seek external validation. And I have even argued for it in the past. Because don't we all seek external validation to some extent? We are social creatures. We need to know other people like us in order to survive. Maybe not.
> 
> I am going to spend the rest of the day in a metaphorical fetal position.


Could that be the root of your feeling empty and used? That you didn't find the validation you were seeking?

As far as him finding you attractive because he had sex with you? Maybe he did, just not in the way you were hoping for, or assuming he did.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> I can understand feeling disappointed if they didn't return the feelings, or call again, but you had to know going in that it was a very real, even likely possibility that it meant nothing beyond having sex to them.


And how, pray tell, are you supposed to know any of this? You have this guy, he's telling you how amazing you are, how he wants to be around you, etcetera, blah, blah. He does nice things for you, takes you places, etcetera, and so on.

Exactly where is the hint that he only cares about your holes and sees you as a toilet seat? Sorry, *bowl*.

As I understood later, there were supposedly red flags when I was seeing that guy I mentioned, but honestly, how was I supposed to know? 

And did I learn my lesson? Why yes. Now when someone tells me they love me, or are expressing love through sex, or whatever, I'm not inclined to believe it. Why should I? It's always been lies.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> Could that be the root of your feeling empty and used? That you didn't find the validation you were seeking?
> 
> As far as him finding you attractive because he had sex with you? Maybe he did, just not in the way you were hoping for, or assuming he did.


What are you getting at with this line of questioning?

Because, honestly, it reads a bit like you're talking out of both sides of you mouth, pushing firebelly to admit that it's all on her for feeling used, yet at the same time chastising her for not realizing that guys are "just like that".


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> What are you getting at with this line of questioning?
> 
> Because, honestly, it reads a bit like you're talking out of both sides of you mouth, pushing firebelly to admit that it's all on her for feeling used, yet at the same time chastising her for not realizing that guys are "just like that".


I'm not chastising her at all. It's pretty crappy to feel used. She has acknowledged that even now, she is running into the same problems, and feelings that she has encountered for pretty much her whole life.

All I am trying to do is ask questions that she may not have considered before. Questions to help her figure out her motivations, and what she is ultimately looking for. I wouldn't go so far as to say she is doing anything wrong, or even making mistakes, but the thought process she has been using has been leading to the same outcomes that she has not enjoyed. At some point it is good to look at ones self rather than everything around you, because ultimately the only thing, the only person you have control over is yourself and your own decisions.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I Don't Know said:


> *Interesting SA. Do you think a relationship can skip a level, or part of one? I would say my wife has a hard time sharing her experiences, and rightly so. I fight RJ so I don't do well when previous husbands, boyfriends, or sex partners come up.*


How can I answer.. when I put together my Transparency thread... so much of this IS about getting "emotionally vulnerable" with each other....from the replies following.... I learned most people wouldn't want *that much OPENNESS*.. so I guess me & my H are the odd ones !... so yeah.. if it works for you both, certain areas are just uncomfortable (for whatever reason)... and you're both OK with it.. who am I to say anything!...we can only answer this for ourselves.. 

And some have sex on the 1st date & it lasts a lifetime.. nothing is ever black & white, is it?... skip all the steps but were amazingly compatible anyway... 

Generally speaking though...It takes time / some shared experiences for these things to grow ..so we have more assurance of how the other truly feels.. if it's something lasting or still in the heightened infatuation stage...

Love is one of the greatest Risks....if we hold back too much.. we loose it.. if we don't hold back enough.. we can get hurt...so many just Hold on Loosely


----------



## norajane

samyeagar said:


> I'm not chastising her at all. It's pretty crappy to feel used. She has acknowledged that even now, she is running into the same problems, and feelings that she has encountered for pretty much her whole life.
> 
> All I am trying to do is ask questions that she may not have considered before. *Questions to help her figure out her motivations, and what she is ultimately looking for.* I wouldn't go so far as to say she is doing anything wrong, or even making mistakes, but the thought process she has been using has been leading to the same outcomes that she has not enjoyed. At some point it is good to look at ones self rather than everything around you, because ultimately the only thing, the only person you have control over is yourself and your own decisions.


I dunno - it seemed pretty clear to me that what she was looking for was a relationship with someone who liked her that she also liked (or she wouldn't have kept dating them in the first place), potentiallly leading to love and possibly marriage or other long term arrangement.

What she found, instead, was people who wanted to have sex with her, did everything that guys who want relationships do (dates, compliments, talking, texting, affection, touching), but after they had sex, she was dropped instead of sex enhancing the relationship she thought they were starting.

Happens ALL. THE. TIME.

Firebelly, you are NOT alone. This is the experience many, many women have. Which is one of the biggest reasons many of us do not know or do not believe that sex = love for men, not even after they fall in love and marry. The only guys running around talking about how sex = love and that's how they express their love and how they receive love are here on TAM in the "my marriage is sexless and my wife doesn't get that sex = love" for me threads.


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> I dunno - it seemed pretty clear to me that what she was looking for was a relationship with someone who liked her that she also liked (or she wouldn't have kept dating them in the first place), potentiallly leading to love and possibly marriage or other long term arrangement.
> 
> What she found, instead, was people who wanted to have sex with her, did everything that guys who want relationships do (dates, compliments, talking, texting, affection, touching), but after they had sex, she was dropped instead of sex enhancing the relationship she thought they were starting.
> 
> Happens ALL. THE. TIME.
> 
> Firebelly, you are NOT alone. This is the experience many, many women have. Which is one of the biggest reasons many of us do not know or do not believe that sex = love for men, not even after they fall in love and marry. *The only guys running around talking about how sex = love and that's how they express their love and how they receive love are here on TAM in the "my marriage is sexless and my wife doesn't get that sex = love" for me threads.*


Not just women experience thinking sex means more than it should. I have been stumped on more than one occasion thinking that a woman I was dating wanted more, as I did, by sleeping with me. This goes for both genders.

I have never ever been in a sexless relationship. And never would. And sex does equal love to me. Only difference maybe between me and those guys posting in the sexless threads is I wouldn't tolerate being in a sexless relationship. Just couldn't happen for me.


----------



## samyeagar

norajane said:


> I dunno - it seemed pretty clear to me that what she was looking for was a relationship with someone who liked her that she also liked (or she wouldn't have kept dating them in the first place), potentiallly leading to love and possibly marriage or other long term arrangement.
> 
> What she found, instead, was people who wanted to have sex with her, did everything that guys who want relationships do (dates, compliments, talking, texting, affection, touching), but after they had sex, she was dropped instead of sex enhancing the relationship she thought they were starting.
> 
> *Happens ALL. THE. TIME.*
> 
> *Firebelly, you are NOT alone. This is the experience many, many women have*. Which is one of the biggest reasons many of us do not know or do not believe that sex = love for men, not even after they fall in love and marry. The only guys running around talking about how sex = love and that's how they express their love and how they receive love are here on TAM in the "my marriage is sexless and my wife doesn't get that sex = love" for me threads.


So where is this HUGE disconnect?

Getting back to the number of partners thing for a minute, and tying it to equating sex and love...I am pretty happy with my past. I don't look to it with any particular fondness so much as it is a rock solid resume for me. My track record backs up 100% what I say. For me, sex is about the emotional connection. I have been with three women, all LTR. The first was a bit over two years and then she died. My second was my ex wife. The last four years were sexless because the emotional connection was non existent. The third is my current wife. In my case, my actions, past and present back up my words.

My thinking with regards to men who claim to show love through sex...for me, it would start to lose credibility on it's face as they burn through partners. I'm not saying that they don't, but the higher that number, the more skeptical I would be, and the more I would need to see in the here and now way beyond just the words.


----------



## treyvion

norajane said:


> I dunno - it seemed pretty clear to me that what she was looking for was a relationship with someone who liked her that she also liked (or she wouldn't have kept dating them in the first place), potentiallly leading to love and possibly marriage or other long term arrangement.
> 
> What she found, instead, was people who wanted to have sex with her, did everything that guys who want relationships do (dates, compliments, talking, texting, affection, touching), but after they had sex, she was dropped instead of sex enhancing the relationship she thought they were starting.
> 
> Happens ALL. THE. TIME.
> 
> Firebelly, you are NOT alone. This is the experience many, many women have. Which is one of the biggest reasons many of us do not know or do not believe that sex = love for men, not even after they fall in love and marry. The only guys running around talking about how sex = love and that's how they express their love and how they receive love are here on TAM in the "my marriage is sexless and my wife doesn't get that sex = love" for me threads.


We know that guys will get what they want and throw you away. Females do it too.

You can't penalize a married man or a real boyfriend for the single game and all the bs that it is comprised of.

In our minds love would mean you have sex, because of the dirty degrading single game, they should be happy to keep their "real" lover satisfied.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> And how, pray tell, are you supposed to know any of this? You have this guy, he's telling you how amazing you are, how he wants to be around you, etcetera, blah, blah. He does nice things for you, takes you places, etcetera, and so on.
> 
> Exactly where is the hint that he only cares about your holes and sees you as a toilet seat? Sorry, *bowl*.


See I see this series differently. When I hang out with girlfriends for scrapbooking, but we don't share much else in common, I never thought I was using them for scrapbooking. Same with dating guys and sleeping with them. The only thing that was on the table was what was currently on the table. When he said I was amazing, it was because I was. It did not mean that he was in love with me. It did not mean that I was in love with me. We enjoyed our activities. We enjoyed our sex. I never felt like just a hole. I guess that might be because I HAD experienced that exact thing from a player. The difference made it very obvious.

I don't know if I am different because I have always had a tendency to reject social conditioning that does not make sense to me or if there is something biologically different about me. (I have 2 pairs of shoes, so the latter is suggested.) 

I guess I never felt used. I felt that we did what we did. When we got to the do you love me point, until I met my husband, the answer was no. Moving right along.

I know I am different that way.



> As I understood later, there were supposedly red flags when I was seeing that guy I mentioned, but honestly, how was I supposed to know?
> 
> And did I learn my lesson? Why yes. Now when someone tells me they love me, or are expressing love through sex, or whatever, I'm not inclined to believe it. Why should I? It's always been lies.


Lies? Or what they thought at the moment? For me it was the latter that just could not bear out over time for the most part. I knew my husband loved me by the way he acted, not by what he said, though. I think that is a universally better tack.


----------



## Thundarr

norajane said:


> What she found, instead, was people who wanted to have sex with her, did everything that guys who want relationships do (dates, compliments, talking, texting, affection, touching), but after they had sex, she was dropped instead of sex enhancing the relationship she thought they were starting.
> 
> Happens ALL. THE. TIME.


It does happen a lot especially when we're young. Sometimes it's jerks but a lot of the time it's guys who aren't thinking and don't grasp some of the emotions.

I remember being caught off guard a couple of times when I was young and did this. I'd work like crazy to hook up with a sexy girl but after sex I'd be laying there just wanting to run. It's not a good feeling so I tried to avoid it. There's no wonder women think guys use them for sex because of lot of us did/do until we learn to stop being driven by our libido and gain empathy for what it makes the other person feel like. 

I also think a lot of these guys saying sex=love in marriage are still doing the same thing except the strategy has changed. Instead of showing interest the strategy becomes emotional blackmail.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> Lies? Or what they thought at the moment? For me it was the latter that just could not bear out over time for the most part.


Many men use women for sex. You see *men* admitting this all the time, even here. Indeed there's whole threads full of guys saying that men are dogs and are only after one thing, and berating women for being so stupid as to think they could just enjoy friendly conversation.

So, while I'm very happy that you've never felt this way, or been treated this way, please let's not pretend that it isn't happening all over the place.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

]


NobodySpecial said:


> See I see this series differently. When I hang out with girlfriends for scrapbooking, but we don't share much else in common, I never thought I was using them for scrapbooking. Same with dating guys and sleeping with them. *The only thing that was on the table was what was currently on the table. When he said I was amazing, it was because I was. It did not mean that he was in love with me. It did not mean that I was in love with me. We enjoyed our activities. We enjoyed our sex. I never felt like just a hole.* I guess that might be because I HAD experienced that exact thing from a player. The difference made it very obvious.
> 
> *I don't know if I am different because I have always had a tendency to reject social conditioning that does not make sense to me.*.. or if there is something biologically different about me. (I have 2 pairs of shoes, so the latter is suggested.)
> 
> *I guess I never felt used. I felt that we did what we did*. When we got to the do you love me point, until I met my husband, the answer was no. Moving right along.
> 
> I know I am different that way.


 given what you have described here..you carried a "SEX IS JUST SEX" way of viewing it into these relationships..that was your "lens" or perception ... it was fun, it was pleasurable, it is what it is. let's not make more out of it.. *Dvlsadv8* is the same.. he has explained this way of viewing sex time & time again, thread after thread....HE also can not understand those who would be hurt in any way... it's a Pleasure EXCHANGE / it's mutual.. and that's that! 

Explained here>>



> "Plain Sex" view ..just enjoy it for what it is.... Cultural constructs linking love & sex are outmoded: Sexual desire is an acute bodily desire for physical contact with another. Sex is an intensely pleasurable physical activity. Sex should be based on mutual consent leading to mutual sexual satisfaction, so that “noone gets hurt.”
> 
> In the 1970's, Alan Goldman , penned an article entitled “Plain Sex” -speaking of the times reliable & convenient birth control & undermined any link between sex & commitment.
> With the practice of “safe sex,” recreational sex began to seem appropriate between consenting adults. Throughout history...many seen sex "for pleasure alone" ... but before reliable contraception such people were widely viewed as irresponsible libertines and gigolos, if male, and for females, the word even worse.
> 
> This view claims feels the above views are outdated, no longer do we need to link Love & sex..... Sexuality is now best seen as simply an acute physical desire for an intensely pleasurable physical activity that naturally leads to engaging in bodily exploration.
> 
> This view puts its emphasis on mutual consent/ mutual consideration leading to mutual satisfaction. When “no one gets hurt” and each party gets what he or she wants, plain sex appears to avoid lots of problems.


Now for those women who DO feel "Used"... "Like a hole".... if they aren't getting the emotional in return, even if they wish they *didn't *feel this way ( it would make relationships easier if we could turn off our pesky emotions)...but they find they have to fight it...it IS a sourful let down.. *they have a more ROMANTIC tendency to view their sexuality*... they are seeking MORE than just the pleasure.... this is why they feel empty afterwards... which would be ME also turned up a notch or 2.. I'd want to cut the guys balls off if he walked away from me.. (I am exaggerating here) ... I really did NOT trust horny boys at all when I was younger.. 

I am one who feels , especially a younger impressionable girl.. would do well to figure this out before engaging.....understand who you are, what you seek.. and hold to sexual boundaries to get what you need out of these relationships .....it shouldn't be one sided.. and it's very very very hurtful to be left feeling *used* by another....it weighs on us....* it's the price of being sensitive I suppose*...but I don't feel this is a fault in any of us but just a part of our humanity...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

norajane said:


> *What she found, instead, was people who wanted to have sex with her, did everything that guys who want relationships do (dates, compliments, talking, texting, affection, touching), but after they had sex, she was dropped instead of sex enhancing the relationship she thought they were starting.
> 
> Happens ALL. THE. TIME.
> 
> Firebelly, you are NOT alone. This is the experience many, many women have. Which is one of the biggest reasons many of us do not know or do not believe that sex = love for men, not even after they fall in love and marry*.


I often speak of how Men are in their *PRIME* sexually during their teens/early 20's..... and with this immaturity of youth, constant erections, *minds hi-jacked with LUST*......(Scientists have identified with imaging scans this is a different area of the brain over  by the way)...

When you put all of this together... RAGING LUST, immaturity.. add further those who don't have good role models, or been taught some consistent ethical values ....it makes sense so many end up getting hurt when these boys forge ahead.... 

**** Lust stems predominantly from the hypothalamus, a region of the brain that also controls such basic desires as hunger and thirst. 

Taken from this article ... Tips to Identify the Difference Between Love and Lust 



> Lust is an altered state of consciousness programmed by the primal urge to procreate. Studies suggest that the brain in this phase is much like a brain on drugs. MRI scans illustrate that the same area lights up when an addict gets a fix of cocaine as when a person is experiencing the intense lust of physical attraction. Also in the early stage of a relationship, when the sex hormones are raging, lust is fueled by idealization and projection--you see what you hope someone will be or need them to be--rather than seeing the real person, flaws and all.


These young men are scrambling to figure it all out themselves even.... we do our daughters a grave disservice to not warn them of this RAGING Testosterone hold young men are dealing with......for some that's all they can THINK ABOUT (Sports is a healthy distraction for many).... 

They will have a drive to look at naked woman (some can stop here , my H was one of those -Playboys & his hand was satisfaction enough...he told me he whacked it up to 5 times a day! I was like "Da** -you were a horn [email protected]#" but yet he is a more sensitive natured guy....he could not USE a woman....personality & temperament plays a part here too, so I believe..

But others...they will do anything to experience the REAL THING... 

Never forgot a comment from a male poster here that women shouldn't even be flattered if *a young man* oogles her because even "Jello" is a turn on....

Yeah it's a comedy & all.. that scene in







... it drives the point home ...that raging hormonal boys will do just about anything to get off [email protected]# Will we ever look at warm apple pie again the same! 

A few comments from men themselves on the http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/34971-male-sex-drive.html thread about their youth ....


> I would have done/said anything that would get me intyo bed with them, getting them to flash me, etc etc....





> Puberty, hormones raging. I dont think I once thought about love during that time. Purely a want to put it in something. As I grow older the drive has remained as powerful as ever, but its fueled by more than just hormones.


With maturity comes more understanding (hopefully)...some may have fallen into habitual lifestyle of seeking new partners for a time, it's like a dopamine RUSH, every new encounter.....till they get burned out....while others will learn from his mistakes rather quickly... realizing this isn't all I want out of sex.. and seek more ....there is a lot to weigh when meeting someone new.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Many men use women for sex. You see *men* admitting this all the time, even here. Indeed there's whole threads full of guys saying that men are dogs and are only after one thing, and berating women for being so stupid as to think they could just enjoy friendly conversation.
> 
> So, while I'm very happy that you've never felt this way, or been treated this way, please let's not pretend that it isn't happening all over the place.


Yah some men do. Most of those dudes are in my ignore list. 

What I am saying is that is not the only way to explain the scenario you describe. I am saying that not everyone assumes that sex MEANS all that in all cases.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SimplyAmorous said:


> ] given what you have described here..you carried a "SEX IS JUST SEX" way of viewing it into these relationships..that was your "lens" or perception ... it was fun, it was pleasurable, it is what it is. let's not make more out of it.. *Dvlsadv8* is the same.. he has explained this way of viewing sex time & time again, thread after thread....HE also can not understand those who would be hurt in any way... it's a Pleasure EXCHANGE / it's mutual.. and that's that!
> 
> Explained here>>


I am kind of offended that you see much similar between what I am saying and what that guy regularly says. That is too bad.




> Now for those women who DO feel "Used"... "Like a hole".... if they aren't getting the emotional in return, even if they wish they *didn't *feel this way ( it would make relationships easier if we could turn off our pesky emotions)...but they find they have to fight it...it IS a sourful let down..


Which says exactly nothing about the motivation of the men in this scenario. Sure there are guys that will tell you they love you madly just to get in pants. But I don't think that is the majority case. If sex itself MEANS something, it is probably better to express that clearly and see if the same is true of the other party.

You see the word intimacy chucked around on here like intimacy is an true/false switch. There can be a degree of intimacy that is of a lower degree than I love you madly and want to be with you forever. That relationship can be damned good for the duration even when not the best for the forever haul.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> What I am saying is that is not the only way to explain the scenario you describe.


No, of course not. Relationships, especially in he beginning, are fragile get-to-know-each-other affairs. So someone could very well see you as amazing, but then realize down the road that really you just aren't that compatible (or whatever) for the long haul. These are what I might call "good faith" relationships.

Others, however, will say and do whatever to get what they want, and will, for example sleep with, profess love for (or whatever) people for whom they feel nothing but contempt or utter indifference. These are what I might call "bad faith" relationships, and they can be immensely hurtful, much more so than the "we had a good time, but it didn't work out" break-ups.

Again, great that you always successfully managed to have these people on your ignore list. I wasn't as lucky, or smart, or whatever it was I needed to be to better realize what was going on.


----------



## firebelly1

All due respect SA and Thundarr...the men I've been dealing with of late are in their 40's. So you can't chalk up the behavior entirely to being young and inexperienced.


----------



## firebelly1

Thundarr said:


> I remember being caught off guard a couple of times when I was young and did this. I'd work like crazy to hook up with a sexy girl but after sex I'd be laying there just wanting to run.


I'm assuming that "trying like crazy" meant complimenting her, taking her out, etc. Doing all the things Norajane pointed out look like the same things men do when they want to be in relationships? 

What do you mean by "being caught off guard?" You just didn't recognize what you were doing? You were doing what you felt you needed to do to get her and then when you got her you found you didn't want her anymore? If you REALLY wanted a girl for more than just a ONS, how would you behave differently? 

How can a woman know if the things men are doing and saying are meant to just bed her vs. them really wanting a relationship? Or can you really not tell until after you sleep with him? 

I WISH people were self-aware and honest enough to just tell you the truth.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> No, of course not. Relationships, especially in he beginning, are fragile get-to-know-each-other affairs. So someone could very well see you as amazing, but then realize down the road that really you just aren't that compatible (or whatever) for the long haul. These are what I might call "good faith" relationships.
> 
> Others, however, will say and do whatever to get what they want, and will, for example sleep with, profess love for (or whatever) people for whom they feel nothing but contempt or utter indifference. These are what I might call "bad faith" relationships, and they can be immensely hurtful, much more so than the "we had a good time, but it didn't work out" break-ups.


Meh. I would not call these people "men".  Maybe I am just lucky that that was such an infrequent occurrence for me. You know the whole how can't you tell that I am sensing you getting on the thread is a bit unfair. Real players take pride in the play.




> Again, great that you always successfully managed to have these people on your ignore list. I wasn't as lucky, or smart, or whatever it was I needed to be to better realize what was going on.


*********gery I say!


----------



## Married but Happy

firebelly1 said:


> How can a woman know if the things men are doing and saying are meant to just bed her vs. them really wanting a relationship? Or can you really not tell until after you sleep with him?


She can't know. And some men don't know themselves what they want. Some men think they want a relationship, but find they don't when one is available. Some do want a relationship, but discover after having sex with the person that they aren't sufficiently compatible. Sex often reveals some attitudes or traits that make the person more - or less - desirable. Sometimes - often? - it just doesn't work out as hoped or anticipated.


----------



## firebelly1

Married but Happy said:


> She can't know. And some men don't know themselves what they want. Some men think they want a relationship, but find they don't when one is available. Some do want a relationship, but discover after having sex with the person that they aren't sufficiently compatible. Sex often reveals some attitudes or traits that make the person more - or less - desirable. Sometimes - often? - it just doesn't work out as hoped or anticipated.


Right. And so it really makes sense that I just stay on my side of the fence and do what feels right to me without expectation. Including having sex with whomever I want whenever I feel like doing it without trying to guess if he or future partners will think I'm a slvt for doing so.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> Firebelly, you are NOT alone. This is the experience many, many women have. Which is one of the biggest reasons many of us do not know or do not believe that sex = love for men, not even after they fall in love and marry. The only guys running around talking about how sex = love and that's how they express their love and how they receive love are here on TAM in the "my marriage is sexless and my wife doesn't get that sex = love" for me threads.


My wife, who generally shares my views, has problems with the sex = love for men idea for the same reason.

I do believe that the primary way a man know that his wife loves him is through sex (what else could it be?). 

I don't think it's as hard to reconcile as it might appear. Men don't just need a "hole" to fulfill a basic physical need. There are easier ways to get physical relief without all the drama. Men probably need/want physical relief 3 or 4 times a week (and not that many men are having sex that often). We value sex because it validates our self-worth as men. When a woman has sex with a man, she’s letting him know (we believe) that she thinks he’s worthy. If a woman is just having sex just for the “fun of it”, whether the man is “worthy” or not, then that isn’t doing much for us; she’s just a “hole”.

I think that’s why so many men have a problem with a high ‘n’ in the context of lots of casual sex. If she’s “giving it up” for anyone, then her giving it up for you doesn’t mean much. If it's something she only does in special circumstances, then it means much more.


----------



## firebelly1

Buddy400 said:


> We value sex because it validates our self-worth as men. When a woman has sex with a man, she’s letting him know (we believe) that she thinks he’s worthy..


What samyeager? Men need external validation too?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

firebelly1 said:


> All due respect SA and Thundarr...the men I've been dealing with of late are in their 40's. So you can't chalk up the behavior entirely to being young and inexperienced.


Yeah that makes sense...when they get older, I have another scenario ..just from reading so many posts by the men .. they have been put through the ringer by past wives ... no longer trust women (or sure struggle with it)... maybe they were sex starved and now being free.... they just want casual.. not wanting to get too close because they have no interest in marrying again... at least that's how many older men seem to talk, like they've learned their lesson..."Never again".. women say it too! To even go into a relationship feeling like this.. emotional walls are up. 

But really... I wasn't thinking about the age so much ...as just running with the idea that so many women start feeling this in theier younger years.....like it was there even before they married..and they can't understand why men *change* /how that can be because it wasn't their experience *while dating.*....and What Thundarr said made all the sense to me... so I ran with it trying to explain it, from a hormonal/ immaturity perspective.. 

Our experiences always have a way of shaping us & our perceptions ... this can cause great misunderstandings with others who haven't had the same experiences... if we were sexually abused, it has a way of twisting everything that was meant for Good , for mutual trust & Giving.... if a parent abandons us... we will probably have some abandonment issues, if we were betrayed by a partner, we will struggle more with Trust...if we never felt deeply loved during sex ...well..I just think it was never meant to be this way... ya know.


----------



## treyvion

firebelly1 said:


> What samyeager? Men need external validation too?


Unfortunately this type of validation is important for a man who views sex as important to him. He will still be a man, but he will be more fulfilled and FEEL like more of a man with the appropriate level of sex.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NobodySpecial said:


> *I am kind of offended that you see much similar between what I am saying and what that guy regularly says. That is too bad.*


 I certainly don't mean to offend.. and even though you disagree with much of what he may say or how he comes off.. he still claims to want to find love.. he just doesn't place great value on sex, is it a mutual pleasure exchange... it is FUN..so lets get to it.. we're adults.... 

Yes, I did see the correlation .....with your saying


> *NobodySpecial said*: " I don't know if I am different because I have always had a tendency to reject social conditioning that does not make sense to me.... I never felt used. I felt that we did what we did. When we got to the do you love me point, until I met my husband, the answer was no. Moving right along."


 Devil has spoken just like this a # of times.. 

I have went rounds with him NOT understanding me at all, telling me the reason I feel as I do is SOCIAL CONDITIONING, mainly religious conditioning, that's all it is..... which I went pages trying to explain myself .. it's not that simple..there is more to it than this....

Although I love & appreciate his debating skills (& his raw honesty which others seem to despise... I do feel he represents a good segment of men today)... I see him at one end of a sexual "FUN" bar -where I am at the other end -and it's all about "the Love".. He is as much annoyed with woman like me who needs all the emotional bullsh** / the afterglow... as I would be by a man who thinks like him.. 

He would struggle more with opening up emotionally over taking his clothes off.. I would never take my clothes off until those things happened 1st.

Maybe you are somewhere in between us both.. I was just going by what you said in that post.... 



> Which says exactly nothing about the motivation of the men in this scenario. Sure there are guys that will tell you they love you madly just to get in pants. But I don't think that is the majority case. *If sex itself MEANS something, it is probably better to express that clearly and see if the same is true of the other party.*


 I think people should be talking about that before they bang each other, but again.. those who feel like Devil would say that ruins the passion in the moment or something.. he just goes with the flow..



> You see the word intimacy chucked around on here like intimacy is an true/false switch. There can be a degree of intimacy that is of a lower degree than I love you madly and want to be with you forever. That relationship can be damned good for the duration even when not the best for the forever haul.


 You are right , there are levels of intimacy ...as I shared in that post... some are comfortable jumping in -even if it's only temporary... this is how you feel.. this is no different than how he would view it though..

Maybe you are misreading him a bit.


----------



## Thundarr

firebelly1 said:


> I'm assuming that "trying like crazy" meant complimenting her, taking her out, etc. Doing all the things Norajane pointed out look like the same things men do when they want to be in relationships?
> 
> What do you mean by "being caught off guard?" You just didn't recognize what you were doing? You were doing what you felt you needed to do to get her and then when you got her you found you didn't want her anymore? If you REALLY wanted a girl for more than just a ONS, how would you behave differently?
> 
> How can a woman know if the things men are doing and saying are meant to just bed her vs. them really wanting a relationship? Or can you really not tell until after you sleep with him?
> 
> I WISH people were self-aware and honest enough to just tell you the truth.


Well let's separate ONS from anything I said. I was talking about persistent interests over a period of days or weeks that led to sex. That's not a ONS. A ONS was when I hooked up with someone else wanting sex and it's that simple. If you're expecting more from a ONS then you'll be disappointed.


----------



## Thundarr

firebelly1 said:


> All due respect SA and Thundarr...the men I've been dealing with of late are in their 40's. So you can't chalk up the behavior entirely to being young and inexperienced.


The last time I was dating was in my mid/late twenties. You're being smart to filter the context of anything I say because I don't know why the guys you've dated act the ways they do at their age.


----------



## Thundarr

firebelly1 said:


> Right. And so it really makes sense that I just stay on my side of the fence and do what feels right to me without expectation. Including having sex with whomever I want whenever I feel like doing it without trying to guess if he or future partners will think I'm a slvt for doing so.


I would find that attitude extremely attractive if I were single. No it doesn't conflict with my previous comment on ONS  because there are no expectations there.


----------



## samyeagar

firebelly1 said:


> What samyeager? Men need external validation too?


Of course some do. That's why some men end up with high counts too.


----------



## firebelly1

Thundarr said:


> Well let's separate ONS from anything I said. I was talking about persistent interests over a period of days or weeks that led to sex. That's not a ONS. A ONS was when I hooked up with someone else wanting sex and it's that simple. If you're expecting more from a ONS then you'll be disappointed.


That's what's puzzling. Why would a man invest that much time and energy for one night of sex? The way you were describing it, it seemed like sort of a surprise to you too. 

I think the comments about men having been burned in divorces etc. may account for the men my age doing this stuff. But as i said, easier to just not worry about it and wonder why. If the guy really likes me, he'll stick around. If he doesn't, he won't. Ridiculous to jump through hoops trying to be what I think men want.


----------



## firebelly1

samyeagar said:


> Of course some do. That's why some men end up with high counts too.


But also, some men without high counts want the sex they have with their wives to be validation that she loves him.


----------



## I Don't Know

My opinion and perspective only but....Men want their wives/girlfriends to be hot for ONLY THEM. We want to be the ONE GUY that you were SO attracted to that you broke out of the "good girl" shell and became a sexual being. We know that it's not really going to be like that. We know it's unrealistic, but we want to at least FEEL like it's true. A high partner count makes that feeling harder to keep. We can chalk a few guys up to pressure, sense of obligation, bad judgment or what ever. Even though we know this is all stereotypical thinking, it takes conscious effort to move past it.

Kind of just thinking out loud, trying to sort my own thoughts on the matter. Maybe I'm way off.


----------

